![]() |
only dumbass`s...
ah ha ha **** no not good people jsut the DUMBASS ones!
``The Watchman`` I Am Watching You... |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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. |
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of hamradio?
|
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 |
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 |
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 |
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
|
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 |
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! ... |
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! ... |
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
|
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... |
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 |
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 |
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? |
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. |
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 |
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. |
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
|
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. |
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. |
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
|
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? |
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. |
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 |
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 |
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. |
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? |
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of hamradio?
|
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 |
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. |
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. :-) |
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. :-) |
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 |
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. |
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