| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#17
October 18th 06, 11:14 AM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors,rec.radio.amateur.homebrew,rec.radio.amateur.policy,rec.radio.swap
|
|||
|
|||
Question for the group. Mainly new hams.
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. 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. 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) Of course somebody has to initiate - to say something beyond hello... 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. If someone who isn't a trained electronics person wants to design and build their amateur radio station, what sort of project should they build? A complete multiband SSB transceiver? Or a simple CW rig? 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! Things are very polite on those subbands. Isn't that a reason to promote the mode? 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? 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. 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. 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. ... 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. 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. 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. Then it all became academic with the VE system. You didn't answer my questions about the home brew rig you are using. Construction projects you or I have done aren't important. Yes they are! That was Slow Code talking, not me. Are you perhaps confusing attributions? I was responding to both of you. I disagree with "Slow Code"'s claim. Working to insure ham radio doesn't turn into CB is important. Agreed? *BOTH* are important. Again, Slow Code... Yup. If you're not running a homebrew or at least home-assembled rig, who are you to call someone else an appliance operator? 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. Slow Code is the one complaining about appliance operators, of which it appears he is one. Exactly. I didn't mean to imply that *you* were an appliance operator, Chuck. Just that if "Slow Code" is going to call other people names, he should be ready to back up his claims with actions. So far, we see nothing. Of course, one should not take "Slow Code" too seriously - if at all. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Question for the group. Mainly new hams. | Boatanchors | |||
| Question for the group. Mainly new hams. | Homebrew | |||
| Hams ruin welcome at Rose Parade | Policy | |||
| FYI - Shortwave Radio Listener (SWL) Groups on YAHOO ! | Shortwave | |||
| Amateur Radio Newslin(tm) Report 1385 – February 27, 2004 | Policy | |||
Threaded Mode
