wrote:
Chuck Harris wrote:
wrote:
Slow Code wrote:
Chuck Harris wrote in
:
Slow Code wrote:
Chuck Harris wrote in
While you are being all holier than thou, what did you design and
build for your main rig? I'm hoping to be impressed, but expecting to
be disappointed.
Did the code help you with the design?
I took my Advanced class test down at 1919 M street 36 years ago. I
had to sit at the desk and copy one solid minute out of five error
free at 13WPM. I passed it on the first try. I almost failed the
sending test, as I had never spent much time doing that. I had never
made a code contact before my test, and I have only made a couple
since.
The thing about code contacts is they never seem to want to say
anything beyond:
WA3XXX DE W6XX RST 5NN WX FB 73 W6XX SK

That's not the case when I operate Morse Code.

For me, it depends on what I'm doing. If I'm chasing DX, I don't expect
the other op to give me his life's story or to go into detail on the
weather in the Kermadecs. On the other hand, I nice a nice, long
ragchew with K8ATM in Michigan on 80m CW just a couple of evenings ago.
Our chat laster about 35 minutes.

I have listened to hundreds of CW contacts, and the above is mostly the norm.
I exaggerate a bit, but it is rare that anyone talks about anything other
than a few very simple things. I have yet to listen to a complex conversation
on CW... The most complicated thing I have heard is W1AW code practice, and
some of the traffic nets.

Listening is one thing, participating is another. I've had many, many
CW QSOs that were far more complex than your example. Discussions of
rigs, antennas, jobs, family, plans for the near future (vacation, home
improvement, etc.), experiences in the other's location, and much more.

Ditto.

The stereotypical hello/goodbye QSO is usually the result of these
factors: poor conditions, unskilled operator(s), nature of the QSO (DX,
contest, just checking a new rig)

....or you just might have run into one of the silent types. I run into
them on the Fone modes too.

Of course somebody has to initiate - to say something beyond hello...

Yep.

How does that help the cause of amateur radio?
I have designed and built numerous rf receivers and transmitters, many
are employed by the US Army for various uses. I have fixed many
different radios from tube stuff through DSP driven affairs.
How exactly did the code help me to do this?

Well, I don't know about you. But for me, knowing Morse Code meant I
could build and use simple(r) radio systems to try out an idea.

I don't think that every thing we do needs to be toward "helping the
cause of amateur radio".


For me code was a means to an end. I wanted my license, so I learned
the code.
There were plenty of rude, profane, and generally unpleasant hams on
the air back when all had to pass the test in the offices of the FCC.
I don't remember that at all.
Well, you wouldn't if you spent all of your time on CW.

Good point!

Well, it *may* be a good point but I listened to both fone and CW as a
kid, before obtaining my license. I continued to listen to the fone
bands as a new ham. I don't recall much in way of rudeness or profanity
in those days, certainly not as we see it now. I didn't meet more than
a couple of hams who would not go out of their way to provide an assist
either.

Things are very
polite on those subbands.

Isn't that a reason to promote the mode?

That's one very good reason to do so.

If however, you ever listened to 20 meters
around 14.313, you might have a different idea of what ham radio was about.
For some reason that frequency was full of profane garbage mouthed hams,
and lots of infighting in the '70s and '80s.

Sure. But how many hams were involved, out of the hundreds of thousands
on the air?

....and isn't it nice that they generally worked their unpleasant magic
on a few spot frequencies.

I haven't noticed that things are any worse now. About the only real
difference is in the quality of the gear folks are running. It is
much better than the crappy stuff that was on the air back in the
early 70's.

There were good and bad rigs then as well as now.

Perhaps, but nothing like some of the very cheap sweep tube transceivers of
the late 1960's, and early '70's. Swans that drifted furiously, and practically
invented the term TVI...

Swan gear mostly drifted. It gave rise to some Cincinnati-area hams
telling ops with drifting gear that they were "swanning". Most other
gear had pretty good frequency stability. Back in those heady days, I
had a Hallicrafters HT-32B which was stable, a Hammarlund HX-50 which
was stable and a National NCX-5 which was very stable. The NCX-5 and
HX-50 used sweep tubes in their output stages and the signals they
transmitted were as clean as anything else on the air.

Sure - but remember that those rigs were designed 40+ years ago. They
should be judged by the standards of their time.

Absolutely, but my point is that there were sweep tube rigs with
stability and clean signals. Remember the Drake TR-3, TR-4 and T-4
series? Sweep tubes all and very clean.

What are the bad HF SSB rigs of today? I would bet that even the absolute
worst is cleaner than anything that was available in the '60's, and '70's...
If only because the regulations got tighter on spurious emissions from new
gear.

It depends on what you consider "bad". Last FD we had some rigs that
were unusable because they put out wideband phase noise that messed up
stations on adjacent bands! Those rigs might have met the letter of the
law when new, but they sure made a lot of hash in the real world.

Even some of the better rigs of the eighties and nineties had that
problem. The TS-930, 940 and 950 and the IC-751 put out plenty of phase
noise. The Yaesu FT-1000MP (and all Mark-anything versions) put out key
clix like nobody's business.

OTOH, serviceability of many ham rigs is very low. Even if you can deal
with SMT, a lot of them use house-numbered parts that become unobtanium
in a few years.

....and many of those older rigs can still be kept on the air.

Even 34 years ago, there were study guides that had questions from the
pool used by the FCC. If you could memorize the answers to those
questions, you were virtually assured of passing. I used the ARRL
handbook as my guide.

Do you mean the License Manual?

Nope, I did my Advanced from basic principles. I used the ARRL Radio
Amateur's Handbook as my guide to rules and regulations. The technical
side of my studying came from the handbook, and a variety of other radio
and engineering sources.

Same here - all the way to Extra in 1970.

I used both the License Manual and the Handbook.

It did not have the exact questions and answers in it.

I looked at friend's copy of one of the the license manuals that was available
after my test, and the questions and answers were very close. It was nothing
like the manuals that are available today, but still so close as to be a cheat.


There were a couple of different license manuals available back then.

The ARRL LM was a reprint of FCC's study guide. Those FCC study guides
were produced by FCC to indicate the areas of knowledge you needed to
have for the test. They were essay format even though the tests were
multiple-choice.

The FCC didn't consider the License Manual to be a "cheat". To do so,
their own study guide would have been a "cheat".

AMECO and others rewrote them into multiple choice format.

I remember the AMECO books. I've glanced through them but never used 'em.

A fellow named Dick Bash stationed himself outside FCC offices and
bought information from people who had just taken the tests. He was
able to recreate a pretty close version of the actual test by that
method. FCC decided not to prosecute him even though he published books
that were very close to the actual tests.

But a very large flap ensued over Bash.

Then it all became academic with the VE system.

(extraneous newsgroups deleted)

Dave K8MN

Chuck Harris wrote:
wrote:
Chuck Harris wrote:

Things are very
polite on those subbands.

Isn't that a reason to promote the mode?

To promote the mode, sure, but to require it no.

One way to promote a mode is to give it significant band space.

I could make the same claim
about RTTY, and Slow Scan. When they were popular, folks on those modes were
all as polite as could be.

The difference is that only Morse Code requires skills that the average
person does not have.

The impolite behavior seems to center around SSB. Probably because the mode
requires essentially no effort.

Maybe. I think there are many causes.

If however, you ever listened to 20 meters
around 14.313, you might have a different idea of what ham radio was about.
For some reason that frequency was full of profane garbage mouthed hams,
and lots of infighting in the '70s and '80s.

Sure. But how many hams were involved, out of the hundreds of thousands
on the air?

It only takes a few. As I remember from those SSB wars in the '70's and
'80's, a several hams were prosecuted. They were all General Class or higher.
And because of the time frame, in which they were licensed, they had passed
the CW hurdle. I recall that playing with their keyers on the SSB segment was
part of their hijinks. A whole lot of "FU" and other acronyms were mixed in
with the echo boxes, and microphone raking.

They were a few out of hundreds of thousands.

And yes, they all passed the Morse Code test - supposedly, anyhow. But
they also passed one or more *written* tests which included questions
on acceptable on-air behavior. Why don't the written tests get the
blame?

Look at the recent case of Jack Gerritsen, ex-KG6IRO. What possible
reason is there for his behavior?

I haven't noticed that things are any worse now. About the only real
difference is in the quality of the gear folks are running. It is
much better than the crappy stuff that was on the air back in the
early 70's.
There were good and bad rigs then as well as now.
Perhaps, but nothing like some of the very cheap sweep tube transceivers of
the late 1960's, and early '70's. Swans that drifted furiously, and practically
invented the term TVI...

Sure - but remember that those rigs were designed 40+ years ago. They
should be judged by the standards of their time.

And I was. But today's rigs, when judged by the ear are more pleasant to
listen to.

Some are, some aren't - IMHO.

What are the bad HF SSB rigs of today? I would bet that even the absolute
worst is cleaner than anything that was available in the '60's, and '70's...
If only because the regulations got tighter on spurious emissions from new
gear.

It depends on what you consider "bad". Last FD we had some rigs that
were unusable because they put out wideband phase noise that messed up
stations on adjacent bands! Those rigs might have met the letter of the
law when new, but they sure made a lot of hash in the real world.

Fortunately, that wideband phase noise doesn't carry beyond a few hundred
yards from the radio. It used to be a really big problem with the early
solid state radios... But not so much so with the newer rigs.

The rigs that gave us headaches were only a few years old.

Field Day was
where I first noticed the effect.... Key the mike, and all bands were awash
in hiss, even before the first word was spoken. Icom comes to mind.

Bingo.

Having a Clegg FM27B around on field day is a real treat too...not!

OTOH, serviceability of many ham rigs is very low. Even if you can deal
with SMT, a lot of them use house-numbered parts that become unobtanium
in a few years.

Entirely the result of meeting the customer's demands for in expensive
feature laden radios that fit in packages smaller than a dictionary.

Are those really customer demands, or are they driven by the
manufacturers who want to sell more radios?

...
It did not have the exact questions and answers in it.
I looked at friend's copy of one of the the license manuals that was available
after my test, and the questions and answers were very close. It was nothing
like the manuals that are available today, but still so close as to be a cheat.

There were a couple of different license manuals available back then.

The ARRL LM was a reprint of FCC's study guide. Those FCC study guides
were produced by FCC to indicate the areas of knowledge you needed to
have for the test. They were essay format even though the tests were
multiple-choice.

AMECO and others rewrote them into multiple choice format.

I think my friends "manual" might have been Ameco.

Very possible.

A fellow named Dick Bash stationed himself outside FCC offices and
bought information from people who had just taken the tests. He was
able to recreate a pretty close version of the actual test by that
method. FCC decided not to prosecute him even though he published books
that were very close to the actual tests.

I don't think Bash was doing that until after the VE system came on line...
but I don't recall for sure.

It was the other way around. Bash did his thing in the early 1970s. The
VE system came to be in the early 1980s. The VE system put Bash out of
business because the question pools became public then.

...
What good are technical *discussions* if they don't translate into
actual working radio systems?
I have built and operated a number of entirely home brew radios.

Exactly. *You* are not an appliance operator - nor are you calling
anybody else an appliance operator.

Actually, these days for what little operating I do, I am an appliance
operator. Because of my early ham experience, and the fact that I am
an EE, I know how to design and build, even if I don't chose to do so
right now. Ham radio probably figures heavily in my being an EE.

Same here - except I'm still homebrewing.

My general belief is if you have passed the test that is in force, you
are a ham... period.

Agreed!

Beyond passing whatever is required, I don't care
how you got here, just what you do now that you are here.

Agreed again!

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Chuck Harris" wrote in message
...
Slow Code wrote:

Even 34 years ago, there were study guides that had questions from the
pool used by the FCC. If you could memorize the answers to those
questions, you were virtually assured of passing. I used the ARRL
handbook as my guide.

You didn't answer my questions about the home brew rig you are using.

-Chuck


Construction projects you or I have done aren't important. Working to
insure ham radio doesn't turn into CB is important. Agreed?

Oh, I agree, but if you do too, then I have trouble understanding why
you are ragging on folks that are using store bought radios.



Slow Mind does not know that a Real Ham only uses a radio he built
himself. A Real Ham would not use one of those crappy store-bought
things.



-Chuck

William Warren wrote in
t:

Slow Code wrote:
What do you like best about appliance operating?

SC

+-------------------+ .:\:\:/:/:.
| PLEASE DO NOT | :.:\:\:/:/:.:
| FEED THE TROLLS | :=.' - - '.=:
| | '=(\ 9 9 /)='
| Thank you, | ( (_) )
| Management | /`-vvv-'\
+-------------------+ / \
| | @@@ / /|,,,,,|\ \
| | @@@ /_// /^\ \\_\
@x@@x@ | | |/ WW( ( ) )WW
\||||/ | | \| __\,,\ /,,/__
\||/ | | | jgs (______Y______)
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\//\/\\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
================================================== ====================






************************************************** ****
************************************************** ****
ATTENTION USENET VISITORS, THIS AREA HAS BEEN
DECLARED A TROLL WILDLIFE REFUGE. TO LEARN ABOUT
THE TROLL, ITS HABITAT, AND ITS WAY OF LIFE, PLEASE
READ THE SIGN-POST BELOW. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO LEARN
MORE ABOUT THE TROLL, YOU CAN PICK UP BOOKS AND
SOUVENIRS IN THE GIFT SHOP AT THE END OF THE TOUR.
THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR OBSERVING ALL TROLL WILDLIFE
REFUGE RULES, HAVE A NICE DAY.

************************************************** *****
************************************************** *****

-----------------------------------------
| Common name: Woodland Troll |
| Scientific name: Trollus Useneticus |
-----------------------------------------


################################################## ##########
# #
# PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS: #
# #
# The common woodland troll (Trollus Useneticus) is an #
# approximately 1.7m long nocturnal furry creature that #
# has been found to exist in nearly every climate and #
# latitude. Predominant features include: a very pale #
# complexion, a large bony ridge above the eyes, a dense #
# cranium, dragging knuckles, and a pungent odor. #
# #
################################################## ##########



################################################## ##########
# #
# HABITAT: #
# #
# Most trolls spend the daylight hours under a large rock #
# sleeping. Unfortunately, the natural habitat of the #
# troll has been encroached by development (as is all too #
# common these days). The modern troll has to make due #
# with a slimy, moss covered rock. Often, trolls are #
# forced to endure poor sanitation and filthy living #
# conditions. Combined with the general lack of hygiene #
# among trolls, this results in a very unpleasant odor. #
# #
################################################## ##########



################################################## ##########
# #
# ACTIVITIES AND DIET: #
# #
# During their active period at night, the common troll #
# engages in numerous activities, though the most #
# important of these is foraging for food. The one #
# characteristic that ties all different troll species #
# and sub-species together is their diet. Trolls #
# invariably survive off of a combination of cheetos, #
# arguments, and annoying others. A typical troll #
# requires approximately 10 arguments and flames per day #
# just to stay alive. With the increasing use of #
# killfiles and just regular ignoring of trolls, it has #
# become more and more difficult for trolls to eke out a #
# basic sustenance. #
# #
################################################## ##########



################################################## ##########
# #
# KNOWN PREDATORS: #
# #
# Unfortunately, trolls have many predators. Most common #
# among them are the helpful researcher, the informative #
# poster, the cool headed responder, and the kill-filer. #
# The cool header responder is technically not a troll #
# predator however. Trolls are typically unfazed by #
# logical counter arguments and cool headed reason. #
# However, even though their posts do not deliver the #
# same level of sustenance that a "flamer" or an "annoyed #
# poster" may provide, they still provide a valuable #
# source of dietary fiber for the troll. #
# #
# The most dangerous predators for the trolls are the #
# helpful researcher, the informative poster, and the #
# kill-filer. The common troll is highly allergic to #
# fact, real data, and research. Upon skin contact with #
# actual hard evidence and real data, the troll will #
# experience intense itching and burning at the site of #
# contact, followed by lesions and blisters. Eventually, #
# this results in loss of skin near the area of contact, #
# and usually to loss of a limb (in the example of #
# contact near the arm or leg). Contact with facts and #
# data near the facial area usually results in a slow #
# painful death. Contact with extremely high doses of #
# fact and hard data can cause temporary loss of #
# consciousness and even permanent brain damage for the #
# troll. #
# #
# The kill-filer poses a much more insidious threat to #
# the troll. Not posing a direct threat to the troll per #
# se, the kill-filer simply deprives the troll of yet #
# another source of nourishment. Some trolls have #
# developed counter measures to thwart the kill-filers, #
# usually this takes the form of a type of camoflage. #
# #
# The trolls' predators have reaped a terrible slaughter #
# over the years, resulting in the death of great hordes #
# of trolls. Trolls continue to breed rapidly though and #
# their population is stable. However, it is unknown how #
# long this situation can persist. Eventually, natural #
# predators and poachers may result in lower numbers of #
# trolls. Already we are seeing lower diversity among #
# the different troll species. That is why this troll #
# habitat refuge exists, to ensure the preservation of #
# the troll for not only our future, but the future of #
# our children. #
# #
################################################## ##########




================================================== ========
/ This troll habitat refuge has been paid for in part by /
/ the anti Troll-Defamation League, the International /
/ Society for the Advancement of Trolls, and the Troll /
/ Habitat Preservation Alliance. /
================================================== ========

"U-Know-Who" wrote in
:


"Slow Code" wrote in message
link.net...
Chuck Harris wrote in
:

Slow Code wrote:
Chuck Harris wrote in

While you are being all holier than thou, what did you design and
build for your main rig? I'm hoping to be impressed, but expecting
to be disappointed.

Did the code help you with the design?

I took my Advanced class test down at 1919 M street 36 years ago. I
had to sit at the desk and copy one solid minute out of five error
free at 13WPM. I passed it on the first try. I almost failed the
sending test, as I had never spent much time doing that. I had
never made a code contact before my test, and I have only made a
couple since.

The thing about code contacts is they never seem to want to say
anything beyond:

WA3XXX DE W6XX RST 5NN WX FB 73 W6XX SK

How does that help the cause of amateur radio?

I have designed and built numerous rf receivers and transmitters,
many are employed by the US Army for various uses. I have fixed
many different radios from tube stuff through DSP driven affairs.

How exactly did the code help me to do this?

For me code was a means to an end. I wanted my license, so I
learned the code.

There were plenty of rude, profane, and generally unpleasant hams on
the air back when all had to pass the test in the offices of the
FCC. I haven't noticed that things are any worse now. About the
only real difference is in the quality of the gear folks are
running. It is much better than the crappy stuff that was on the
air back in the early 70's.

-Chuck


Are conversations on repeaters as technical as they were twenty-five
years ago?

Oh, easily. 25 years ago, technical conversations were dominated by
such earth shatteringly important stuff as having a ham down at the
repeater site helping other hams tune their transmitters to be on
frequency. Other wonderkind were hitting the repeater with a full
quieting signal, and turning their power up to try and get a better
signal to that DX mobile that breaking up.

If it wasn't that, it was an endless sea of autopatches calling the
xyl to tell her that traffic was bad, could she start dinner... or
ordering pizza.


Me? I hear no-codes and nickle extras arguing how long a half wave
dipole should be.

I heard the same things 25 years ago from Generals that got their
licenses at the offices of the FCC.

Even 34 years ago, there were study guides that had questions from the
pool used by the FCC. If you could memorize the answers to those
questions, you were virtually assured of passing. I used the ARRL
handbook as my guide.

You didn't answer my questions about the home brew rig you are using.

-Chuck


Construction projects you or I have done aren't important. Working to
insure ham radio doesn't turn into CB is important. Agreed?

SC

SC, tell us all, and don't lie. Do you not agree that a LOT of hams
today were CB'ers in the '70's and chose to advance their radio skills
by advancing to ham radio? If you disagree, then 1) you're a liar, and
2) did this not help the service? And thusly, if you disagree I suspect
you fit into this mold, and choose to deny your past.


I'm sure a lot of hams migrated from citizens band, but up until about the
last 16 years, they had to pass a real ham test to get in. Not dumbed
down tests like we have today.

SC

wrote in
oups.com:


Caveat Lector wrote:
When you passed the FCC exam - you are an Amateur Radio Operator period
-- plain and simple.

Whether you passed a 20 wpm code test or no code - you are a Ham

Whether you had to draw the schematic for a Colpitts Oscillator or not
- you are a Ham

Whether you faced the steely-eyed FCC examiner or a VE -- you are a Ham

Those who say otherwise are shrouded in elitism and a synonym for
elitism is snobbery - plain and simple

This is 2006, not 1920

CL

You got that right.


It's nice to see a couple 11 meter jockeys agreeing with each other.

SC

gwatts wrote in
:

Slow Code wrote:
gwatts wrote in
:


Slow Code wrote:

gwatts wrote in
:



Slow Code wrote:


What do you like best about appliance operating?

All the crotchety old farts are either off somewhere
beep-beep-beeping away on CW or bitching to each other on the lower
half of the 80m phone band, so it's easy to avoid them and talk to
someone who enjoys ham radio as it is instead of whining about how it
was.



Big Ten-Four on that Good Buddy.

It sounds like you run a lot of 11m, not surprising considering how
much you whine, and it's not alternator whine.



I only typed like because I knew you would understand that style of
communicating. So, after your license came in the mail what I
appliance did you decide to buy? MFJ? Alinco? Cobra?

Kenwood TS-820S. I got a good deal because it had a few bugs. I spent
some of the evenings between the exam session and my ticket arriving
(that would be my GENERAL ticket, I skipped Novice and Technician) going
through it cleaning switches, adding ground straps to a couple circuit
boards and adding 17m to the 'AUX' position on the band switch. By the
time my ticket arrived in the mail it was ready. I worked Clipperton
Island the second day I was on the air and didn't realize it was quite
the DX catch until months later.

So, after your license came in the mail what did you start weenie
whining about first?

W8LNA


I made a lot of contacts on CW. I knew it was what I had to do to be a
valuable asset to the service and I had a lot of fun communicating with
other CW ops around the world. I was always surprised at how good the
Russians were at CW. Doing CW helped me get get my skills up and I
quickly passed my 20 wpm Extra. (the real Extra)

Now I try to help other hams and potential hams on radio and on usenet,
but the usenet hams are so lazy they don't want to learn anything. They
want licensing to be dumbed down some more.

SC

Slow Code wrote:
....

Now I try to help other hams and potential hams on radio and on usenet,

No you don't, you come here and grind your ax for some reason. You want
to help? Be positive about ham radio, all of ham radio and not just the
niche you want to inhabit. Open your eyes, see the whole hobby and
realize those that don't share your tastes are just as competent or
incompetent as you.

but the usenet hams are so lazy they don't want to learn anything. They
want licensing to be dumbed down some more.

Translation: They want to keep up with technology and eliminate testing
on methods that are plainly antiquated and waning in usefulness and I
don't want things to change so I don't lose my relative (perceived)
status among hams.

W8LNA

gwatts wrote in
:

Slow Code wrote:
...

Now I try to help other hams and potential hams on radio and on usenet,

No you don't, you come here and grind your ax for some reason. You want
to help? Be positive about ham radio, all of ham radio and not just the
niche you want to inhabit. Open your eyes, see the whole hobby and
realize those that don't share your tastes are just as competent or
incompetent as you.

but the usenet hams are so lazy they don't want to learn anything. They
want licensing to be dumbed down some more.

Translation: They want to keep up with technology and eliminate testing
on methods that are plainly antiquated and waning in usefulness and I
don't want things to change so I don't lose my relative (perceived)
status among hams.

W8LNA



What has everyone got against having good effective communicators?
Sheesh, I'm I the only one that wants good hams?

SC

On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 23:45:02 GMT, Slow Code wrote:

gwatts wrote in
:

Slow Code wrote:
...

Now I try to help other hams and potential hams on radio and on usenet,

No you don't, you come here and grind your ax for some reason. You want
to help? Be positive about ham radio, all of ham radio and not just the
niche you want to inhabit. Open your eyes, see the whole hobby and
realize those that don't share your tastes are just as competent or
incompetent as you.

but the usenet hams are so lazy they don't want to learn anything. They
want licensing to be dumbed down some more.

Translation: They want to keep up with technology and eliminate testing
on methods that are plainly antiquated and waning in usefulness and I
don't want things to change so I don't lose my relative (perceived)
status among hams.

W8LNA



What has everyone got against having good effective communicators?
no body but you is aginst effective comms
Sheesh, I'm I the only one that wants good hams?

you are one those that wants to exclude Good hams

SC
http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com