RadioBanter

RadioBanter (https://www.radiobanter.com/)
-   Policy (https://www.radiobanter.com/policy/)
-   -   Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio? (https://www.radiobanter.com/policy/104052-code-requirement-really-keeping-good-people-out-ham-radio.html)

the watchman October 23rd 06 10:26 PM

only dumbass`s...
 
ah ha ha **** no not good people jsut the DUMBASS ones!
``The Watchman`` I Am Watching You...


an_old_friend October 24th 06 12:16 AM

only dumbass`s...
 

the watchman wrote:
ah ha ha **** no not good people jsut the DUMBASS ones!
``The Watchman`` I Am Watching You...

watching is all you can do you lack the balls to try anything else

how is ewatching going


Slow Code October 24th 06 12:40 AM

only dumbass`s...
 
"the watchman" wrote in
ups.com:

ah ha ha **** no not good people jsut the DUMBASS ones!
``The Watchman`` I Am Watching You...




I noticed that too.

SC

Slow Code October 24th 06 12:40 AM

only dumbass`s...
 
"Mark in the Dark" wrote in
oups.com:


the watchman wrote:
ah ha ha **** no not good people jsut the DUMBASS ones!
``The Watchman`` I Am Watching You...

watching is all you can do you lack the balls to try anything else

how is ewatching going



Yah, Markie. How is e-watching qrz.com going?

Bwhaaahaaahaahaaahaa!!!!!!!!!!!!! ROFL!

SC

[email protected] October 25th 06 05:15 PM

Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
 
From: "Dee Flint" on Sun, Oct 22 2006 8:47am

"Opus-" wrote in message

[snip]

Sorry, but I can say for an absolute fact that your 're wrong. It had
kept me out of ham radio and I know exactly what kind of person that I
am. And before the obligatory "lazy" word is trotted out, I have to
work for the pay cheque that buys the radio, pays the rent for the
building that the radio is in and pays for the tower that is in the
back yard. I have to work extra to pay MORE for a place where I am
allowed a tower, as opposed to less expensive digs.


Honestly, I can't believe how some pro-coders look down on no-coders
with such contempt. I was once a member of a "live steam" model
railroad club. These were larger model steam trains that ran with real
steam instead of electric power. They could be run with either propane
or coal, depending on the individual. The guys who built their
locomotives from scratch NEVER looked down on the guys who bought
theirs from a classified ad. The guys burning coal did NOT call the
propane guys "lazy". We all enjoyed a fine hobby and club meetings
were always good fun and most informative. It was great for a
mechanic, like myself, to rub shoulders with experienced retired
machinists who built these locomotives. At one of our "open houses",
which were located outdoors at the club track, my daughter took her
first steps.


Isn't ham radio supposed to be like that? Is there no camaraderie?


Yes ham radio is supposed to be camaraderie. People are supposed to help
each other.


Then why don't they?

The divisiveness stems from the fact that too many no-coders
appear to want to change the requirements with no knowledge, experience, or
understanding of the requirements.


Nonsense. Pro-coders do NOT have some "lock" on What The
Requirements Should Be. They never did, despite all the
pro-code propaganda drilled into your respective psyches.

It should be quite obvious that every other radio service
has either given up on using morse code for communications
or never considered it in the first place. Manual radio-
telegraphy has only a slight advantage in communications
with other amateurs using radiotelegraphy who do not speak
English.

Note: Nowhere in the "requirements" (Title 47 C.F.R. Part
97 for US radio amateurs) is it mandatory for US amateurs
to communicate with foreigners. NB: Non-English speakers
using International Morse Code are, essentially, required
to learn parts of English to understand the English
alphabet (difficult if their native language is syllabic
or has a different alphabet).

The ITU-R "requirements" (Radio Regulations) no longer
"require" administrations to test ALL their amateurs for
any license having below-30-MHz privileges. The major
(in population) nation administrations have dropped their
morse code testing or substitute other tests in lieu of
morse code. Since some of those nations do not have
English as a primary language, those will have some future
difficulty using that (supposed "universal language" of
morse code) for communications with USA radio amateurs.

In addition, most of us have experienced
people who said they could not learn code but upon questioning find that
they did not use a good training method and did not train correctly.


More overtly biased opinion...written AS IF morse code
were an "absolute requirement" when it is merely an old
regulatory hanger-on in USA amateur federal rules.

The REGULATION (not "the requirement") for US radio
amateurs is simply a man-made regulation which can be
un-man-made. It is not some God-given commandment of
radio. Indeed, all other US radio services operating
below 30 MHz do NOT use morse code radiotelegraphy.
Why should radio amateurs be held elevated to some
special significance?

Except for the older military-trained radiotelegraphers
in US amateur radio, all the tales told (by so-called
successful pro-coders) have them doing basic learning
then trying out on the amateur radio bands for greater
skill in radiotelegraphy.

The basic fallacy of pro-coder thinking is that "all"
have some innate ability to learn morse code. That has
been disproven as far back as World War II when the US
military began screening new recruits for the aptitude
to learn morse code. That fallacy has been disproven
by countless other tales of individuals who tried the
so-called "good training methods" and tried to "train
correctly" (even under strict supervision).

Yet
when they decided they were tired of waiting did learn it and got their
upgrade.


The "upgrade requirements" were lobbied for to emphasize
morse code radiotelegraphy skill. That is history. It
would have been difficult to overcome the lobbying of the
ARRL towards such "upgrades through morsemanship." Yet
there has been efforts by concerned radio amateurs (who
have been tested to the maximum telegraphic radtes) to
eliminate the morse code test entire. That is not some
strict USA effort since the ITU did change international
amateur Radio Regulations in 2003...under pressure from
the IARU. Your sentence is written with an obvious
pro-coder bias.

Then finding out how useful it was in ham pursuits were glad that
they had done it.


Another fallacy and another pro-coder bias statement. It is
obvious that many, many US radio amateurs were NOT favorites
of morse radiotelegraphy and never used it after they received
their first license.

So far of each of the reasons that people put forth as to why they can't
learn it have been disproven by the example of other people with the same
problem having gone ahead and done it.


Yet another fallacy and a repetition of the earlier fallacy
that all US human beings are somehow able to learn morse
code...provided they have some (mysterious) "attitude"
adjustment in favor of radiotelegraphy as an "absolute"
requirement in radio?

The 5wpm level is obtainable
although some of the problem do make faster speeds a problem (constant
tinnitus may be a severe problem at 20 wpm for example).


Then they should use "flashing lights or vibrating pads."

The reduction to 5 WPM equivalent word rate was an attempt
of the FCC to satisfy both the pro-morse-code-test citizens
and the (ever-growing) NO-code-test advocates. It satisfied
neither.

My ex-OM had 70%
hearing loss in both ears and severe tinnitus. He passed the 5wpm.


It would seem that one of you (perhaps both) at lost the
ability to understand the "I do" at your marriage ceremony?

Did your "EX" pass using flashing lights or vibrating pads?

I know people with dyslexia who have passed.


I knew people with terminal cancer who "passed." [just not
the code test]

I "know people" ranging from PhD aerospace gurus to never-
make-star-quality bimbo actresses and thousands of shades
of personal abilities in between. I know few dyslexics.

The blind have passed.


I am acquainted with several blind people through the
Braille Institute. None of them had any desire to learn
morse code. They were thankful enough to be able to get
around by themselves and be reasonably productive in life.

Even the deaf have passed using flashing lights or vibrating pads.


In the year that Ham Radio magazine sold out to CQ, I
interviewed 11 licensed radio amateurs preparing an article
for that magazine. ALL of them passed their code tests
for amateur radio licenses when they could still hear.
None of them "passed using flashing lights or vibrating
pads." All were male. One was a practicing dentist.

Do you have competitions in your model railroading activity? If you enter
that competition, you all have to follow the published rules with no
exceptions.


Part 97, Title 47 C.F.R. does NOT manadate that US radio
amateurs engage in "competition" radio activity.
Federal law (Communications Act of 1934 plus the Tele-
communications Act of 1996) requires ALL US radio
amateurs to follow its regulations. That is NO contest
nor a "competition" activity. It is merely the LAW.

As with all US federal agencies, the FCC does accept
citizen commentary to them regarding radio regulations.
The FCC responds to Petitions submitted by US citizens
in regards to those radio regulations. [however, not
with blinding speeds of decision in regards to amateur
radio] Nowhere does the FCC discriminate between those
are already licensed in amateur radio versus those not
licensed. FCC does not treat the group of already-
licensed as some kind of fraternal order of the already-
licensed to be listened to over and above all other
interested citizens.

The morse code test (for under-30-MHz operating privileges)
affects the non-licensed US citizens. It does NOT affect
those already legally licensed as radio amateurs...except
in the limited conditions of certain already-licensed
Technician classes. That code test does NOT legally
affect ANY other already-licensed US radio amateur. If
they say it does then they have some emotional disturbance
(not a legal problem nor a regulatory problem).

I know a few model railroaders. As far as I know none
are into "competitions" concerning their hobby. They do
it for the fun of model railroading. As a hobby, not
as a substitute for life...nor advancing the state of
the art in rail transport.

I know many more model builders and model aircraft flyers.
[I have been both] The Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA)
is a membership organization (about a quarter million
members in the USA) with a large rule set to follow in
flying model aircraft. That rule set is for both
competition flying and for safety; there is special
liability insurance for members of the AMA in regards to
that flying activity. There is no absolute requirement
to be an AMA member to enjoy model airplane flying nor is
there some federal test one must take to be one. It is a
hobby...yet the AMA has successfully petitioned for and
gotten many radio channels expressly for model remote
control. No code test nor license was required. You may
read about it in Part 95, Title 47 C.F.R. under Radio
Control Radio Service.

"Park flyers" are free to fly models, even to radio-control
them, all without being licensed by the FCC or as a member
of the Academy of Model Aeronautics. Add to that the R-C
cars and boats. There is a very large model hobby industry
existing in the USA to provide for such hobbyists. From
the size of that industry the number of modelers would
easily equal the number of USA radio amateurs...if not
exceeding it.

Your comments in regards to "competitiveness" do not apply
to US citizens seeking to change existing radio regulations
in the USA, any radio service.




Cecil Moore October 25th 06 07:09 PM

Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of hamradio?
 
wrote:
From: "Dee Flint" on Sun, Oct 22 2006 8:47am
Yes ham radio is supposed to be camaraderie. People are supposed to help
each other.


Then why don't they?


Because a lot of pro-coders would rather belittle
no-coders than help them?
--
73, Cecil
http://www.w5dxp.com

Slow Code October 26th 06 12:51 AM

I didn't even have to look to see who posted.
 


I saw it was 246 lines and I knew LenAnderson was expelling gas again.

SC

Slow Code October 26th 06 12:51 AM

Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
 
Cecil Moore wrote in
:

wrote:
From: "Dee Flint" on Sun, Oct 22 2006 8:47am
Yes ham radio is supposed to be camaraderie. People are supposed to
help each other.


Then why don't they?


Because a lot of pro-coders would rather belittle
no-coders than help them?




Everytime you try to offer help to a no-coder or nickle ham, they put
you in a killfile. I don't think they want to improve.

SC


Dee Flint October 26th 06 01:25 AM

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

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
. ..
wrote:
From: "Dee Flint" on Sun, Oct 22 2006 8:47am
Yes ham radio is supposed to be camaraderie. People are supposed to
help
each other.


Then why don't they?


Because a lot of pro-coders would rather belittle
no-coders than help them?


More likely a knee jerk reaction to the very few but very vocal ones who try
to come in and act like they know all there is to know about radio when the
"ink isn't even dry on their license". It's unfortunate that the
experienced hams don't have the discipline to withstand this nonsense
without such knee-jerk reactions.

When a new licensee (the level of license is irrelevant) tells me that you
can't work DX without an amplifier, I just tell him about the countries I
worked with my 100 watt radio and relatively low mount G5RV. But some hams
turn bitter instead when a newbie insists that he is right and they are
wrong.

Dee, N8UZE



an_old_friend October 26th 06 01:41 AM

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

wrote:

forger


an_old_friend October 26th 06 01:59 AM

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

Chris wrote:
On 25 Oct 2006 17:41:08 -0700, an_old_friend wrote:

wrote:

forger


That's "froger". F-R-O-G-E-R!!! GOT IT???????

no the word is forger

that you can't even spell as well as I can


vetefistest October 26th 06 05:07 AM

Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
 
AYE and amen.
Dave wrote:
Opus- wrote:

SNIPPED


I'm not, nor will I ever. If code means associating with bigots like
you, then I want no part of it. Much rather talk to civilized people.


Then we will gladly acknowledge that you desire to leave this NG.

We don't need the profanity, the attitude and the whimpering.

All in favor, say AYE! ...



Opus- October 26th 06 05:57 AM

Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
 
Don't you have some offs to ****?

On 25 Oct 2006 21:07:56 -0700, "vetefistest"
spake thusly:

AYE and amen.
Dave wrote:
Opus- wrote:

SNIPPED


I'm not, nor will I ever. If code means associating with bigots like
you, then I want no part of it. Much rather talk to civilized people.


Then we will gladly acknowledge that you desire to leave this NG.

We don't need the profanity, the attitude and the whimpering.

All in favor, say AYE! ...


[email protected] October 26th 06 11:36 AM

Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
 
wrote:
From: "Dee Flint" on Sun, Oct 22 2006 8:47am
"Opus-" wrote in message


Yes ham radio is supposed to be camaraderie. People are supposed to help
each other.


Then why don't they?


They *do*, Len.

The divisiveness stems from the fact that too many no-coders
appear to want to change the requirements with no knowledge, experience, or
understanding of the requirements.


Nonsense.


No, it's the truth.

Pro-coders do NOT have some "lock" on What The
Requirements Should Be.


Nobody says they do.

They never did, despite all the
pro-code propaganda drilled into your respective psyches.


No such "propaganda", Len.

It should be quite obvious that every other radio service
has either given up on using morse code for communications
or never considered it in the first place.


Why is that important to *amateur radio* policy, Len? Amateurs *do* use
Morse Code - extensively.

Manual radio-
telegraphy has only a slight advantage in communications
with other amateurs using radiotelegraphy who do not speak
English.


Actually, Morse Code has a lot of advantages.

Note: Nowhere in the "requirements" (Title 47 C.F.R. Part
97 for US radio amateurs) is it mandatory for US amateurs
to communicate with foreigners.


That's true. But one of the Basis and Purposes of the Amateur Radio
Service is international good will. Communicating with "foreigners" is
one way to do that.

NB: Non-English speakers
using International Morse Code are, essentially, required
to learn parts of English to understand the English
alphabet (difficult if their native language is syllabic
or has a different alphabet).


Of course. So?

The ITU-R "requirements" (Radio Regulations) no longer
"require" administrations to test ALL their amateurs for
any license having below-30-MHz privileges.


Yep. That changed almost 3-1/2 years ago. Yet FCC has not acted upon
it.

The major
(in population) nation administrations have dropped their
morse code testing or substitute other tests in lieu of
morse code.


How do you know?

Have China, India and the countries making up the former Soviet Union
changed their Morse Code test policy? How about Japan?

Seems to me that the changes have mostly occurred in Western Europe,
the British Commonwealth, and a few South American countries.

Since some of those nations do not have
English as a primary language, those will have some future
difficulty using that (supposed "universal language" of
morse code) for communications with USA radio amateurs.

In addition, most of us have experienced
people who said they could not learn code but upon questioning find that
they did not use a good training method and did not train correctly.


More overtly biased opinion...written AS IF morse code
were an "absolute requirement" when it is merely an old
regulatory hanger-on in USA amateur federal rules.


It's a fact that at least some people use poorly-designed training
methods.

The REGULATION (not "the requirement") for US radio
amateurs is simply a man-made regulation which can be
un-man-made. It is not some God-given commandment of
radio.


That's true. In fact, *all* radio license requirements are man-made.

Indeed, all other US radio services operating
below 30 MHz do NOT use morse code radiotelegraphy.


Why is that so important? Do you think radio amateurs should not use it
either?

Why should radio amateurs be held elevated to some
special significance?


It's not about 'special significance".

Radio amateurs *do* use Morse Code, so it makes sense to test for
knowledge of it.

Except for the older military-trained radiotelegraphers
in US amateur radio, all the tales told (by so-called
successful pro-coders) have them doing basic learning
then trying out on the amateur radio bands for greater
skill in radiotelegraphy.


What's wrong with that?

The basic fallacy of pro-coder thinking is that "all"
have some innate ability to learn morse code.


There are obviously those who cannot learn it - just as there are those
who cannot learn to speak, or read and write, or who cannot pass the
written tests.

That has
been disproven as far back as World War II when the US
military began screening new recruits for the aptitude
to learn morse code.


Nope.

The military aptitude testing was done to find those who could learn
the fastest and reach the highest levels of skill in the least time.
The requirements for military radio telegraphers were much higher than
for amateurs, and the military could not afford lots of time to train
them.

btw, the existence of such aptitude testing proves that the US military
needed large numbers of Morse Code skilled radio operators during WW2.

That fallacy has been disproven
by countless other tales of individuals who tried the
so-called "good training methods" and tried to "train
correctly" (even under strict supervision).


Who are they, Len?

Yet
when they decided they were tired of waiting did learn it and got their
upgrade.


The "upgrade requirements" were lobbied for to emphasize
morse code radiotelegraphy skill. That is history.


Who lobbied for those requirements, Len?

When did they lobby for the requirements?

The fact is that in all the history of US amateur radio licensing,
every increase in Morse Code testing has been accompanied by an
increase in written test requirements. So the emphasis has always been
balanced between written testing and Morse Code testing.

Since 1990 it has not been necessary for anyone with a doctor's note
seeking an FCC-issued amateur license to go beyond the basic 5 wpm
test. Since 2000 it has not been necessary for anyone seeking an
FCC-issued amateur license to go beyond the basic 5 wpm test.

It
would have been difficult to overcome the lobbying of the
ARRL towards such "upgrades through morsemanship."


When did ARRL do such lobbying, Len? 1936?

Yet
there has been efforts by concerned radio amateurs (who
have been tested to the maximum telegraphic radtes) to
eliminate the morse code test entire.


And efforts by others to retain the test.

The 5wpm level is obtainable
although some of the problem do make faster speeds a problem (constant
tinnitus may be a severe problem at 20 wpm for example).


Then they should use "flashing lights or vibrating pads."

The reduction to 5 WPM equivalent word rate was an attempt
of the FCC to satisfy both the pro-morse-code-test citizens
and the (ever-growing) NO-code-test advocates. It satisfied
neither.


In other words, it didn't satisfy *you*

Do you have competitions in your model railroading activity? If you enter
that competition, you all have to follow the published rules with no
exceptions.


Part 97, Title 47 C.F.R. does NOT manadate that US radio
amateurs engage in "competition" radio activity.
Federal law (Communications Act of 1934 plus the Tele-
communications Act of 1996) requires ALL US radio
amateurs to follow its regulations. That is NO contest
nor a "competition" activity. It is merely the LAW.


And it still is! That's a good thing.

As with all US federal agencies, the FCC does accept
citizen commentary to them regarding radio regulations.
The FCC responds to Petitions submitted by US citizens
in regards to those radio regulations. [however, not
with blinding speeds of decision in regards to amateur
radio] Nowhere does the FCC discriminate between those
are already licensed in amateur radio versus those not
licensed. FCC does not treat the group of already-
licensed as some kind of fraternal order of the already-
licensed to be listened to over and above all other
interested citizens.


The FCC accepts comments from everyone - not just citizens.
"Foreigners" and groups/corporations are welcome to comment as well.

How much consideration the comments get is another matter.

The morse code test (for under-30-MHz operating privileges)
affects the non-licensed US citizens.


And those licensed, too. And noncitizens.

It does NOT affect
those already legally licensed as radio amateurs...except
in the limited conditions of certain already-licensed
Technician classes. That code test does NOT legally
affect ANY other already-licensed US radio amateur.


It affects them in many ways. If amateur radio should change for the
worse because
of changes in license requirements, those who are already licensed
would be affected.

For example, if someone wanted to change the real estate zoning in your
neighborhood,
that change would not "legally affect" you or your neighbors, unless
you wanted to build on your property. Your houses would not change.

If
they say it does then they have some emotional disturbance
(not a legal problem nor a regulatory problem).


Not true. If amateur radio is made worse by rules changes, all involved
are affected. You, who are not involved, are unaffected.

If someone wanted to change the real estate zoning in your
neighborhood,
that change would not "legally affect" you or your neighbors, unless
you wanted to build on your property. Your houses would not change.
Would you say that those who resisted such a zoning change have an
"emotional disturbance"?

I know a few model railroaders. As far as I know none
are into "competitions" concerning their hobby. They do
it for the fun of model railroading. As a hobby, not
as a substitute for life...nor advancing the state of
the art in rail transport.


Model railroading does not involve any sort of licensing, nor use of
the radio spectrum. What one model railroader does with his/her layout
does not directly affect what other model railroaders can do with
theirs.

Amateur radio isn't like that. We use a shared and limited resource -
the radio spectrum.

A more valid analogy would be something like operating motor vehicles
for noncommercial purposes, where the medium (the roads) are shared
with many others.

I know many more model builders and model aircraft flyers.
[I have been both] The Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA)
is a membership organization (about a quarter million
members in the USA) with a large rule set to follow in
flying model aircraft. That rule set is for both
competition flying and for safety; there is special
liability insurance for members of the AMA in regards to
that flying activity. There is no absolute requirement
to be an AMA member to enjoy model airplane flying nor is
there some federal test one must take to be one. It is a
hobby...yet the AMA has successfully petitioned for and
gotten many radio channels expressly for model remote
control.


How many channels? How much total spectrum? How much of it is below 30
MHz?

IIRC, the total amount of spectrum set aside for model control is less
than the narrowest amateur band above 30 MHz.

btw, there has been no Morse Code test requirement in the US for use of
*all* the amateur bands above 30 MHz.

No code test nor license was required. You may
read about it in Part 95, Title 47 C.F.R. under Radio
Control Radio Service.


They got a few channels in a few narrow slices of VHF/UHF. They are
allowed to use only very low power, with almost all their
communications limited to line-of-sight.

Amateur radio is very different.

"Park flyers" are free to fly models, even to radio-control
them, all without being licensed by the FCC or as a member
of the Academy of Model Aeronautics. Add to that the R-C
cars and boats. There is a very large model hobby industry
existing in the USA to provide for such hobbyists. From
the size of that industry the number of modelers would
easily equal the number of USA radio amateurs...if not
exceeding it.


Yet all they need is a small assortment of VHF/UHF channels, low power,
small antennas and line-of-sight radio.

Is that what you think amateur radio should be?

It should be remembered that one of the primary reasons model aircraft
enthusiasts got channels in the ~70 MHz range was the fact that their
27 MHz allocation became unusable due to being effectively taken over
by illegal cb operation.

Your comments in regards to "competitiveness" do not apply
to US citizens seeking to change existing radio regulations
in the USA, any radio service.


FCC does not limit comments to only US citizens.

And when FCC recently asked for comments on the Morse Code test issue,
the majority of those commenting were *against* the complete
elimination of the Morse Code test. The ratio was approximately 55% in
favor of at least some Morse Code testing.


[email protected] October 26th 06 07:00 PM

Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
 
From: "Dee Flint" on Wed, Oct 25 2006 8:25pm

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
wrote:
From: "Dee Flint" on Sun, Oct 22 2006 8:47am


Yes ham radio is supposed to be camaraderie. People are supposed to
help each other.


Then why don't they?


Because a lot of pro-coders would rather belittle
no-coders than help them?


More likely a knee jerk reaction to the very few but very vocal ones who try
to come in and act like they know all there is to know about radio when the
"ink isn't even dry on their license".


Dee, the "ink on my license" has been "dry" for 50 years.

The mimeograph "ink" on my Army assignment has been "dry"
for 53 years.

The "ink" on my first aerospace hiring has also been "dry"
for 50 years.

In a half century of being radio-active, I've continually
been learning, working, experimenting, trying, doing. I
DO know a fair amount of things about radio and electronics
but there is always something new coming up all the time.

OH! You mean AMATEUR RADIO "license?" Of course. Amateur
radio is so very DIFFERENT than all other kinds of radio...

Riiiight...those coming into ham radio from any other kind
of radio service(s) are "newbies" and "ignorant"...?

Heil thinks so. Do you think so?

It's unfortunate that the
experienced hams don't have the discipline to withstand this nonsense
without such knee-jerk reactions.


Nice "knees" you have, Dee... :-)


When a new licensee (the level of license is irrelevant) tells me that you
can't work DX without an amplifier, I just tell him about the countries I
worked with my 100 watt radio and relatively low mount G5RV.


Gosh, I "worked countries" with nothing less than 1 KW output
on HF and a delta-match dipole. Short-range, about 300 miles.
Of course, for 24/7 ops on HF crossing the Pacific there was
40 KW PEP into a rhombic... :-)

But some hams
turn bitter instead when a newbie insists that he is right and they are
wrong.


Sugar. Try some sweetener...





Cecil Moore October 27th 06 12:32 AM

Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of hamradio?
 
Not Lloyd wrote:
When a new licensee (the level of license is irrelevant) tells me that you
can't work DX without an amplifier, I just tell him about the countries I
worked with my 100 watt radio and relatively low mount G5RV.


Uhhhhh Dee, your 100 watt radio has an amplifier in it
as do all modern transceivers. I have, in the past, worked
DX using just an oscillator but I personally don't know of
anyone who doesn't use an amplifier nowadays.
--
73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Slow Code October 27th 06 01:08 AM

Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
 
Opus- wrote in
:

Don't you have some offs to ****?



Why do no-coders always break down in the middle of an argument and start
spewing profanities? I just don't understand it. It must be do to their
limited mental abilities.

Opus being a Cannuk probably doesn't help either.

SC

Not Lloyd October 27th 06 01:25 AM

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

"Dee Flint" wrote in message
. ..

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
. ..
wrote:
From: "Dee Flint" on Sun, Oct 22 2006 8:47am
Yes ham radio is supposed to be camaraderie. People are supposed to
help
each other.


Then why don't they?


Because a lot of pro-coders would rather belittle
no-coders than help them?


More likely a knee jerk reaction to the very few but very vocal ones who try
to come in and act like they know all there is to know about radio when the
"ink isn't even dry on their license". It's unfortunate that the
experienced hams don't have the discipline to withstand this nonsense
without such knee-jerk reactions.

When a new licensee (the level of license is irrelevant) tells me that you
can't work DX without an amplifier, I just tell him about the countries I
worked with my 100 watt radio and relatively low mount G5RV. But some hams
turn bitter instead when a newbie insists that he is right and they are
wrong.

Dee, N8UZE



Such as Mark does?



Libertad October 27th 06 02:02 AM

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

"Slow Code" wrote in message
hlink.net...
Opus- wrote in
:

Don't you have some offs to ****?


Why do no-coders always break down in the middle of an argument and start
spewing profanities? I just don't understand it. It must be do to their
limited mental abilities.

Opus being a Cannuk probably doesn't help either.


Just like pro-Mexican immigration Neo-Kommies, their last argument of refuge
is the race card.

Translation - they don't have an argument.



dxAce October 27th 06 02:12 AM

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


Libertad wrote:

"Slow Code" wrote in message
hlink.net...
Opus- wrote in
:

Don't you have some offs to ****?


Why do no-coders always break down in the middle of an argument and start
spewing profanities? I just don't understand it. It must be do to their
limited mental abilities.

Opus being a Cannuk probably doesn't help either.


Just like pro-Mexican immigration Neo-Kommies, their last argument of refuge
is the race card.


Canuck is a race, 'tard boy?

dx



Not Lloyd October 27th 06 02:15 AM

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

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 19:25:41 -0500, "Not Lloyd" anon@anon wrote:


"Dee Flint" wrote in message
...

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message


Such as Mark does?

I never said anything such Although It is in fact imposible to work
some of the DX I want to work with a 100 watt and G5RV

That is correct. That is because you are a tech and cannot work HF at all!

Like Dee, I've worked stations worldwide with "just" 100 watts and a G5RV
and you could too, if you'd but learn a paltry 5wpm code speed.



[email protected] October 27th 06 06:28 PM

Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
 
From: on Thurs, Oct 26 2006 3:36am

wrote:
From: "Dee Flint" on Sun, Oct 22 2006 8:47am
"Opus-" wrote in message


Yes ham radio is supposed to be camaraderie. People are supposed to help
each other.


Then why don't they?


They *do*, Len.


Take off your blinders, Miccolis. Look around *this*
newsgroup. See any "help" in *here*?

The divisiveness stems from the fact that too many no-coders
appear to want to change the requirements with no knowledge, experience, or
understanding of the requirements.


Nonsense.


No, it's the truth.


"Truth" only in the bound-and-determined olde-tymers who
want things kept without change.

Take off your blinders, Miccolis. Look around *this*
newsgroup.


Pro-coders do NOT have some "lock" on What The
Requirements Should Be.


Nobody says they do.


Lots of "nobodies" in this newsgroup, then... :-)

They never did, despite all the
pro-code propaganda drilled into your respective psyches.


No such "propaganda", Len.


You've been Conditioned, Miccolis. Conditioned thinking
stuck there by the ARRL for decades...since before you
were able to read...

It should be quite obvious that every other radio service
has either given up on using morse code for communications
or never considered it in the first place.


Why is that important to *amateur radio* policy, Len? Amateurs *do* use
Morse Code - extensively.


Amateur radio POLICY in regards to LICENSE TEST requirements,
Miccolis. License TEST requirements.

The FCC does NOT mandate exclusive use of radiotelegraphy
by US radio amateurs. All allocated modes are OPTIONAL
to use. If all allocated modes are OPTIONAL to use,
why continue a specific pass-fail TEST in ONE MODE?



Note: Nowhere in the "requirements" (Title 47 C.F.R. Part
97 for US radio amateurs) is it mandatory for US amateurs
to communicate with foreigners.


That's true. But one of the Basis and Purposes of the Amateur Radio
Service is international good will. Communicating with "foreigners" is
one way to do that.


["boilerplate" political insert into the Basis & Purpose]

So, exactly WHAT is this so-called "good will?" Has it
stopped wars and armed conflict anywhere in the world?
[No] Has it ended world hunger or even alleviated it?
[No] Does this "good will" do ANYTHING?

When was the last time the AMATEUR bands were used to save
a life using radiotelegraphy?

I would think saving a life would be the BEST good will
possible.


The major
(in population) nation administrations have dropped their
morse code testing or substitute other tests in lieu of
morse code.


How do you know?


:-) Try reading the No-Code International website and
researching the statements in there. Those are true
statements.


It's a fact that at least some people use poorly-designed training
methods.


Did Moore School drill that into you? :-)


Indeed, all other US radio services operating
below 30 MHz do NOT use morse code radiotelegraphy.


Why is that so important?


It SHOULD be obvious to all but the conditioned-thinking
Believer. :-)

It should be obvious that the so-called "advantages" of
morse code radiotelegraphy are so few...ergo, it isn't
worth having a license TEST for it. Especially since the
FCC hasn't mandated exclusivity for morse code radio-
telegraphy for years.


Why should radio amateurs be held elevated to some
special significance?


It's not about 'special significance".


Yes, it is. :-)

See "VANITY" call signs...see the old "Extra" requirements
for 20 WPM code tests. See all the "gotta upgrade!"
agit-prop from ARRL where morsemanship is promoted way
over all other modes.


The basic fallacy of pro-coder thinking is that "all"
have some innate ability to learn morse code.


There are obviously those who cannot learn it - just as there are those
who cannot learn to speak, or read and write, or who cannot pass the
written tests.


Just as there are some in here who cannot tell time,
cannot understand that a federal court decision in the
early 1970s TOOK AWAY the claimed "firsts" of ENIAC.
:-)



The military aptitude testing was done to find those who could learn
the fastest and reach the highest levels of skill in the least time.


You "KNOW" this by first-hand experience, Jimmie? :-)

No, you could NOT know any of that. In fact, *I* was
the one who FIRST mentioned it in here. :-)

I took one of those morse aptitude tests, along with
about a dozen other aptitude tests, back in 1952. A
few hundreds of thousands other recruits did the same
in the 1950s. You NEVER did that.

The requirements for military radio telegraphers were much higher than
for amateurs, and the military could not afford lots of time to train
them.


The "requirements for military radio telegraphers [sic]"
topped out at 20 WPM for Army Field Radio MOS, Jimmie.
Same rate as amateur extras prior to 2000. Sunnuvagun!

The US Army took only 8 weeks to "train" soldiers in
basic training to kill the enemy (in several ways)
and some other RUDIMENTARY skills of survival. Took a
LOT LONGER to train soldiers on some specialty.

You never did either one...


btw, the existence of such aptitude testing proves that the US military
needed large numbers of Morse Code skilled radio operators during WW2.


Jimmie, you just crapped. :-) All you have for "proof"
of that is what the ARRL has written. Jaysus, what a fine
example of Conditioned Thinking! ["brainwashing"]

World War II *ended* 61 years ago. [the Korean War has
*never* ended...it is in a state of truce begun 53 years
ago] All you "Know" about military anything is what you've
READ about and probably tinkered with some left-over radio
surplus, no doubt second- or third-hand. :-)


The "upgrade requirements" were lobbied for to emphasize
morse code radiotelegraphy skill. That is history.


Who lobbied for those requirements, Len?


ARRL, of course. :-)

As they've bragged to anyone who can read, "they know what is
best for amateur radio!" :-)


As with all US federal agencies, the FCC does accept
citizen commentary to them regarding radio regulations.
The FCC responds to Petitions submitted by US citizens
in regards to those radio regulations. [however, not
with blinding speeds of decision in regards to amateur
radio] Nowhere does the FCC discriminate between those
are already licensed in amateur radio versus those not
licensed. FCC does not treat the group of already-
licensed as some kind of fraternal order of the already-
licensed to be listened to over and above all other
interested citizens.


The FCC accepts comments from everyone - not just citizens.


No kidding?!? :-)

Then explain the prevailing attitude in *here* (and you
are one of them) about "only" licensed amateurs "should"
comment about amateur radio regulations? :-)


It does NOT affect
those already legally licensed as radio amateurs...except
in the limited conditions of certain already-licensed
Technician classes. That code test does NOT legally
affect ANY other already-licensed US radio amateur.


It affects them in many ways. If amateur radio should change for the
worse because
of changes in license requirements, those who are already licensed
would be affected.


Why "worse," Jimmie? Afraid you won't have any new coders
to play with? :-)

Would you suffer Great Emotional Harm if the code test went
away? WHY? You ALREADY have YOUR amateur extra class.

Here's a newsflash: The FCC is NOT chartered by law to
serve up emotional sustenance to the already-licensed.
Go starve, you poor thing...


Not true. If amateur radio is made worse by rules changes, all involved
are affected. You, who are not involved, are unaffected.


"Not involved?" :-) You are using that in the context
of 'involvement' meaning 'licensed.' You've just gone
against what you previously wrote. :-)



Amateur radio isn't like that. We use a shared and limited resource -
the radio spectrum.


So does CB. So does R-C. So does GMRS. So does GPS.
So does Maritime Radio Service. So does GMDSS. So
does Aviation Radio Service. So does Media [radio
broadcasting]. So does the entire PLMRS...which includes
all the public safety radio services, railroad radio
service, business radio, paging services. So does
cellular telephony. So does the US government and US
military.

Don't get off on your "amateurs are conservators of the
EM spectrum" kick you've done before. The FCC *regulates*
US civil radio and the NTIA does it for the US government.
Amateurs have to take what they can get, just like *every*
other radio service.

A more valid analogy would be something like operating motor vehicles
for noncommercial purposes, where the medium (the roads) are shared
with many others.


Don't play in *that* road, Jimmie, you will get run over
by CB and Cell Phones and inundated by Broadcasting! :-)

I know many more model builders and model aircraft flyers.
[I have been both] The Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA)
is a membership organization (about a quarter million
members in the USA) with a large rule set to follow in
flying model aircraft. That rule set is for both
competition flying and for safety; there is special
liability insurance for members of the AMA in regards to
that flying activity. There is no absolute requirement
to be an AMA member to enjoy model airplane flying nor is
there some federal test one must take to be one. It is a
hobby...yet the AMA has successfully petitioned for and
gotten many radio channels expressly for model remote
control.


How many channels? How much total spectrum? How much of it is below 30
MHz?


Wah, wah, wah...poor Jimmie has had days to find out for
himself...and CAN'T.

The AMA lobbied for and got 80 channels (20 KHz each band-
width) for a HOBBY pursuit. The modelers don't run around
saying they invented airplanes or cars or boats nor are
they claiming to be either advancing the state of the art
(of airplanes or cars or boats) of providing for any "pool"
of trained car, boat, or airplane drivers! They aren't
making rude noises about anyone calling their hobby a
HOBBY...yet the stuffed-full-of-themselves hams get all
angry and flustered about being called HOBBYISTS IN RADIO
(which is what they really are).

IIRC, the total amount of spectrum set aside for model control is less
than the narrowest amateur band above 30 MHz.


Wah, wha, waaaa...like Jimmie spends a lot of time ABOVE
30 MHz? HAAAAA!

Like the total amount of spectrum on 60m is "big?"

Like 80 x 20 KHz isn't 1.6 MHz? For a NON-communications
radio service?

btw, there has been no Morse Code test requirement in the US for use of
*all* the amateur bands above 30 MHz.


No ****, sherlock? :-) It's never bothered me on OTHER
radio services, including the Department of Defense, for
frequencies BELOW 30 MHz...or ABOVE 30 MHz. :-)

Amateurs seem to get wet panties if someone threatens
to take away their beloved code TEST, the ones they
had to take. Why is that?

No code test nor license was required. You may
read about it in Part 95, Title 47 C.F.R. under Radio
Control Radio Service.


They got a few channels in a few narrow slices of VHF/UHF.


Tsk, you didn't read the applicable part of Part 95,
did you? :-)

The 72 to 76 MHz region is in VHF, *not* UHF.

Do you consider 1.6 MHz of spectrum at VHF "narrow
slices?" :-) Hey, you are the one championing
those little teeny slices that "CW" needs. :-)

They are
allowed to use only very low power, with almost all their
communications limited to line-of-sight.

Amateur radio is very different.


Radio Control Radio Service was NOT created for
COMMUNICATIONS. It is for the radio control of
models. Hello? It ain't about "communications"
but about CONTROL BY RADIO.

0.75 Watts maximum RF power output won't burn up
the ionosphere, but that amount of power is GOOD
for interplanetary DX, sweetums. Line of sight.
To the moon. To Mars. To Venus. To comets. To
so many comm sats in equatorial orbit that all
those slots are filled.

Yet all they need is a small assortment of VHF/UHF channels, low power,
small antennas and line-of-sight radio.


Hello? 80 Channels at 20 KHz each. In VHF, not UHF.

NASA thinks 0.75 W RF power output to be adequate
for interplanetary DX.

A quarter wave whip at 73 MHz is only 3 1/4" long.

How big would it be at 40m? Do you equate size with
performance? Or is that some kind of "male" thing? :-)

Is that what you think amateur radio should be?


Did *I* say that? Sorry, I've never even HINTED at,
much less IMPLIED that ham radio "should be like that."

You CRAPPED again, Jimmie.

By the way, amateur radio is allowed to use some
band space for control-by-radio. Really! :-)

It should be remembered that one of the primary reasons model aircraft
enthusiasts got channels in the ~70 MHz range was the fact that their
27 MHz allocation became unusable due to being effectively taken over
by illegal cb operation.


BULL**** on the "illegal CB," Jimmie. You crapped again.

There were only SIX channels available in the original
CB Class C allocation back in 1958. SIX isn't even close
to enough for LEGAL operation in one location of flying,
boating, or driving. THAT is why the AMA lobbied for, and
got the EIGHTY 72 to 75 MHz channels.

80 channels is enough for the most crowded weekend
happening at Apollo Field in the San Fernando Valley
dam recreation area. [big area, even a paved runway
for Giant Scale aircraft] No problem.


And when FCC recently asked for comments on the Morse Code test issue,
the majority of those commenting were *against* the complete
elimination of the Morse Code test. The ratio was approximately 55% in
favor of at least some Morse Code testing.


Oh, oh, Jimmie CRAPPED again! Just *WHO* does he think came
up with the statistics? *ME* sweetums. I read - and saved
(on CD now) - each and every Comment on FCC 05-235. Further,
I tried to keep folks in *this* newsgroup appraised of the
progress. BEFORE pro-coder Joe Speroni could cook his own
stats to make it LOOK like pro-coders "won."

I have to say I wouldn't do *that* again with all the heckling
and cat-calling by the pro-coders in here. You were one of
those, you poor dear. You were UPSET by the EARLY RETIRNS
showing a decided favor for ELIMINATION of the code test.

It's all in Google archives, sweetums. Go look for yourself.
See your own heckling and cat-calling in there.

You don't like that? Tough ****. Now go play with your code
key, Jimmie. Stay out of the radio spectrum highway where so
many radio users hang out that you might get hurt. Stay in
your little radiotelegraph spectrum slivers and pretend you
are the bestest coder what am, "pioneering the airwaves" with
your dots and dashes. Dream on, the REAL pioneering was done
by others a half century before you got your first license.

If some nasty no-coder makes you sweat, just complain to Big
Brother in Newington. Or write nastygrams to the IEEE (where
you aren't a member) about someone "not following the IEEE
rules of conduct!" :-)

Ptui.




[email protected] October 27th 06 06:34 PM

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

wrote:

I have to say I wouldn't do *that* again with all the heckling
and cat-calling by the pro-coders in here. You were one of
those, you poor dear. You were UPSET by the EARLY RETIRNS
showing a decided favor for ELIMINATION of the code test.


RETURNS, not 'retirns.' Typo. :-)

Ptui.




[email protected] October 27th 06 08:58 PM

Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
 
wrote:
On 27 Oct 2006 10:28:38 -0700, "
wrote:

From:
on Thurs, Oct 26 2006 3:36am

wrote:
From: "Dee Flint" on Sun, Oct 22 2006 8:47am
"Opus-" wrote in message

Yes ham radio is supposed to be camaraderie. People are supposed to help
each other.

Then why don't they?

They *do*, Len.


Take off your blinders, Miccolis. Look around *this*
newsgroup. See any "help" in *here*?


well to be far Robeson does insit he trying to help me when calls me a
child molestor rapesit elderabuser Tax Fraud and welfare cheatm becuae
I refuse to learn Mrose Code same for SC


Military Imposter Robeson is one sick puppy. We can't expect him
to improve his demeanor by himself. He is personally angry and
frustrated, searching for something, anything in regards to personal
"glory" via some kind of rank.

perhaps the point you should making is that the OT are no longer
enough in touch with reality to hel anybody including themselves and
the ARS


Those olde-tymers (who fear Evil No-Coders) are into the
stubbornness of middle age. They want things THEIR way and
everyone else can go to hell. QED.

The divisiveness stems from the fact that too many no-coders
appear to want to change the requirements with no knowledge, experience, or
understanding of the requirements.

Nonsense.

No, it's the truth.


"Truth" only in the bound-and-determined olde-tymers who
want things kept without change.

Take off your blinders, Miccolis. Look around *this*
newsgroup.


Pro-coders do NOT have some "lock" on What The
Requirements Should Be.

Nobody says they do.


Lots of "nobodies" in this newsgroup, then... :-)

They never did, despite all the
pro-code propaganda drilled into your respective psyches.

No such "propaganda", Len.


You've been Conditioned, Miccolis. Conditioned thinking
stuck there by the ARRL for decades...since before you
were able to read...

It should be quite obvious that every other radio service
has either given up on using morse code for communications
or never considered it in the first place.

Why is that important to *amateur radio* policy, Len? Amateurs *do* use
Morse Code - extensively.


Amateur radio POLICY in regards to LICENSE TEST requirements,
Miccolis. License TEST requirements.

The FCC does NOT mandate exclusive use of radiotelegraphy
by US radio amateurs. All allocated modes are OPTIONAL
to use. If all allocated modes are OPTIONAL to use,
why continue a specific pass-fail TEST in ONE MODE?



Note: Nowhere in the "requirements" (Title 47 C.F.R. Part
97 for US radio amateurs) is it mandatory for US amateurs
to communicate with foreigners.

That's true. But one of the Basis and Purposes of the Amateur Radio
Service is international good will. Communicating with "foreigners" is
one way to do that.


["boilerplate" political insert into the Basis & Purpose]

So, exactly WHAT is this so-called "good will?" Has it
stopped wars and armed conflict anywhere in the world?
[No] Has it ended world hunger or even alleviated it?
[No] Does this "good will" do ANYTHING?


I don't know it does nothing I know I and other chated a bit about the
Gonzales case with some cubans and may have promoted some
understanding to help resolve that case (although it still should have
gone better)


The "Elian" affair is NOT about amateur radio policy.

When was the last time the AMATEUR bands were used to save
a life using radiotelegraphy?

I would think saving a life would be the BEST good will
possible.


not if that life belong to a NoCode ham it seems


There's been NO real input on hams saving lives by "CW" lately.
"Lately" being in the last few decades. The best the pro-coders
can come up with is some small-displacement ship going down
somewhere in the UK territory on New Year's Eve...NOT doing
the "CW" comms thing ON ham bands.

The major
(in population) nation administrations have dropped their
morse code testing or substitute other tests in lieu of
morse code.

How do you know?


:-) Try reading the No-Code International website and
researching the statements in there. Those are true
statements.


It's a fact that at least some people use poorly-designed training
methods.


Did Moore School drill that into you? :-)


Indeed, all other US radio services operating
below 30 MHz do NOT use morse code radiotelegraphy.

Why is that so important?


It SHOULD be obvious to all but the conditioned-thinking
Believer. :-)

It should be obvious that the so-called "advantages" of
morse code radiotelegraphy are so few...ergo, it isn't
worth having a license TEST for it. Especially since the
FCC hasn't mandated exclusivity for morse code radio-
telegraphy for years.


Why should radio amateurs be held elevated to some
special significance?

It's not about 'special significance".


Yes, it is. :-)

See "VANITY" call signs...see the old "Extra" requirements
for 20 WPM code tests. See all the "gotta upgrade!"
agit-prop from ARRL where morsemanship is promoted way
over all other modes.


The basic fallacy of pro-coder thinking is that "all"
have some innate ability to learn morse code.

There are obviously those who cannot learn it - just as there are those
who cannot learn to speak, or read and write, or who cannot pass the
written tests.


Just as there are some in here who cannot tell time,
cannot understand that a federal court decision in the
early 1970s TOOK AWAY the claimed "firsts" of ENIAC.
:-)



The military aptitude testing was done to find those who could learn
the fastest and reach the highest levels of skill in the least time.


You "KNOW" this by first-hand experience, Jimmie? :-)

No, you could NOT know any of that. In fact, *I* was
the one who FIRST mentioned it in here. :-)

I took one of those morse aptitude tests, along with
about a dozen other aptitude tests, back in 1952. A
few hundreds of thousands other recruits did the same
in the 1950s. You NEVER did that.


I took one as it happens when I was doing some work with a signal
corps project that was looking a CW based NON Morse more app, I tested
very poorly indeed


The US military has kept the CW setting on front panel controls
for years...but NOT for radiotelegraphy purposes. That is for
remoting the operation of transmitters, almost always by wireline
control. Land forces learned many decades ago to locate
transmitters well away from Hq troops.

Pro-coders will see such front panel control settings and
immediately jump on their pro-code bandwagon shouting about
"the military using radiotelegraphy" when they don't know squat
about real field use of land force radios or the peripheral
equipment for same.

The requirements for military radio telegraphers were much higher than
for amateurs, and the military could not afford lots of time to train
them.


The "requirements for military radio telegraphers [sic]"
topped out at 20 WPM for Army Field Radio MOS, Jimmie.
Same rate as amateur extras prior to 2000. Sunnuvagun!

The US Army took only 8 weeks to "train" soldiers in
basic training to kill the enemy (in several ways)
and some other RUDIMENTARY skills of survival. Took a
LOT LONGER to train soldiers on some specialty.

You never did either one...


btw, the existence of such aptitude testing proves that the US military
needed large numbers of Morse Code skilled radio operators during WW2.


Jimmie, you just crapped. :-) All you have for "proof"
of that is what the ARRL has written. Jaysus, what a fine
example of Conditioned Thinking! ["brainwashing"]

World War II *ended* 61 years ago. [the Korean War has
*never* ended...it is in a state of truce begun 53 years
ago] All you "Know" about military anything is what you've
READ about and probably tinkered with some left-over radio
surplus, no doubt second- or third-hand. :-)


a truce that could end at any minute I fear but still no need for cw
ops to go man radios


Army field radio was already dropping radiotelegraphy comms
DURING the active phase of the Korean War (i.e., prior to 1953).
Some of it was used in southeast Asia in the following decade.

Problem is, olde-tymers are still brainwashed by glorious
propaganda (from the boys in Newington) about World War II
and (conveniently) forget that war ended 61 years ago. They
still have dreams of glory and honor using "CW" and get
angry when they are awakened to the reality of today.


The "upgrade requirements" were lobbied for to emphasize
morse code radiotelegraphy skill. That is history.

Who lobbied for those requirements, Len?


ARRL, of course. :-)

As they've bragged to anyone who can read, "they know what is
best for amateur radio!" :-)


As with all US federal agencies, the FCC does accept
citizen commentary to them regarding radio regulations.
The FCC responds to Petitions submitted by US citizens
in regards to those radio regulations. [however, not
with blinding speeds of decision in regards to amateur
radio] Nowhere does the FCC discriminate between those
are already licensed in amateur radio versus those not
licensed. FCC does not treat the group of already-
licensed as some kind of fraternal order of the already-
licensed to be listened to over and above all other
interested citizens.

The FCC accepts comments from everyone - not just citizens.


No kidding?!? :-)

Then explain the prevailing attitude in *here* (and you
are one of them) about "only" licensed amateurs "should"
comment about amateur radio regulations? :-)


and why Dee and dave and Steve even go so far as to claim I a ham
should not be allowed to coment on the CW rules


Sigh...well they've "denied" doing so, keep asking "where did I
[they] write such words?" They didn't say so outright but the
INTENT was plain as day at noontime.

These pro-coder olde-tymers just do NOT want that code test
to ever disappear. If it did they would lose their major Bragging
Right (to glory and honor of telegraphic modes).

It does NOT affect
those already legally licensed as radio amateurs...except
in the limited conditions of certain already-licensed
Technician classes. That code test does NOT legally
affect ANY other already-licensed US radio amateur.

It affects them in many ways. If amateur radio should change for the
worse because
of changes in license requirements, those who are already licensed
would be affected.


Why "worse," Jimmie? Afraid you won't have any new coders
to play with? :-)

Would you suffer Great Emotional Harm if the code test went
away? WHY? You ALREADY have YOUR amateur extra class.

Here's a newsflash: The FCC is NOT chartered by law to
serve up emotional sustenance to the already-licensed.
Go starve, you poor thing...


Not true. If amateur radio is made worse by rules changes, all involved
are affected. You, who are not involved, are unaffected.


"Not involved?" :-) You are using that in the context
of 'involvement' meaning 'licensed.' You've just gone
against what you previously wrote. :-)



Amateur radio isn't like that. We use a shared and limited resource -
the radio spectrum.


So does CB. So does R-C. So does GMRS. So does GPS.
So does Maritime Radio Service. So does GMDSS. So
does Aviation Radio Service. So does Media [radio
broadcasting]. So does the entire PLMRS...which includes
all the public safety radio services, railroad radio
service, business radio, paging services. So does
cellular telephony. So does the US government and US
military.

Don't get off on your "amateurs are conservators of the
EM spectrum" kick you've done before. The FCC *regulates*
US civil radio and the NTIA does it for the US government.
Amateurs have to take what they can get, just like *every*
other radio service.

A more valid analogy would be something like operating motor vehicles
for noncommercial purposes, where the medium (the roads) are shared
with many others.


Don't play in *that* road, Jimmie, you will get run over
by CB and Cell Phones and inundated by Broadcasting! :-)

I know many more model builders and model aircraft flyers.
[I have been both] The Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA)
is a membership organization (about a quarter million
members in the USA) with a large rule set to follow in
flying model aircraft. That rule set is for both
competition flying and for safety; there is special
liability insurance for members of the AMA in regards to
that flying activity. There is no absolute requirement
to be an AMA member to enjoy model airplane flying nor is
there some federal test one must take to be one. It is a
hobby...yet the AMA has successfully petitioned for and
gotten many radio channels expressly for model remote
control.

How many channels? How much total spectrum? How much of it is below 30
MHz?


Wah, wah, wah...poor Jimmie has had days to find out for
himself...and CAN'T.

The AMA lobbied for and got 80 channels (20 KHz each band-
width) for a HOBBY pursuit. The modelers don't run around
saying they invented airplanes or cars or boats nor are
they claiming to be either advancing the state of the art
(of airplanes or cars or boats) of providing for any "pool"
of trained car, boat, or airplane drivers! They aren't
making rude noises about anyone calling their hobby a
HOBBY...yet the stuffed-full-of-themselves hams get all
angry and flustered about being called HOBBYISTS IN RADIO
(which is what they really are).


they also 16 channeles within the Ham bands reseversed for Ham into RC
and those units are allowed higher power levels than the rest


Anyone remotely involved with the Model Hobby Industry will see
the emphasis on the license-free "72 MHz" channels from ready-
built remote control radios. With 80 channels to choose from it
is NOT a problem at any event or weekend gathering of modelers
together in one location.



IIRC, the total amount of spectrum set aside for model control is less
than the narrowest amateur band above 30 MHz.


Wah, wha, waaaa...like Jimmie spends a lot of time ABOVE
30 MHz? HAAAAA!

Like the total amount of spectrum on 60m is "big?"

Like 80 x 20 KHz isn't 1.6 MHz? For a NON-communications
radio service?

btw, there has been no Morse Code test requirement in the US for use of
*all* the amateur bands above 30 MHz.


No ****, sherlock? :-) It's never bothered me on OTHER
radio services, including the Department of Defense, for
frequencies BELOW 30 MHz...or ABOVE 30 MHz. :-)

Amateurs seem to get wet panties if someone threatens
to take away their beloved code TEST, the ones they
had to take. Why is that?

No code test nor license was required. You may
read about it in Part 95, Title 47 C.F.R. under Radio
Control Radio Service.

They got a few channels in a few narrow slices of VHF/UHF.


Tsk, you didn't read the applicable part of Part 95,
did you? :-)

The 72 to 76 MHz region is in VHF, *not* UHF.

Do you consider 1.6 MHz of spectrum at VHF "narrow
slices?" :-) Hey, you are the one championing
those little teeny slices that "CW" needs. :-)

They are
allowed to use only very low power, with almost all their
communications limited to line-of-sight.

Amateur radio is very different.


Radio Control Radio Service was NOT created for
COMMUNICATIONS. It is for the radio control of
models. Hello? It ain't about "communications"
but about CONTROL BY RADIO.

0.75 Watts maximum RF power output won't burn up
the ionosphere, but that amount of power is GOOD
for interplanetary DX, sweetums. Line of sight.
To the moon. To Mars. To Venus. To comets. To
so many comm sats in equatorial orbit that all
those slots are filled.

Yet all they need is a small assortment of VHF/UHF channels, low power,
small antennas and line-of-sight radio.


Hello? 80 Channels at 20 KHz each. In VHF, not UHF.

NASA thinks 0.75 W RF power output to be adequate
for interplanetary DX.

A quarter wave whip at 73 MHz is only 3 1/4" long.

How big would it be at 40m? Do you equate size with
performance? Or is that some kind of "male" thing? :-)

Is that what you think amateur radio should be?


Did *I* say that? Sorry, I've never even HINTED at,
much less IMPLIED that ham radio "should be like that."

You CRAPPED again, Jimmie.

By the way, amateur radio is allowed to use some
band space for control-by-radio. Really! :-)


on 6 m I have one of those units


Then that unit is bound to be affected by "legal" ham transmissions
(AS IF interference with others is "legal") causing loss of control.

Olde-tymers (causing such interference) will claim they have a
"right" to do it. They "own" the band or something like that. :-(

It should be remembered that one of the primary reasons model aircraft
enthusiasts got channels in the ~70 MHz range was the fact that their
27 MHz allocation became unusable due to being effectively taken over
by illegal cb operation.


BULL**** on the "illegal CB," Jimmie. You crapped again.

There were only SIX channels available in the original
CB Class C allocation back in 1958. SIX isn't even close
to enough for LEGAL operation in one location of flying,
boating, or driving. THAT is why the AMA lobbied for, and
got the EIGHTY 72 to 75 MHz channels.

80 channels is enough for the most crowded weekend
happening at Apollo Field in the San Fernando Valley
dam recreation area. [big area, even a paved runway
for Giant Scale aircraft] No problem.


well Honestlly Len allow me an R/C flyer to correct you at some shows
their are problem with not being near enough frqs at some shows it is
smaller scalle planes show that atract more fliers that have a problem
was even promted some developement of 2/4 gig units


Feel free to "correct me." :-) The olde-tymers try to do
that a LOT in here... :-)

The dam recreation area in the L.A. San Fernando Valley has
a very large turn-out most every weekend here. At Apollo Field
there can be (easy) 50 R-C flyers there. [it is the major location
for flying in the huge Los Angeles area] MOST R-C flyers are
a considerate bunch and TRY to avoid interference. But, not all
R-C units are frequency-mobile. The emphasis is on the
MODELS not the radios...the FLYING (for model aircraft) rather
than the "operating."

I started working in 1948 at Testor Chemical Company, working
IN the model shop as a flunky doing the plan illustration. I've
followed the Model Hobby Industry somewhat ever since. I
don't claim "inside knowledge" on the R-C radios, only that I
got interested in radios and electronics while seeing what the
very first R-C planes could do with rudder-only control. [we are
talking the Raytheon RK61 single-tube gas-filled tube regen
receivers here smile with quite primitive mechanical control
systems] Bang-bang control (full one way or the other, single
neutral center), not the PWM proportional systems of today
and two decades ago using single- and double-conversion solid-
state receivers with (now) standardized control-stick transmitter
boxes containing microprocessors.

R-C has gotten rather sophisticated since its beginning. Last
year had the first successful cross-Atlantic flight of a model
aircraft, R-C for takeoff and landing with GPS-assisted mid-
course control. One helluva good accomplishment for non-
professional modelers! I think the website for that has been
taken down but anyone can read about it in MAN or the two
other newsstand magazines targeting R-C modeling.

Some radio amateurs are still trying to promote radiotelegraphy
AS IF this were still 1901 with Marconi getting his S in
Newfoundland. :-)

They think one MUST do the "CW" thing even if using a multi-
conversion, DSP-enhanced, digitial-synthesis frequency control
solid-state transceiver (using microprocessor assistance),
ready-built off-the-shelf plug-and-play. All to bang the carrier
ON or OFF in order to communicate! :-)

1906 thinking in 2006. Ptui.




[email protected] October 27th 06 10:40 PM

Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
 
wrote:
On 27 Oct 2006 10:28:38 -0700, "
wrote:

From:
on Thurs, Oct 26 2006 3:36am

wrote:
From: "Dee Flint" on Sun, Oct 22 2006 8:47am
"Opus-" wrote in message

Yes ham radio is supposed to be camaraderie. People are supposed to help
each other.

Then why don't they?

They *do*, Len.


Take off your blinders, Miccolis. Look around *this*
newsgroup. See any "help" in *here*?


well to be far Robeson does insit he trying to help me when calls me a
child molestor rapesit elderabuser Tax Fraud and welfare cheatm becuae
I refuse to learn Mrose Code same for SC


Military Imposter Robeson is one sick puppy. We can't expect him
to improve his demeanor by himself. He is personally angry and
frustrated, searching for something, anything in regards to personal
"glory" via some kind of rank.

perhaps the point you should making is that the OT are no longer
enough in touch with reality to hel anybody including themselves and
the ARS


Those olde-tymers (who fear Evil No-Coders) are into the
stubbornness of middle age. They want things THEIR way and
everyone else can go to hell. QED.

The divisiveness stems from the fact that too many no-coders
appear to want to change the requirements with no knowledge, experience, or
understanding of the requirements.

Nonsense.

No, it's the truth.


"Truth" only in the bound-and-determined olde-tymers who
want things kept without change.

Take off your blinders, Miccolis. Look around *this*
newsgroup.


Pro-coders do NOT have some "lock" on What The
Requirements Should Be.

Nobody says they do.


Lots of "nobodies" in this newsgroup, then... :-)

They never did, despite all the
pro-code propaganda drilled into your respective psyches.

No such "propaganda", Len.


You've been Conditioned, Miccolis. Conditioned thinking
stuck there by the ARRL for decades...since before you
were able to read...

It should be quite obvious that every other radio service
has either given up on using morse code for communications
or never considered it in the first place.

Why is that important to *amateur radio* policy, Len? Amateurs *do* use
Morse Code - extensively.


Amateur radio POLICY in regards to LICENSE TEST requirements,
Miccolis. License TEST requirements.

The FCC does NOT mandate exclusive use of radiotelegraphy
by US radio amateurs. All allocated modes are OPTIONAL
to use. If all allocated modes are OPTIONAL to use,
why continue a specific pass-fail TEST in ONE MODE?



Note: Nowhere in the "requirements" (Title 47 C.F.R. Part
97 for US radio amateurs) is it mandatory for US amateurs
to communicate with foreigners.

That's true. But one of the Basis and Purposes of the Amateur Radio
Service is international good will. Communicating with "foreigners" is
one way to do that.


["boilerplate" political insert into the Basis & Purpose]

So, exactly WHAT is this so-called "good will?" Has it
stopped wars and armed conflict anywhere in the world?
[No] Has it ended world hunger or even alleviated it?
[No] Does this "good will" do ANYTHING?


I don't know it does nothing I know I and other chated a bit about the
Gonzales case with some cubans and may have promoted some
understanding to help resolve that case (although it still should have
gone better)


The "Elian" affair is NOT about amateur radio policy.

When was the last time the AMATEUR bands were used to save
a life using radiotelegraphy?

I would think saving a life would be the BEST good will
possible.


not if that life belong to a NoCode ham it seems


There's been NO real input on hams saving lives by "CW" lately.
"Lately" being in the last few decades. The best the pro-coders
can come up with is some small-displacement ship going down
somewhere in the UK territory on New Year's Eve...NOT doing
the "CW" comms thing ON ham bands.

The major
(in population) nation administrations have dropped their
morse code testing or substitute other tests in lieu of
morse code.

How do you know?


:-) Try reading the No-Code International website and
researching the statements in there. Those are true
statements.


It's a fact that at least some people use poorly-designed training
methods.


Did Moore School drill that into you? :-)


Indeed, all other US radio services operating
below 30 MHz do NOT use morse code radiotelegraphy.

Why is that so important?


It SHOULD be obvious to all but the conditioned-thinking
Believer. :-)

It should be obvious that the so-called "advantages" of
morse code radiotelegraphy are so few...ergo, it isn't
worth having a license TEST for it. Especially since the
FCC hasn't mandated exclusivity for morse code radio-
telegraphy for years.


Why should radio amateurs be held elevated to some
special significance?

It's not about 'special significance".


Yes, it is. :-)

See "VANITY" call signs...see the old "Extra" requirements
for 20 WPM code tests. See all the "gotta upgrade!"
agit-prop from ARRL where morsemanship is promoted way
over all other modes.


The basic fallacy of pro-coder thinking is that "all"
have some innate ability to learn morse code.

There are obviously those who cannot learn it - just as there are those
who cannot learn to speak, or read and write, or who cannot pass the
written tests.


Just as there are some in here who cannot tell time,
cannot understand that a federal court decision in the
early 1970s TOOK AWAY the claimed "firsts" of ENIAC.
:-)



The military aptitude testing was done to find those who could learn
the fastest and reach the highest levels of skill in the least time.


You "KNOW" this by first-hand experience, Jimmie? :-)

No, you could NOT know any of that. In fact, *I* was
the one who FIRST mentioned it in here. :-)

I took one of those morse aptitude tests, along with
about a dozen other aptitude tests, back in 1952. A
few hundreds of thousands other recruits did the same
in the 1950s. You NEVER did that.


I took one as it happens when I was doing some work with a signal
corps project that was looking a CW based NON Morse more app, I tested
very poorly indeed


The US military has kept the CW setting on front panel controls
for years...but NOT for radiotelegraphy purposes. That is for
remoting the operation of transmitters, almost always by wireline
control. Land forces learned many decades ago to locate
transmitters well away from Hq troops.

Pro-coders will see such front panel control settings and
immediately jump on their pro-code bandwagon shouting about
"the military using radiotelegraphy" when they don't know squat
about real field use of land force radios or the peripheral
equipment for same.

The requirements for military radio telegraphers were much higher than
for amateurs, and the military could not afford lots of time to train
them.


The "requirements for military radio telegraphers [sic]"
topped out at 20 WPM for Army Field Radio MOS, Jimmie.
Same rate as amateur extras prior to 2000. Sunnuvagun!

The US Army took only 8 weeks to "train" soldiers in
basic training to kill the enemy (in several ways)
and some other RUDIMENTARY skills of survival. Took a
LOT LONGER to train soldiers on some specialty.

You never did either one...


btw, the existence of such aptitude testing proves that the US military
needed large numbers of Morse Code skilled radio operators during WW2.


Jimmie, you just crapped. :-) All you have for "proof"
of that is what the ARRL has written. Jaysus, what a fine
example of Conditioned Thinking! ["brainwashing"]

World War II *ended* 61 years ago. [the Korean War has
*never* ended...it is in a state of truce begun 53 years
ago] All you "Know" about military anything is what you've
READ about and probably tinkered with some left-over radio
surplus, no doubt second- or third-hand. :-)


a truce that could end at any minute I fear but still no need for cw
ops to go man radios


Army field radio was already dropping radiotelegraphy comms
DURING the active phase of the Korean War (i.e., prior to 1953).
Some of it was used in southeast Asia in the following decade.

Problem is, olde-tymers are still brainwashed by glorious
propaganda (from the boys in Newington) about World War II
and (conveniently) forget that war ended 61 years ago. They
still have dreams of glory and honor using "CW" and get
angry when they are awakened to the reality of today.


The "upgrade requirements" were lobbied for to emphasize
morse code radiotelegraphy skill. That is history.

Who lobbied for those requirements, Len?


ARRL, of course. :-)

As they've bragged to anyone who can read, "they know what is
best for amateur radio!" :-)


As with all US federal agencies, the FCC does accept
citizen commentary to them regarding radio regulations.
The FCC responds to Petitions submitted by US citizens
in regards to those radio regulations. [however, not
with blinding speeds of decision in regards to amateur
radio] Nowhere does the FCC discriminate between those
are already licensed in amateur radio versus those not
licensed. FCC does not treat the group of already-
licensed as some kind of fraternal order of the already-
licensed to be listened to over and above all other
interested citizens.

The FCC accepts comments from everyone - not just citizens.


No kidding?!? :-)

Then explain the prevailing attitude in *here* (and you
are one of them) about "only" licensed amateurs "should"
comment about amateur radio regulations? :-)


and why Dee and dave and Steve even go so far as to claim I a ham
should not be allowed to coment on the CW rules


Sigh...well they've "denied" doing so, keep asking "where did I
[they] write such words?" They didn't say so outright but the
INTENT was plain as day at noontime.

These pro-coder olde-tymers just do NOT want that code test
to ever disappear. If it did they would lose their major Bragging
Right (to glory and honor of telegraphic modes).

It does NOT affect
those already legally licensed as radio amateurs...except
in the limited conditions of certain already-licensed
Technician classes. That code test does NOT legally
affect ANY other already-licensed US radio amateur.

It affects them in many ways. If amateur radio should change for the
worse because
of changes in license requirements, those who are already licensed
would be affected.


Why "worse," Jimmie? Afraid you won't have any new coders
to play with? :-)

Would you suffer Great Emotional Harm if the code test went
away? WHY? You ALREADY have YOUR amateur extra class.

Here's a newsflash: The FCC is NOT chartered by law to
serve up emotional sustenance to the already-licensed.
Go starve, you poor thing...


Not true. If amateur radio is made worse by rules changes, all involved
are affected. You, who are not involved, are unaffected.


"Not involved?" :-) You are using that in the context
of 'involvement' meaning 'licensed.' You've just gone
against what you previously wrote. :-)



Amateur radio isn't like that. We use a shared and limited resource -
the radio spectrum.


So does CB. So does R-C. So does GMRS. So does GPS.
So does Maritime Radio Service. So does GMDSS. So
does Aviation Radio Service. So does Media [radio
broadcasting]. So does the entire PLMRS...which includes
all the public safety radio services, railroad radio
service, business radio, paging services. So does
cellular telephony. So does the US government and US
military.

Don't get off on your "amateurs are conservators of the
EM spectrum" kick you've done before. The FCC *regulates*
US civil radio and the NTIA does it for the US government.
Amateurs have to take what they can get, just like *every*
other radio service.

A more valid analogy would be something like operating motor vehicles
for noncommercial purposes, where the medium (the roads) are shared
with many others.


Don't play in *that* road, Jimmie, you will get run over
by CB and Cell Phones and inundated by Broadcasting! :-)

I know many more model builders and model aircraft flyers.
[I have been both] The Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA)
is a membership organization (about a quarter million
members in the USA) with a large rule set to follow in
flying model aircraft. That rule set is for both
competition flying and for safety; there is special
liability insurance for members of the AMA in regards to
that flying activity. There is no absolute requirement
to be an AMA member to enjoy model airplane flying nor is
there some federal test one must take to be one. It is a
hobby...yet the AMA has successfully petitioned for and
gotten many radio channels expressly for model remote
control.

How many channels? How much total spectrum? How much of it is below 30
MHz?


Wah, wah, wah...poor Jimmie has had days to find out for
himself...and CAN'T.

The AMA lobbied for and got 80 channels (20 KHz each band-
width) for a HOBBY pursuit. The modelers don't run around
saying they invented airplanes or cars or boats nor are
they claiming to be either advancing the state of the art
(of airplanes or cars or boats) of providing for any "pool"
of trained car, boat, or airplane drivers! They aren't
making rude noises about anyone calling their hobby a
HOBBY...yet the stuffed-full-of-themselves hams get all
angry and flustered about being called HOBBYISTS IN RADIO
(which is what they really are).


they also 16 channeles within the Ham bands reseversed for Ham into RC
and those units are allowed higher power levels than the rest


Anyone remotely involved with the Model Hobby Industry will see
the emphasis on the license-free "72 MHz" channels from ready-
built remote control radios. With 80 channels to choose from it
is NOT a problem at any event or weekend gathering of modelers
together in one location.



IIRC, the total amount of spectrum set aside for model control is less
than the narrowest amateur band above 30 MHz.


Wah, wha, waaaa...like Jimmie spends a lot of time ABOVE
30 MHz? HAAAAA!

Like the total amount of spectrum on 60m is "big?"

Like 80 x 20 KHz isn't 1.6 MHz? For a NON-communications
radio service?

btw, there has been no Morse Code test requirement in the US for use of
*all* the amateur bands above 30 MHz.


No ****, sherlock? :-) It's never bothered me on OTHER
radio services, including the Department of Defense, for
frequencies BELOW 30 MHz...or ABOVE 30 MHz. :-)

Amateurs seem to get wet panties if someone threatens
to take away their beloved code TEST, the ones they
had to take. Why is that?

No code test nor license was required. You may
read about it in Part 95, Title 47 C.F.R. under Radio
Control Radio Service.

They got a few channels in a few narrow slices of VHF/UHF.


Tsk, you didn't read the applicable part of Part 95,
did you? :-)

The 72 to 76 MHz region is in VHF, *not* UHF.

Do you consider 1.6 MHz of spectrum at VHF "narrow
slices?" :-) Hey, you are the one championing
those little teeny slices that "CW" needs. :-)

They are
allowed to use only very low power, with almost all their
communications limited to line-of-sight.

Amateur radio is very different.


Radio Control Radio Service was NOT created for
COMMUNICATIONS. It is for the radio control of
models. Hello? It ain't about "communications"
but about CONTROL BY RADIO.

0.75 Watts maximum RF power output won't burn up
the ionosphere, but that amount of power is GOOD
for interplanetary DX, sweetums. Line of sight.
To the moon. To Mars. To Venus. To comets. To
so many comm sats in equatorial orbit that all
those slots are filled.

Yet all they need is a small assortment of VHF/UHF channels, low power,
small antennas and line-of-sight radio.


Hello? 80 Channels at 20 KHz each. In VHF, not UHF.

NASA thinks 0.75 W RF power output to be adequate
for interplanetary DX.

A quarter wave whip at 73 MHz is only 3 1/4" long.

How big would it be at 40m? Do you equate size with
performance? Or is that some kind of "male" thing? :-)

Is that what you think amateur radio should be?


Did *I* say that? Sorry, I've never even HINTED at,
much less IMPLIED that ham radio "should be like that."

You CRAPPED again, Jimmie.

By the way, amateur radio is allowed to use some
band space for control-by-radio. Really! :-)


on 6 m I have one of those units


Then that unit is bound to be affected by "legal" ham transmissions
(AS IF interference with others is "legal") causing loss of control.

Olde-tymers (causing such interference) will claim they have a
"right" to do it. They "own" the band or something like that. :-(

It should be remembered that one of the primary reasons model aircraft
enthusiasts got channels in the ~70 MHz range was the fact that their
27 MHz allocation became unusable due to being effectively taken over
by illegal cb operation.


BULL**** on the "illegal CB," Jimmie. You crapped again.

There were only SIX channels available in the original
CB Class C allocation back in 1958. SIX isn't even close
to enough for LEGAL operation in one location of flying,
boating, or driving. THAT is why the AMA lobbied for, and
got the EIGHTY 72 to 75 MHz channels.

80 channels is enough for the most crowded weekend
happening at Apollo Field in the San Fernando Valley
dam recreation area. [big area, even a paved runway
for Giant Scale aircraft] No problem.


well Honestlly Len allow me an R/C flyer to correct you at some shows
their are problem with not being near enough frqs at some shows it is
smaller scalle planes show that atract more fliers that have a problem
was even promted some developement of 2/4 gig units


Feel free to "correct me." :-) The olde-tymers try to do
that a LOT in here... :-)

The dam recreation area in the L.A. San Fernando Valley has
a very large turn-out most every weekend here. At Apollo Field
there can be (easy) 50 R-C flyers there. [it is the major location
for flying in the huge Los Angeles area] MOST R-C flyers are
a considerate bunch and TRY to avoid interference. But, not all
R-C units are frequency-mobile. The emphasis is on the
MODELS not the radios...the FLYING (for model aircraft) rather
than the "operating."

I started working in 1948 at Testor Chemical Company, working
IN the model shop as a flunky doing the plan illustration. I've
followed the Model Hobby Industry somewhat ever since. I
don't claim "inside knowledge" on the R-C radios, only that I
got interested in radios and electronics while seeing what the
very first R-C planes could do with rudder-only control. [we are
talking the Raytheon RK61 single-tube gas-filled tube regen
receivers here smile with quite primitive mechanical control
systems] Bang-bang control (full one way or the other, single
neutral center), not the PWM proportional systems of today
and two decades ago using single- and double-conversion solid-
state receivers with (now) standardized control-stick transmitter
boxes containing microprocessors.

R-C has gotten rather sophisticated since its beginning. Last
year had the first successful cross-Atlantic flight of a model
aircraft, R-C for takeoff and landing with GPS-assisted mid-
course control. One helluva good accomplishment for non-
professional modelers! I think the website for that has been
taken down but anyone can read about it in MAN or the two
other newsstand magazines targeting R-C modeling.

Some radio amateurs are still trying to promote radiotelegraphy
AS IF this were still 1901 with Marconi getting his S in
Newfoundland. :-)

They think one MUST do the "CW" thing even if using a multi-
conversion, DSP-enhanced, digitial-synthesis frequency control
solid-state transceiver (using microprocessor assistance),
ready-built off-the-shelf plug-and-play. All to bang the carrier
ON or OFF in order to communicate! :-)

1906 thinking in 2006. Ptui.




[email protected] October 27th 06 11:24 PM

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

A quarter wave whip at 73 MHz is only 3 1/4" long.


No, it isn't.

Wrong *again*, Len.


[email protected] October 27th 06 11:33 PM

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

wrote:
wrote:

A quarter wave whip at 73 MHz is only 3 1/4" long.


No, it isn't.

Wrong *again*, Len.


3 1/4 *FEET*, Jimmie. :-)

Not *wrong*, just a typo...too much pressure on the shift key. :-)

Tsk, Mother Superior trying to do her knuckle-spanking bit today?

Class was dismissed years ago, Jimmie, and your Habit is still
looking terrible on you...quit this trans-gender nonsense, okay?


an_old_friend October 28th 06 12:15 AM

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

wrote:
wrote:
On 27 Oct 2006 10:28:38 -0700, "
wrote:

From:
on Thurs, Oct 26 2006 3:36am


not if that life belong to a NoCode ham it seems


There's been NO real input on hams saving lives by "CW" lately.
"Lately" being in the last few decades. The best the pro-coders
can come up with is some small-displacement ship going down
somewhere in the UK territory on New Year's Eve...NOT doing
the "CW" comms thing ON ham bands.

I love that story that it is trotted out is just a measure of how
desperate they are
I took one as it happens when I was doing some work with a signal
corps project that was looking a CW based NON Morse more app, I tested
very poorly indeed


The US military has kept the CW setting on front panel controls
for years...but NOT for radiotelegraphy purposes. That is for
remoting the operation of transmitters, almost always by wireline
control. Land forces learned many decades ago to locate
transmitters well away from Hq troops.

Pro-coders will see such front panel control settings and
immediately jump on their pro-code bandwagon shouting about
"the military using radiotelegraphy" when they don't know squat
about real field use of land force radios or the peripheral
equipment for same.

The requirements for military radio telegraphers were much higher than
for amateurs, and the military could not afford lots of time to train
them.

The "requirements for military radio telegraphers [sic]"
topped out at 20 WPM for Army Field Radio MOS, Jimmie.
Same rate as amateur extras prior to 2000. Sunnuvagun!

The US Army took only 8 weeks to "train" soldiers in
basic training to kill the enemy (in several ways)
and some other RUDIMENTARY skills of survival. Took a
LOT LONGER to train soldiers on some specialty.

You never did either one...


btw, the existence of such aptitude testing proves that the US military
needed large numbers of Morse Code skilled radio operators during WW2.

Jimmie, you just crapped. :-) All you have for "proof"
of that is what the ARRL has written. Jaysus, what a fine
example of Conditioned Thinking! ["brainwashing"]

World War II *ended* 61 years ago. [the Korean War has
*never* ended...it is in a state of truce begun 53 years
ago] All you "Know" about military anything is what you've
READ about and probably tinkered with some left-over radio
surplus, no doubt second- or third-hand. :-)


a truce that could end at any minute I fear but still no need for cw
ops to go man radios


Army field radio was already dropping radiotelegraphy comms
DURING the active phase of the Korean War (i.e., prior to 1953).
Some of it was used in southeast Asia in the following decade.


really? are you tlaking about just local stuff or long haul korea to
stateside stuff geting a better feel for the timeline I was under the
impression that army pretty weel stay with cw/code through most of
korea then switched pretty quickly

Problem is, olde-tymers are still brainwashed by glorious
propaganda (from the boys in Newington) about World War II
and (conveniently) forget that war ended 61 years ago. They
still have dreams of glory and honor using "CW" and get
angry when they are awakened to the reality of today.



Then explain the prevailing attitude in *here* (and you
are one of them) about "only" licensed amateurs "should"
comment about amateur radio regulations? :-)


and why Dee and dave and Steve even go so far as to claim I a ham
should not be allowed to coment on the CW rules


Sigh...well they've "denied" doing so, keep asking "where did I
[they] write such words?" They didn't say so outright but the
INTENT was plain as day at noontime.


funy how if they don't really mean that and Morse Code makes them such
great comicating that they are so consistantly misunderstood

These pro-coder olde-tymers just do NOT want that code test
to ever disappear. If it did they would lose their major Bragging
Right (to glory and honor of telegraphic modes).

It does NOT affect
those already legally licensed as radio amateurs...except
in the limited conditions of certain already-licensed
Technician classes. That code test does NOT legally
affect ANY other already-licensed US radio amateur.

It affects them in many ways. If amateur radio should change for the
worse because
of changes in license requirements, those who are already licensed
would be affected.

Why "worse," Jimmie? Afraid you won't have any new coders
to play with? :-)

Would you suffer Great Emotional Harm if the code test went
away? WHY? You ALREADY have YOUR amateur extra class.

Here's a newsflash: The FCC is NOT chartered by law to
serve up emotional sustenance to the already-licensed.
Go starve, you poor thing...


Not true. If amateur radio is made worse by rules changes, all involved
are affected. You, who are not involved, are unaffected.

"Not involved?" :-) You are using that in the context
of 'involvement' meaning 'licensed.' You've just gone
against what you previously wrote. :-)



Amateur radio isn't like that. We use a shared and limited resource -
the radio spectrum.

So does CB. So does R-C. So does GMRS. So does GPS.
So does Maritime Radio Service. So does GMDSS. So
does Aviation Radio Service. So does Media [radio
broadcasting]. So does the entire PLMRS...which includes
all the public safety radio services, railroad radio
service, business radio, paging services. So does
cellular telephony. So does the US government and US
military.

Don't get off on your "amateurs are conservators of the
EM spectrum" kick you've done before. The FCC *regulates*
US civil radio and the NTIA does it for the US government.
Amateurs have to take what they can get, just like *every*
other radio service.

A more valid analogy would be something like operating motor vehicles
for noncommercial purposes, where the medium (the roads) are shared
with many others.

Don't play in *that* road, Jimmie, you will get run over
by CB and Cell Phones and inundated by Broadcasting! :-)

I know many more model builders and model aircraft flyers.
[I have been both] The Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA)
is a membership organization (about a quarter million
members in the USA) with a large rule set to follow in
flying model aircraft. That rule set is for both
competition flying and for safety; there is special
liability insurance for members of the AMA in regards to
that flying activity. There is no absolute requirement
to be an AMA member to enjoy model airplane flying nor is
there some federal test one must take to be one. It is a
hobby...yet the AMA has successfully petitioned for and
gotten many radio channels expressly for model remote
control.

How many channels? How much total spectrum? How much of it is below 30
MHz?

Wah, wah, wah...poor Jimmie has had days to find out for
himself...and CAN'T.

The AMA lobbied for and got 80 channels (20 KHz each band-
width) for a HOBBY pursuit. The modelers don't run around
saying they invented airplanes or cars or boats nor are
they claiming to be either advancing the state of the art
(of airplanes or cars or boats) of providing for any "pool"
of trained car, boat, or airplane drivers! They aren't
making rude noises about anyone calling their hobby a
HOBBY...yet the stuffed-full-of-themselves hams get all
angry and flustered about being called HOBBYISTS IN RADIO
(which is what they really are).


they also 16 channeles within the Ham bands reseversed for Ham into RC
and those units are allowed higher power levels than the rest


Anyone remotely involved with the Model Hobby Industry will see
the emphasis on the license-free "72 MHz" channels from ready-
built remote control radios. With 80 channels to choose from it
is NOT a problem at any event or weekend gathering of modelers
together in one location.



IIRC, the total amount of spectrum set aside for model control is less
than the narrowest amateur band above 30 MHz.

Wah, wha, waaaa...like Jimmie spends a lot of time ABOVE
30 MHz? HAAAAA!

Like the total amount of spectrum on 60m is "big?"

Like 80 x 20 KHz isn't 1.6 MHz? For a NON-communications
radio service?

btw, there has been no Morse Code test requirement in the US for use of
*all* the amateur bands above 30 MHz.

No ****, sherlock? :-) It's never bothered me on OTHER
radio services, including the Department of Defense, for
frequencies BELOW 30 MHz...or ABOVE 30 MHz. :-)

Amateurs seem to get wet panties if someone threatens
to take away their beloved code TEST, the ones they
had to take. Why is that?

No code test nor license was required. You may
read about it in Part 95, Title 47 C.F.R. under Radio
Control Radio Service.

They got a few channels in a few narrow slices of VHF/UHF.

Tsk, you didn't read the applicable part of Part 95,
did you? :-)

The 72 to 76 MHz region is in VHF, *not* UHF.

Do you consider 1.6 MHz of spectrum at VHF "narrow
slices?" :-) Hey, you are the one championing
those little teeny slices that "CW" needs. :-)

They are
allowed to use only very low power, with almost all their
communications limited to line-of-sight.

Amateur radio is very different.

Radio Control Radio Service was NOT created for
COMMUNICATIONS. It is for the radio control of
models. Hello? It ain't about "communications"
but about CONTROL BY RADIO.

0.75 Watts maximum RF power output won't burn up
the ionosphere, but that amount of power is GOOD
for interplanetary DX, sweetums. Line of sight.
To the moon. To Mars. To Venus. To comets. To
so many comm sats in equatorial orbit that all
those slots are filled.

Yet all they need is a small assortment of VHF/UHF channels, low power,
small antennas and line-of-sight radio.

Hello? 80 Channels at 20 KHz each. In VHF, not UHF.

NASA thinks 0.75 W RF power output to be adequate
for interplanetary DX.

A quarter wave whip at 73 MHz is only 3 1/4" long.

How big would it be at 40m? Do you equate size with
performance? Or is that some kind of "male" thing? :-)

Is that what you think amateur radio should be?

Did *I* say that? Sorry, I've never even HINTED at,
much less IMPLIED that ham radio "should be like that."

You CRAPPED again, Jimmie.

By the way, amateur radio is allowed to use some
band space for control-by-radio. Really! :-)


on 6 m I have one of those units


Then that unit is bound to be affected by "legal" ham transmissions
(AS IF interference with others is "legal") causing loss of control.

Olde-tymers (causing such interference) will claim they have a
"right" to do it. They "own" the band or something like that. :-(

nah ^m is such a neglected band tafter all we techs are allowed to use
never had anytrouble

It should be remembered that one of the primary reasons model aircraft
enthusiasts got channels in the ~70 MHz range was the fact that their
27 MHz allocation became unusable due to being effectively taken over
by illegal cb operation.

BULL**** on the "illegal CB," Jimmie. You crapped again.

There were only SIX channels available in the original
CB Class C allocation back in 1958. SIX isn't even close
to enough for LEGAL operation in one location of flying,
boating, or driving. THAT is why the AMA lobbied for, and
got the EIGHTY 72 to 75 MHz channels.

80 channels is enough for the most crowded weekend
happening at Apollo Field in the San Fernando Valley
dam recreation area. [big area, even a paved runway
for Giant Scale aircraft] No problem.


well Honestlly Len allow me an R/C flyer to correct you at some shows
their are problem with not being near enough frqs at some shows it is
smaller scalle planes show that atract more fliers that have a problem
was even promted some developement of 2/4 gig units


Feel free to "correct me." :-) The olde-tymers try to do
that a LOT in here... :-)

The dam recreation area in the L.A. San Fernando Valley has
a very large turn-out most every weekend here. At Apollo Field
there can be (easy) 50 R-C flyers there. [it is the major location
for flying in the huge Los Angeles area] MOST R-C flyers are
a considerate bunch and TRY to avoid interference. But, not all
R-C units are frequency-mobile. The emphasis is on the
MODELS not the radios...the FLYING (for model aircraft) rather
than the "operating."

that they try but it is secondary the abilty of the RC gruop is largely
depneant In my expernce on just how the local frequecny coordinators
are able to get people on to lots of freqs in fringe area where the
shop are feww and large college is around somed ay you do have 50
plane trying to operate on 4 or 5 frq
in larger area the hobby shop and tend in placing orders for stuff to
spread the new folks around an advantage yYOU get in your area or would
around SF but out between hobby shop things get weird

(right now trying to duck being given the job of trying to coordinate
the freqs round here Indeed I often spend a lot helping recrytal and
tune the units

I started working in 1948 at Testor Chemical Company, working
IN the model shop as a flunky doing the plan illustration. I've
followed the Model Hobby Industry somewhat ever since. I
don't claim "inside knowledge" on the R-C radios, only that I
got interested in radios and electronics while seeing what the
very first R-C planes could do with rudder-only control. [we are
talking the Raytheon RK61 single-tube gas-filled tube regen
receivers here smile with quite primitive mechanical control
systems] Bang-bang control (full one way or the other, single
neutral center), not the PWM proportional systems of today
and two decades ago using single- and double-conversion solid-
state receivers with (now) standardized control-stick transmitter
boxes containing microprocessors.

R-C has gotten rather sophisticated since its beginning. Last
year had the first successful cross-Atlantic flight of a model
aircraft, R-C for takeoff and landing with GPS-assisted mid-
course control. One helluva good accomplishment for non-
professional modelers! I think the website for that has been
taken down but anyone can read about it in MAN or the two
other newsstand magazines targeting R-C modeling.

Some radio amateurs are still trying to promote radiotelegraphy
AS IF this were still 1901 with Marconi getting his S in
Newfoundland. :-)

They think one MUST do the "CW" thing even if using a multi-
conversion, DSP-enhanced, digitial-synthesis frequency control
solid-state transceiver (using microprocessor assistance),
ready-built off-the-shelf plug-and-play. All to bang the carrier
ON or OFF in order to communicate! :-)

1906 thinking in 2006. Ptui.




Slow Code October 28th 06 01:30 AM

Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
 
Mark in the Dark' wrote in
:


SNIP-Len Andersons gas and Morkins bull**** removed


What a waste of perfectly good bandwidth.

SC

Slow Code October 28th 06 01:30 AM

Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
 
" wrote in
oups.com:


wrote:
wrote:

A quarter wave whip at 73 MHz is only 3 1/4" long.


No, it isn't.

Wrong *again*, Len.


3 1/4 *FEET*, Jimmie. :-)

Not *wrong*, just a typo...too much pressure on the shift key. :-)

Tsk, Mother Superior trying to do her knuckle-spanking bit today?

Class was dismissed years ago, Jimmie, and your Habit is still
looking terrible on you...quit this trans-gender nonsense, okay?



I guess all the strokes have effected your typing.

SC

[email protected] October 28th 06 01:30 AM

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

A quarter wave whip at 73 MHz is only 3 1/4" long.


No, it isn't.

Wrong *again*, Len.


3 1/4 *FEET*, Jimmie. :-)


You wrote " not ', Len.

And who is "Jimmie"?

Not *wrong*, just a typo...


It's plain, flat out wrong, Len. You made a mistake.

One would think a self proclaimed "PROFESSIONAL IN RADIO" would catch
something that simple. But you missed it.

And you blame the messenger for pointing out *your* mistake.

too much pressure on the shift key. :-)


Looks more like a short-circuit between your head-phones ;-)

Tsk, Mother Superior trying to do her knuckle-spanking bit today?


Class was dismissed years ago, Jimmie, and your Habit is still
looking terrible on you...quit this trans-gender nonsense, okay?


Len, you're not funny.


[email protected] October 28th 06 01:39 AM

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


A quarter wave whip at 73 MHz is only 3 1/4" long.


No, it isn't.


Wrong *again*, Len.


3 1/4 *FEET*, Jimmie. :-)


You didn't write FEET, Len. You used the symbol for INCHES.

You were wrong.

Not *wrong*,


It was wrong, Len. Just plain flat out wrong.

just a typo...too much pressure on the shift key. :-)


Maybe this explains it:

Story:

http://www.local6.com/education/10097181/detail.html

Rankings:

http://www.local6.com/education/10097048/detail.html

PA: 10th
MN: 13th
TN: 30th
OH: 34th
CA: 47th

Tsk, Mother Superior trying to do her knuckle-spanking bit today?


When did you join a convent, Len?

Class was dismissed years ago, Jimmie, and your Habit is still
looking terrible on you...quit this trans-gender nonsense, okay?


What *are* you blubbering about, Len?


Dave Heil October 28th 06 01:44 AM

Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of hamradio?
 
wrote:
wrote:
A quarter wave whip at 73 MHz is only 3 1/4" long.


No, it isn't.

Wrong *again*, Len.


Sheesh!

Unbelievable...

Dave K8MN


Dee Flint October 28th 06 01:53 AM

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

wrote in message
ups.com...
wrote:

A quarter wave whip at 73 MHz is only 3 1/4" long.


No, it isn't.

Wrong *again*, Len.


I guess he just doesn't know the difference between feet and inches.

Dee, N8UZE



[email protected] October 28th 06 01:47 PM

Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
 
wrote:
From:
on Thurs, Oct 26 2006 3:36am
wrote:
From: "Dee Flint" on Sun, Oct 22 2006 8:47am
"Opus-" wrote in message


Look around *this* newsgroup. See any "help" in *here*?


Sure do. This newsgroup isn't all of amateur radio, though. In fact,
it's a very small group.

The divisiveness stems from the fact that too many no-coders
appear to want to change the requirements with no knowledge, experience, or
understanding of the requirements.


Nonsense.


No, it's the truth.


"Truth" only in the bound-and-determined olde-tymers who
want things kept without change.


You mean like olde-tymers who want the zoning in their neighborhood to
stay the
same forever? There's at least one of those "in this newsgroup".

Pro-coders do NOT have some "lock" on What The
Requirements Should Be.


Nobody says they do.


Lots of "nobodies" in this newsgroup, then... :-)


It's not all about *you*, Len ;-)

They never did, despite all the
pro-code propaganda drilled into your respective psyches.


No such "propaganda", Len.


You've been Conditioned,


Not at all.

Conditioned thinking
stuck there by the ARRL for decades...since before you
were able to read...


How? By facts and experience?

It should be quite obvious that every other radio service
has either given up on using morse code for communications
or never considered it in the first place.


Why is that important to *amateur radio* policy, Len? Amateurs *do* use
Morse Code - extensively.


Amateur radio POLICY in regards to LICENSE TEST requirements,


License TEST requirements.


That doesn't answer my question at all, Len.

Why are the modes used or not used by *other* radio services important
to
the license test requirements for an *amateur radio* license?

Shouldn't the modes used by radio amateurs be most important to the
license test requirements for an *amateur radio* license?

The FCC does NOT mandate exclusive use of radiotelegraphy
by US radio amateurs. All allocated modes are OPTIONAL
to use. If all allocated modes are OPTIONAL to use,
why continue a specific pass-fail TEST in ONE MODE?


Because that mode is a big part of amateur radio operation, and skill
in the use of that mode cannot be adequately tested otherwise. And
because there needs to be some testing on the things an Amateur Radio
license authorizes licensees to do.

What you're saying, once all the bluster is removed, is that since hams
are not required to *use* Morse Code, they should not be required to
*learn* Morse Code.

The problem is that if the same idea is applied to other modes, most of
the rest of the license requirements go away.

For example:

The FCC does not require exclusive use of radiotelephone modes by US
radio amateurs. Those modes are all optional to use. Why should there
be any questions on radiotelephone modes on the tests for an amateur
radio license?

The FCC does not require exclusive use of data modes by US radio
amateurs. Those modes are all optional to use. Why should there be any
questions on data modes on the tests for an amateur radio license?

The FCC does not require exclusive use of VHF bands by US radio
amateurs. Choice of band is entirely optional. Why should there be any
questions on VHF on the tests for an amateur radio license?

Etc.

Go down that path for any distance and there's almost nothing left of
the written test. Is that what you want? I think it is.


[email protected] October 28th 06 10:16 PM

Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
 
From: "Dee Flint" on Fri, Oct 27 2006 8:53pm

wrote in message
wrote:

A quarter wave whip at 73 MHz is only 3 1/4" long.


No, it isn't.

Wrong *again*, Len.

I guess he just doesn't know the difference between feet and inches.


I guess you did NOT read my admission of a typo?

Of course not, you have me "killfiled" because my comments
are just so "horrid" at not speaking the ARRL party line.

An approximation of a quarter-wave monopole in FEET
is 234/(frequency in MHz).

234 / 73 = 3.205 FEET.

Tsk, the nit-pickers just didn't do the math. A quarter
is NOT '0.205' but 0.250. Nobody checked that out. :-)

Not even N2EY, the Mother Superior of the newsgroup who
scrutinizes all of my postings with a beady eye, ready
to have a "WRONG" orgy, hopping up and down in glee at
"mistakes" and "errors" that "always" occur. :-)

Dee, since you have me "killfiled" you won't see this
post. I won't hold that against you. It's just another
"ostrich syndrome" of the pro-coders refusing to see the
reality of now. :-)




[email protected] October 28th 06 10:23 PM

Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
 
From: "an_old_friend" on Fri, Oct 27 2006 4:15pm

wrote:
wrote:
On 27 Oct 2006 10:28:38 -0700, "
From:
on Thurs, Oct 26 2006 3:36am


not if that life belong to a NoCode ham it seems


There's been NO real input on hams saving lives by "CW" lately.
"Lately" being in the last few decades. The best the pro-coders
can come up with is some small-displacement ship going down
somewhere in the UK territory on New Year's Eve...NOT doing
the "CW" comms thing ON ham bands.


I love that story that it is trotted out is just a measure of how
desperate they are


That supposedly happened several years ago. But, it's
about the only "proof" the pro-code-testers have for
"enforcement" of the code test. Too bad they can't
effectively argue their case to the United States Coast
Guard. The USCG quit monitoring the 500 KHz inter-
national maritime distress frequency about the same time.


Army field radio was already dropping radiotelegraphy comms
DURING the active phase of the Korean War (i.e., prior to 1953).
Some of it was used in southeast Asia in the following decade.


really? are you tlaking about just local stuff or long haul korea to
stateside stuff geting a better feel for the timeline I was under the
impression that army pretty weel stay with cw/code through most of
korea then switched pretty quickly


Really. The "medium-haul" radio comms (50 to 200 miles, roughly)
was handled by the more-mobile AN/GRC-26 (hut on a deuce and a
half truck towing a MG set) where the TTY was favored for its
already-written messages followed by simultaneous voice. The
bulk of land-to-land messaging was handled by the "TRCs" or
transportable radio relay sets carrying four multiplexed voice
channels. Each voice channel could handle four TTY circuits.
All of that was left-over stuff from World War II.

Short-range comms were handled almost exclusively by FM voice
from the AN/PRC-6 (2nd generation HT, introduced just before
1950) and the manpacks ranging from SCR-300 (original "walkie-
talkie" of WWII) to the AN/PRC-8 through -10 (in the three
overlapping "line" bands just introduced). Vehicular radios
were a whole series of "VRCs" now arranged in the "line"
bands at high-HF to low-VHF running voice FM. Many of those
VRCs had become known as "tank radios" of WWII under their
"SCR-" IDs.

Fans of the AN/GRC-9 would be disappointed in the LACK of use
of that WWII relic and its arm-wasting manual generator. It
operated only at low-HF. Tactically, it was a throwback to
pre-WWII days of military radio and didn't suit the rapidly-
shifting field tactics in Korea.

Long-haul radio comms in Korea (beyond 200 miles) was almost
exclusively HF TTY plus all the wireline TTY (land permitting).
Comms to FEC Hq in Tokyo was a mix of VHF radio relay, HF TTY
(direct), and wireline (including underwater cable to cross
the sea). Some of that was encrypted TTY using a second-
generation system similar to the rolling-code "SIGABA" of the
second world war times. [never cracked until the USS Pueblo
was captured nearly intact]

In the early 1960s and the heating up of the Southeast Asia
Live Fire Exercise, the AN/PRC-25 channel-tuned VHF FM voice
portable made its debut. The "Prick-25" became the radio of
choice for land field units. All solid-state except for the
final PA, a battery-filament tube. A few years later the
AN/PRC-77 was introduced with ALL-solid-state active devices.
Over 120,000 PRC-25s and PRC-77s were manufactured. The
PRC-8 to PRC-10 series was also used but the high turnover
in personnel made the PRC-25 favored due to easy operation.

VHF and UHF radio relay was the major comms carrier in SE
Asia during the Vietnam War. Multi-channel voice, each voice
channel could handle several multiplexed TTY circuits. Most
firebases were identifiable by the antenna structures for
those radio relay sets. Radio relay on VHF-UHF was a huge
operation but never well-publicized in amateur radio mags.

Vehicular comms were still done by the VRCs in Vietnam but,
the lack of terrain for effective armor limited that to the
supplies vehicles. Long-haul comms to Japan and Hawaii
Hqs were done by HF TTY, either direct or relayed through
Manila or Okinawa. [Far East Command Hq was transferred
from Tokyo to Fort Shafter, HI, about 1958 although there
were relays (HF TTY) through USAF-maintained HF radio near
Tokyo to link to the States; USAF took over the USA HF
radio facilities there in 1963]

Experiments with satellite commsats began during the Vietnam
War but those were largely just experiments. They got PR
because satcomm was new and noteworthy to news editors,
seemed exciting with big, big antenna dishes, etc. Satcomm
ops never took off until after the Vietnam War was over
in 1973. Once the satcomms' relay was possible, the use of
HF for long-haul circuits was relegated to a standby role.

It's a much-ballyhooed MYTH that "CW" was essential to
radio comms even during WWII. [maybe it was due to
Hollywood liking the mystique of morsemen at their keys
with headphones on and doing the thousand-yard stare?]
The major long-haul comms circuits were TTY even then.
In the electronics trade shows of the early 1970s, the
Teletype Corporation was displaying a gold-plated TTY
terminal as the half-millionth! The already-WRITTEN
messages were always preferred by field commanders for
accuracy and reliability. An added plus was that TTY
could be encrypted ON-LINE when needs be, even for the
USN as far back as 1940. The famous Command Sets of
WWII aircraft were used primarily in voice mode, by the
pilots; was very little time to have the radio op write
down messages and bring them up to the cockpit; radio
ops on B-17s and B-24s were basically gunners first,
radiomen second. Liason Sets were seldom used and then
only when the air was "peaceful" over friendly territory.


Then explain the prevailing attitude in *here* (and you
are one of them) about "only" licensed amateurs "should"
comment about amateur radio regulations? :-)

and why Dee and dave and Steve even go so far as to claim I a ham
should not be allowed to coment on the CW rules


Sigh...well they've "denied" doing so, keep asking "where did I
[they] write such words?" They didn't say so outright but the
INTENT was plain as day at noontime.


funy how if they don't really mean that and Morse Code makes them such
great comicating that they are so consistantly misunderstood


The morsemen in here have RANK, STATUS, PRIVILEGE and
Vanity (note the 1x2 calls seen in here)...lobbied for
by the much-older hams who were after rank, status,
privilege due to morsemanship. These morsemen are the
"best" and they don't hesitate to tell everyone so.
They demand obediance to their wishes...which is to
maintain their rank, status, privilege due to morseman-
ship...and their perceived ability ('nobility?') to
look down on all the no-code-test advocates as if they
are somehow "better." AS IF... :-(

Funny how operating abilities of the 1930s isn't
"appreciated" in the 2000s. [morsemen are quaintly out
of date]



Feel free to "correct me." :-) The olde-tymers try to do
that a LOT in here... :-)

The dam recreation area in the L.A. San Fernando Valley has
a very large turn-out most every weekend here. At Apollo Field
there can be (easy) 50 R-C flyers there. [it is the major location
for flying in the huge Los Angeles area] MOST R-C flyers are
a considerate bunch and TRY to avoid interference. But, not all
R-C units are frequency-mobile. The emphasis is on the
MODELS not the radios...the FLYING (for model aircraft) rather
than the "operating."


that they try but it is secondary the abilty of the RC gruop is largely
depneant In my expernce on just how the local frequecny coordinators
are able to get people on to lots of freqs in fringe area where the
shop are feww and large college is around somed ay you do have 50
plane trying to operate on 4 or 5 frq
in larger area the hobby shop and tend in placing orders for stuff to
spread the new folks around an advantage yYOU get in your area or would
around SF but out between hobby shop things get weird

(right now trying to duck being given the job of trying to coordinate
the freqs round here Indeed I often spend a lot helping recrytal and
tune the units


Frequency coordination is ALWAYS a problem in ANY radio service.
It gets worse when there are thousands of users in a relatively
small locale. The FCC long ago gave up on trying to coordinate
the PLMRS users and delegated that to the individual private
user groups...public safety, railroad, businesses, etc.

It didn't help the model hobby industry to come out with fixed-
frequency R-C Tx and Rx in order to sell them at lower cost...
and makes them lighter (important for flying models). The trend
now is to have frequency-synthesis techniques on receivers; it
is easier to that in transmitter boxes (plenty of room, not a
weight problem). Considerate modelers will be aware of who is
using what channel, do the "flag" display thing (if appropriate)
and try not to cause another model any catastrophy. [a model
helo can cost up to $500, hardly a toy...anyone who deliberately
interferes with one causing a crash will have the helo owner
physically confronting the interferer...not so usual with an
amateur radio interferer]

One problem with frequency coordination is the territoriality
of thinking that a coordinate frequency is ONLY for the intended
use and those not WITH a coordinator shouldn't be there. In
model flying that would be the casual "park flyer" who is not a
local club member. In amateur radio it is some casual user
unaware of the "authorized" nature of coordinate frequencies;
yet the FCC allows all the OPTION of using any allocated mode
in any allocated band. The FCC catches that with the "do not
interfere with another user" requirement common to every radio
service. Problem is, interference still happens. :-)




Dave Heil October 29th 06 12:44 AM

Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of hamradio?
 
wrote:
wrote:
From:
on Thurs, Oct 26 2006 3:36am
wrote:
From: "Dee Flint" on Sun, Oct 22 2006 8:47am
"Opus-" wrote in message


Look around *this* newsgroup. See any "help" in *here*?


Sure do. This newsgroup isn't all of amateur radio, though. In fact,
it's a very small group.


....and I've seen very few looking for any help here. In fact, this
group has had quite a number of instant experts.

The divisiveness stems from the fact that too many no-coders
appear to want to change the requirements with no knowledge, experience, or
understanding of the requirements.


Nonsense.


No, it's the truth.


"Truth" only in the bound-and-determined olde-tymers who
want things kept without change.


You mean like olde-tymers who want the zoning in their neighborhood to
stay the
same forever? There's at least one of those "in this newsgroup".


Do you mean that bound-and-determined olde-tymer in California?

Pro-coders do NOT have some "lock" on What The
Requirements Should Be.


Nobody says they do.


Lots of "nobodies" in this newsgroup, then... :-)


It's not all about *you*, Len ;-)


They never did, despite all the
pro-code propaganda drilled into your respective psyches.


No such "propaganda", Len.


You've been Conditioned,


Not at all.

Conditioned thinking
stuck there by the ARRL for decades...since before you
were able to read...


How? By facts and experience?


I think Len means the standard ARRL conditioning program, the one where
we all practice ARRL-think and the one by which we all stuff checks into
envelopes and mail them to the League periodically.

It should be quite obvious that every other radio service
has either given up on using morse code for communications
or never considered it in the first place.


Why is that important to *amateur radio* policy, Len? Amateurs *do* use
Morse Code - extensively.

Amateur radio POLICY in regards to LICENSE TEST requirements,


License TEST requirements.


That doesn't answer my question at all, Len.

Why are the modes used or not used by *other* radio services important
to
the license test requirements for an *amateur radio* license?

Shouldn't the modes used by radio amateurs be most important to the
license test requirements for an *amateur radio* license?


Len really can't answer that one, Jim. He hasn't had a real answer for
it in over a decade.

The FCC does NOT mandate exclusive use of radiotelegraphy
by US radio amateurs. All allocated modes are OPTIONAL
to use. If all allocated modes are OPTIONAL to use,
why continue a specific pass-fail TEST in ONE MODE?


Because that mode is a big part of amateur radio operation, and skill
in the use of that mode cannot be adequately tested otherwise. And
because there needs to be some testing on the things an Amateur Radio
license authorizes licensees to do.

What you're saying, once all the bluster is removed, is that since hams
are not required to *use* Morse Code, they should not be required to
*learn* Morse Code.

The problem is that if the same idea is applied to other modes, most of
the rest of the license requirements go away.

For example:

The FCC does not require exclusive use of radiotelephone modes by US
radio amateurs. Those modes are all optional to use. Why should there
be any questions on radiotelephone modes on the tests for an amateur
radio license?

The FCC does not require exclusive use of data modes by US radio
amateurs. Those modes are all optional to use. Why should there be any
questions on data modes on the tests for an amateur radio license?

The FCC does not require exclusive use of VHF bands by US radio
amateurs. Choice of band is entirely optional. Why should there be any
questions on VHF on the tests for an amateur radio license?

Etc.

Go down that path for any distance and there's almost nothing left of
the written test. Is that what you want? I think it is.


Len's not sure of what he's *for*, but he knows damned well what he is
*against*.

He is against morse testing, the ARRL, overly-proud radio amateurs and
Fessenden among others.

Dave K8MN

[email protected] October 29th 06 01:22 AM

Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
 
From: on Sat, Oct 28 2006 12:32pm

On 28 Oct 2006 05:47:32 -0700,
wrote:
wrote:
From:
on Thurs, Oct 26 2006 3:36am
wrote:
From: "Dee Flint" on Sun, Oct 22 2006 8:47am
"Opus-" wrote in message


Look around *this* newsgroup. See any "help" in *here*?


Sure do. This newsgroup isn't all of amateur radio, though. In fact,
it's a very small group.


and non of th OT are good helpfull hams including yourself


Tsk. Miccolis imagines he is "helpful." His concept of
"helpful" is everyone doing as he says, thinking what he
thinks. That's not reality. It's 'hive mind' stuff.

It might be that Miccolis doesn't understand 'reality.'
He says he "lives in the ham bands." The rest of us
live in residences like houses or apartments. He has
funny ideas of zoning laws and how they affect hundreds
of peoples' lives about THEIR neighborhood, not to
mention local tax laws.

Miccolis is off on some Hate kick. He just can't stand
opposition to his beloved ARRL's ideas or anyone
gasp! disagreeing with the mighty of Newington.
Therefore he stretches even his concept of reality to
the breaking point...and broke it more than once. He
NEEDS to find the worst of everyone disagreeing with
him. A sort of junior-league Major Dud (Robeson) now.

1906 thinking in 2006. Ptui.




[email protected] October 29th 06 08:05 PM

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

Slow Code wrote:
Opus- wrote in
:

Don't you have some offs to ****?



Why do no-coders always break down in the middle of an argument and start
spewing profanities? I just don't understand it. It must be do to their
limited mental abilities.

Opus being a Cannuk probably doesn't help either.

SC


Removing the code requirement at this late date would do little to
increase the number of hams applying for a license. At one time,
possibly 30 years ago it would have made sense to replace the code test
with one that emphasizes skills that actually have a use in the real
world. Sadly, I think that there is little that can be done to attract
younger hams into the hobby. There are just too many license-free ways
of communicating with people from around the world.



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:19 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com