What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

wrote in message
ups.com...

Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...


[snip]


Dee, place all presently licensed USA amateurs in front of stations
equipped with a manual key AND CWGET. Have them operate operate any
CW
Only Contest with whichever is more comfortable for them to use.
Total
the scores...

I think you get the point.


Can't tell what your point is. Those experienced with code and using
only
their ears and brain will beat CWGet in any contest you care to name.

I didn't say, "those experienced..." I said all presently licensed USA
amateur radio operators...

Those who learn code will beat those who try to make CWGet do a job
(contesting) for which it is ill-suited.

And you keep changing the parameters of the challenge.


That's because CWGet fails in almost all contest situations. It cannot
handle the QRM caused by all the stations calling at once.

Are you saying that of those amateurs that learned the code, that they
are all still highly proficient in it? I think most learned the code
as a licensing hurdle, and never looked back.


No I do not say that all those who learned the code are highly proficient.
I am saying that setting someone up with CWGet for a contest is a recipe for
failure and a very unenjoyable contest experience. When I first started cw
contesting, I had to listen to the station many times through picking out
their call letter by letter over a dozen exchanges before throwing in my
call. I also sent PSE QRS 5 on many occasions to get the balance of the
exchange. But it worked.

If they choose to view as merely a hurdle to pass and never try it, that's
sad but that's their problem.

Then there are the majority of hams who have no-code licenses...


While they have numbers, way too many of them are inactive or have low
activity levels. When I work VHF/UHF contests, I sometimes check the call
signs of the people worked. Most are Extras, some are Generals, and I've
only worked ONE Technician. And that's in a voice contest. Why is that?
They have full band privileges and full power privileges yet they don't use
them. Why? Same deal with the grid square hunters. And so on.

It
doesn't do the job when there are a multitude of operators calling at
the
same time. Also CWGet cannot copy the average manually keyed Morse
code.
So whatever your point is, you didn't prove anything.

Even you have claimed to be a user of CWGet.

So what? When I'm in a contest, I use the best computer ever developed
(the
human brain). When the person on the other end is sending manually
keyed
code, again I use the good old brain. That I sometimes use CWGet is no
particular endorsement of it. It's a tool that I use when I'm tired and
still want to operate code. However unless the signal is of good quality
and volume, it ends up being necessary to go back to the good old human
brain. My decision then is to either put in the extra effort to focus or
just call it a night and go to bed.

OK.


[snip]

You couldn't be more wrong. The FCC should get to define what "basic
knowledge" is, and those that do the defining don't have a clue what
Morse Code is. But they've been buffaloed into believing that it tis
something magical.

Yes the FCC has the task of defining what that should be. However there
is
NOTHING that prohibits them from consulting with people who have
operating
experience.

They don't even have a definition of what Morse Code is within the
rules of the last service required to have a Morse Code exam. I think
that tells the story.


The ITU has a standard definition of what constitutes International Morse
Code that is sufficient for the purpose. The FCC doesn't need to define it.
They say we must pass the International Morse Code. It is sufficient that
the dot/dash sequence is defined for the characters. The weighting,
spacing, and speed can be varied to suit the conditions. For test purposes,
the Council of VECs establishes the test standard and that is sufficient
since all who go test have the opportunity to train using the exact
parameters (tone, weighting, spacing, speed, etc) that will be used on the
test. The variations that occur in the real world can be learned on the
air.

[snip]
I can't help but think that all engineers, aerospace or civil or
otherwise, had to learn Ohm's Law as part of "thier" professional
certification. If I am wrong, then shame on the state of American
Engineerism, and shame on America. No wonder we're overrun with
engineers from India, Pakistan, China and Russia.

Mechanical engineers don't have a need for Ohm's law. They go hire the
electrical engineers. Aerospace engineering is a branch of mechanical
engineering (we don't get to drop the lesser terms in the equations since
they have a significant impact for our field). Again we go hire the
electrical engineers. Same with civil and structural engineers. On the
other hand electrical engineers generally do not study basic pressure
vessal
theory but go hire the mechanical engineers for that.

You're talking about the working world.

Were you able to hire out your studies in college?


Since we weren't required to take electrical engineering courses, it is not
relevant. Would you require EEs to take basic mechanical engineering
courses? That would chew up a couple of years.

Were you able to hire out your PE exams?


Most engineering jobs do not require that one even have a PE license or
registration or whatever they call it these days. Plus there are study
guides specifically aimed at the content of the PE exam. Plus the exam for
a structural engineer is different from the one for a mechanical engineer is
different from the one for an electrical engineer, etc.

Learning Oh,'s Law for a hobby is one thing, but a professional
engineer........

Again it depends on the field. We all studied common areas such as
calculus
and fast fourier transforms but items unique to a field generally were
not
taught across the board. We didn't study Ohms law and the electrical
engineers didn't study cantilever beam theory.

OK.

Should I happen to run into a need to use Ohms law and so on, I am
perfectly
capable of doing so. In addition, I was the one who taught the class
for
our club members who wished to upgrade to Extra, a class which my
husband
attended so that he could upgrade from General to Extra.

You have ASSumed and made a donkey of yourself.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Be kind enough to show where. Merely claiming to be an engineer
without a use for Ohm's Law or Radio Theory is not enough.

You assumed that I needed help from my OM on theory, etc. That is the
area
to which I referred.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

So you do use ohm's law and theory, you just don't think it belongs in
amateur licensing?


No I did not say that. I believe that they do belong in the licensing setup
as again for amateur radio, they are basics of the field. Just because my
usage of them is low doesn't mean they don't belong there. One needs to
learn the basics as they don't yet know what direction their hobby will take
them. Learning the basics helps them decide which and when or if they want
to further explore various branches of amateur radio.

Similarly, there were several courses I took as part of the basics of
engineering but seldom used. I've never done fast fourier transforms in my
work as my career did not go that direction. I've rarely used calculus. On
the other hand, I spent a significant chunk of my career (12 years out of 33
years) writing engineering software using Fortran and later Visual Basic.
The ironic part is that Fortran was a class I hated in college and struggled
to get through (Basic was not in use at the time). Once I was out in the
real world working on software to use in real situations, I found it to be
quite easy and fun.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
an_old_friend wrote:
wrote:
Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
Dee Flint wrote:
"Chris" wrote in message

Already tried it.

And dismissed it.

esp dimissing the abilty of the human operator of the machine to fill
in the problems and correct the process

As I said while it is the best that is available, it
is
still far below the capabilities of a human operator.

Correction. ...a few human operators.

indeed the PC alone far exceeds the abilties of many licensed ham
operators but hat doesn't count

I've tried it
under a
wide range of conditions and CWGet still needs a pretty good
signal to
function.

Dee, N8UZE

Morse Myth #119: All CW signals are good signals (Its the corollary
of
Morse Myth #1: CW always gets through).

Unrelated to my comments.

You would like to think that, but without efforts from folks like Carl,
Bill, Len, hans, myself and others, you would still be repeating such
myths, and would never make statements such as "Not all CW signals are
good."

You can thank us, but that's probably not very likely.

No one has said all CW signals are good.

And they aren't.

If they were always good, CWGet
would always work, which it doesn't. The ones who tout the software
solution are those who wish that it would always work.

And those who dismiss the software solution think all amateur operators
are superb morsemen.

In addition, I have repeatedly stated that each and every mode has
its
advantages and disadvantages.

If you were to compare and contrast all existing modes, it think it is
likely that you would claim that CW is the best mode.

The extremists on each side don't want to
hear that.

Dee, N8UZE

Because of the efforts made to dismiss countless Morse Myths over the
years, you were just now able to state that not all CW signals are good
without 1x2 PCTAs pooh poohing such talk.

well it is a thankless job

Dees coming around in her own way, but the brainwashing that she's
undergone is strong. Perhaps in another decade... if there's still an
amateur radio. If only she had been able to think spontaneously and
resist, the brainwashing wouldn't have been so well received.

You are mistaken. I've always been one to think spontaneously. Since I have
personally experienced conditions where it had to be CW or turn off the
radio, I advocate all hams knowing code at a basic level. To insure that
they do learn it at a basic level, testing at some point in the licensing is
appropriate. Before entering these news I'd never heard much discussion
either way on code. My opinions on its usefulness and desireability were
formed based entirely on actual operating experience. I was surprised to
learn that there was a big discussion on it in the amateur community.

Dee, place all presently licensed USA amateurs in front of stations
equipped with a manual key AND CWGET. Have them operate operate any CW
Only Contest with whichever is more comfortable for them to use. Total
the scores...

I think you get the point.

What point?

Try thinking about it just a wee little bit.

I did. It's not clear.

Spell it out for us, please.

I'll spell it out for you, Jim.

Half of all USA licensed amateurs are licensed under a Code-Free
license. Probably most of the coded licensees never looked back when
they learned the code to get past a licensing hurdle, don't use code,
and couldn't if their lives depended on it.

So put all USA licensed amateurs in fron of a station equipped with a
morse code key and with CWGet and total their scores.

I do NOT and never have believed in the arguments about "keeping out the
riffraff", maintaining tradition, or the "I had to so you should to".

The "dumbing down" argument is just an extension of the "keeping out
the riff-raff" argument.

No, it isn't.

Yes, it is.

Nope.

The requirements for US amateur radio license have been slowly but
steadily reduced for more than 25 years now.

Just 25 years?

I wrote "more than 25 years".

I guess you forgot about the "Conditional" license
where hams get an upgrade from their buddy.

What does that mean?

Besides, the Conditional stopped being issued about 30 years ago.

Yep, but nobody ever claimed that amateur radio was being dumbed down.
The USA amateur service has a proud history of it.

Not just the code tests
but also the writtens. That's not the fault of those taking the tests.

No, of course not. It's not anyones fault except the FCC that they put
offices so far away from ham's residences.

??

The reason FCC stopped doing testing was to save money.

It doesn't cost the FCC anything for an amateur to show up for testing,
unless you want to claim that the examinees got to file a voucher for
their travel.

They replaced
their paid examiners with unpaid volunteers.

Good thing there wasn't a union.

It's basic knowledge, pure and simple. Most of the people I know don't use
any of the theory either but it is part of the basic knowledge set. I've
used ohm's law only a couple of times in the 14 years I've been licensed.
I've used the dipole equation half a dozen times. I've never used smith
charts. One could get by without the theory but having learned it, I can
choose where I want to focus my attention in amateur ration.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee, you have a Ham Husband to take care of the Ohm's Law and Theory
end of your station, so it's no wonder you have no real use for it..

Brian, do you think that using a false sexist claim is somehow going to
cause you to win the debate?

No false sexist claim.

It's a sexist claim to assume that Dee's husband takes care of the
Ohm's Law and Theory
end of her station

Why? She said she hardly, if ever, used it. Somebody's got to be
doing it?

W3RV uses his sister to put up antennas for him
these days.

Where do you get that idea?

Fair is fair, yes?

You're not fair at all.

Since you have a corner on the fairness market, do you plan to be the
RRAP Moderator?

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

wrote in message
oups.com...

Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:

The ONLY separate pass-fail TEST is for manual telegraphy.

Wow! I guess CW is more valued than ALL OF THE OTHER MODES COMBINED!

Not so. However, all the digital and image modes are merely a matter of
connecting the radio to the computer and running the appropriate
software.

Then why do the military service have technical schools to do somehting
so very simple?

Why aren't the communications billets merely a direct duty assignment
after basic training?


Beats me. But you know what they say. There's the right way, the wrong way
and the Army way. I would not presume to pass judgement on their training.
However it may be that some of the recruits have not yet learned to read a
schematic and have never operated a soldering iron. I'm quite sure that is
not part of basic training.

Once I decided to try the digital thing, I made the interface and was up
and
running in an hour. After a couple of months, it became rather boring.

Do you suppose that there are licensed amateurs that find CW boring?


So what if it is boring. That is no reason not to learn it. I suspected
that digital would end up being boring but since I believe that a person
should be striving to increase their knowledge and skills, I decided it was
time to become familiar with this area. Afterall, I might find myself in
the position of being asked to Elmer someone in this area.

On
the other hand, code needs to be learned before it can be tried. Many
people will give up learning before they've had a chance to try it if
there
is not a test for it.

Whole government agencies gave up on code. Commercial businesses gave
up on code.


They have different goals and objectives than amateur radio. Government
agencies and commercial business do not have the goal of individual self
training and experimentation. Comparing amateur radio to
government/commercial applications is like comparing apples to pomegranates.
They're both red fruits but there the similarity ends.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

wrote in message
oups.com...

Dee Flint wrote:

[snip]

Depends on how bad you want the privileges. Just don't ask for something
for nothing. Originally I had no interest in ham radio but my husband at
the time dragged me to a class as something we could do together. As I
got
involved, I found it interesting. I deduced very early on that what I
wanted to get out of ham radio would best be served by going all the way
to
Extra. Since I wanted the privileges, I met the requirements including
the
20 wpm.

So if he dragged you to a class, how did you end up presiding over the
class that took him to Extra?


Different husband. My previous husband dragged me to the Tech class. We
split up a few years later. Then after that I met the man who was to become
my current husband. It is my current husband who took the Extra class that
I was teaching. Sorry for the confusion there.

Although it would have been possible for me to have taught my previous
husband since I reached Extra a couple of months before he did.

Not everyone wants those privileges. Kim is a case in point. She is a
Tech
Plus and could have gotten her General with just a written test and no
further code testing as of April 2000. She chose not to because she did
not
really like HF operations. The typical background static of HF bothers
her.
Her interests lie in VHF and up. Since she has full privileges there,
the
General does not serve her goals.

Yep. Technician is a whole lot of priveleges.

That's the beauty of anon postings, they don't have to follow their own
"style."

Very true. But it takes a lot of discipline to consistently write in a
different style and not make tell tale slips. When Len Anderson was
posting
as Avery Fineman, it was quite obvious they were the same person.

When I post as Hot-Ham, there's no intent to deceive. There is an
intent to have a throw-away email address that I've checked the mailbox
content about twice. It can fill up with all that spam that the
spammers desire.

I Am What I Am. That a famous quote of Popeye.


And I don't criticize some one who does that. It is only when there is the
apparent intent to deceive (Len Anderson) or the appaerent intent to violate
their ISPs TOS (Mark Morgan), that it is unreasonable.

I began posting as hot-ham when I gave up Billy Beeper at Hans request.
I'd prefer to not post with my name and/or call as I used to, as I
seem to get lots and lots of spam when I do.

Meanwhile, Robesin has posted my name, call and address much more than
I have.

That's so swell of him.

I guess when Mark posts Robesin's address and phone number, it's just
tit for tat. No?

Doesn't really matter as with the internet this information is findable
one
way or another if one cares to go after it. Posting it here only shows
that
you have the internet search skills of any average user and get some kind
of
juvenile thrill out of posting it.

Dee, N8UZE

The intent is to intimidate.


Such an attempt is foolish. Anyone who is intimidated by that must not be
aware how easy that information is to find these days.

Dee, N8UZE

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

wrote in message
ups.com...

Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

Slow Code wrote:

Larry, Dee and Me are the only pro 'Keep the code test' people
in
the
group anymore.

SC

Then the presentation of sound reasoning has been successful.

No most of them have left due to the spam created by Mark Morgan,

I see Mark Morgan as the necessary balance in the vicious postings
by
Robesin.

He doesn't need to create dozens of posts to refute each one.

You don't get to decide that. Has Robesin accused you of lesbian
encounters or pedophilia?

When he does, I'll be sure to keep track of the ratio of Robesin
postings to Dee postings.

Well if such an odd thing should ever happen, I'll killfile him. I
refuse
to get sucked into such stupidity.

And one day when your job depends on a security background
investigation and accusations of homosexuality, pedophilia, and rape...



Whether or not I were to respond to such accusations would make no
difference as the postings would still be in the archive. If it did cause a
problem in that area, I'd certainly take legal action against the poster and
the company who accepted such unfounded accusations.


[snip]

Stupid? It was sexual harassment. That's illegal isn't it?

Hard to say. One would have to weigh it against the specific wording of
the
law and adjudicated cases to determine if it was or was not illegal.

Good side-step.


No not a side step. I'm not a lawyer, judge, legal expert, or a juror
weighing evidence in such a case. So I don't have sufficient data to make
such a judgement.

Are Bruce and Dan in your killfile? Are "thier" anonymous characters
in your killfile?


They've been gone so long, I don't know. I clean out the file and start it
over about once or twice a year.

[snip]

Dee from Deetroit? I like Michigan but Detroit isn't my favorite
place.


Actually I live in one of the suburbs not Detroit itself. However, there
are some good things in Detroit. They have a full slate of pro sports teams
and an absolutely wonderful opera company.

[snip]

I think amateur radio is one of the best hobbies ever, and it can also
serve in an emergency communications roll.


On that we agree. So on that upbeat note, let's conclude this extensive
discussion (it was fun but we've kind of beaten it to death) and go work
some radio.

Dee, N8UZE

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

From: on Sat, Oct 28 2006 6:49pm

wrote:
From: on Sat, Oct 28 2006 1:28pm
wrote:
From: on Sat, Oct 21 2006 4:01pm
wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
wrote:

Beyond that, he could be anybody with a computer and an internet
connection. "Slow Code" could be Len Anderson, who has used at least
seven different screen names here - that we know of.

How many screen names have you used here - that you know of?

Jimmie will NEVER admit to using any pseudonyms. :-)

Jim doesn't want to tell a lie, so he avoids the question... pretend it
wasn't asked.

...and then tries to misdirect the whole thread! :-)

OK, that's 'Quitefine' with me...:-)

Quiterite!

Notice that Miccolis hasn't commented about "Quitefine"? :-)

Jimmie is a proud amateur "serving his country in other ways"
such as playing with his radio hobby, spreading "international
good will" by working DX on HF with CW. :-)

A-1 Operator!

Is he into the sauce? :-)

Which one? There are 57 varieties.

Is "A-1" a Heinz product?

"Slow Code" could be Brian Burke, N0IMD,

Slow Code could be Jim/N2EY, despite protests that it isn't him.

Not in Miccolis' petty prissy manner of "always being correct."
[i.e., thinking as Miccolis thinks...all else is "wrong"]

Miccolis already tried at least one pseudonym. That pesudo
STOPPED when confronted. [that's in the Google archives]
But, but, but...Miccolis (who never swears) swears "it wasn't
him!" AS IF. :-)

Squeaky Clean.

Squeak...mouse..."the mouse that roared."

Into a maze of his own making.

Too bad Miccolis never joined the IEEE. He would have had a
ball with their annual Mouse in a Maze contest. He could
have explained that all engineering involves maze solutions
and that Reggie Fessenden was the first maze solver and
ENIAC computed him to be the winner. :-)

Ditto
Robesin, Coslo, Bruce, Dan, Larry Roll, or anyone else who "appears" to
be absent from RRAP.

Maybe it is Val Germann, frustrated that he can't get his
(code speed) up? :-)

Probably never tried. For if he had really, really tried, he could
have been a 20WPM, Code-Tape Extra.

One of Missouri's Finest!

But he didn't try, for if anyone ever tries, they would suceede.

Lazy? Dumbed-down? :-)


Maybe it is Lamont Cranston? "Who knows what evil lurks in
the hearts of No-Coders?" :-)

Little Billy Beeper's mentor?

Nah. Wouldn't be close to Hans Brakob. Hans has a sense
of humor. Humor is very rare among morsemen; Hans is a
morseman but is NOT for the US amateur radio code test. :-)

Blowcode is just an Attention-WANTER, making trouble so he
can feel "famous." All he can think about is memorized
lines from the ARRL hymnbook of a half century past. He
can't think for himself. His bigotry is in the way.

Then he really, really could be Jim.

...only if Miccolis is developing Alternate Personalities.

He DOES seem to be developing his Major Dud side...emulating
the group's Great [military] Imposter. Before long he might
be mentioning wives, joining a local CAP, getting his pix in
QRZ. :-)

who has used a wide variety of screen names
here, ("billy beeper", "hot ham and cheese", to name just a few)
usually without including his name or callsign.

I understand that Brian Burke has received a whole lot less spam email
on his regular user account than when he posted here under his name and
call. I also understand that he let go of "Billy Beeper" at Han's
Brakob's request, as "Billy Beeper" was an invention of Hans, a
fictitious boy who feared evil No-Coders.

There's lots of fictitious BOYS in here fearing evil No-Coders.

Most of them use pseudonyms. No guts. No courage. No brains.

They hide behind their BFO-enabled beeping, afraid to stray
beyond the anonymity of their monotonic dots and dashes...and
dreams of glory and honor via morsemanship..."serving their
country in 'other' ways." :-)

They wished.

They wish so hard they think it is real. Poor babies.



And if they clicked their heeels together...

...they would all turn into the Wicked Witch. :-)

Come to think of it, some HAVE! :-)

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

From: on Sun, Oct 29 2006 6:32am

Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
wrote:

The ONLY separate pass-fail TEST is for manual telegraphy.

Wow! I guess CW is more valued than ALL OF THE OTHER MODES COMBINED!

Not so. However, all the digital and image modes are merely a matter of
connecting the radio to the computer and running the appropriate software.

Then why do the military service have technical schools to do somehting
so very simple?

Why aren't the communications billets merely a direct duty assignment
after basic training?

Heh heh heh...I can't wait to see Dee's answer on that! :-)

Once I decided to try the digital thing, I made the interface and was up and
running in an hour. After a couple of months, it became rather boring.

Do you suppose that there are licensed amateurs that find CW boring?

Gosh, from what I've seen, DATA on ham bands is a lot like
the old computer-modem comms by wireline! Sort of like the
Internet and USENET access now. Maybe Dee just get 'bored'
easily?

Maybe Dee actually "works" USENET by morse code and her ISP
'translates' that into text? :-)

On
the other hand, code needs to be learned before it can be tried. Many
people will give up learning before they've had a chance to try it if there
is not a test for it.

Whole government agencies gave up on code. Commercial businesses gave
up on code.

Sunnuvagun! :-)

Maybe the whole rest of the radio world KNOWS something that the
morsepersons don't?

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

From: on Sat, Oct 28 2006 7:49pm

Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message

So who do you think "Slow Code" is? Coslo? Miccolis? Roll? Deignan?
Dan, Dan the CB Radio Man?

Haven't a clue on Slow Code. The style doesn't sound like Coslo or
Miccolis.

Obviously it's someone who's been here awhile.

...or someone who has read a lot of ham magazines and
faithfully followed the ARRL's hymnbook.

Don't really know the style of the other fellows writing.

Troll was the racist poster ("My favorite black on the bus...," and
"Welfare mothers of Color with their hands out...").

K3LT, the claimed summa cum laude in human resources
study at some college, claiming he "could get any job
he wanted" in that field after graduation. He became
a bus driver. :-)

Deignan was the vanity callsign collector and the original "RF
Commando." He called me a liar when I said he had collected 12
callsigns, but I was wrong - one of the callsigns actually belonged to
his wife at the same address. So I guess I was a liar after all. I
should have known that he had a Ham Wife that collected vanity
callsigns, too.

Was it his wife or his sister? [it's been awhile...]

Deignan's buddy in Hawaii loaned him his PO Box number so he could scam
some Hawaiin calls, meanwhile, the Hawaiin PO Box owner was scamming a
Guam callsign. Never been to Guam and could have operated /KH2 like I
did for two years. I guess a Hawaiin Call Stroke Guam Call is a pretty
cool thing...

The Hawaiian buddy was Jeffrey Herman...who feigned
"innocence" on getting the Hawaii PO Box in here! :-)

Yeah, riiiight, knowing Deignan LIVED in Rhode Island
Herman got him a Hawaii PO Box address for "vacation"
mail or something? :-)

Anyway, these are the guys who pass judgement on me because I am too
fat, lazy, and stupid to buy into the whole Morse Exam stuff at 5, and
then 13, and then 20 WPM.

The Morsemen are the Masters! :-)

Morsemen are 'superior' beings above us mundanes... :-)

Fifty-three years ago I first fired-up on HF with a
1 KW transmitter running RTTY. My "first" really big
HF transmission. :-)

Didn't get trained in "CW" by the Army, didn't have to
use "CW" to transmit on HF or VHF or UHF for the next
three years...the middle year involving responsibility
of running a team of operators manning 36 to 40
transmitters. No license required. Perfectly legal.
Never needed nor used "CW" since on frequencies that
ranged from LF on up to 25 GHz, not even needed on HF
last year in operating an SGC 2020 from a boat in a
marina.

But, to do AMATEUR radio operation below 30 MHz, one
*MUST* need to pass a "CW" test!

1906 thinking in the year 2006. Ptui.



I began posting as hot-ham when I gave up Billy Beeper at Hans request.
I'd prefer to not post with my name and/or call as I used to, as I
seem to get lots and lots of spam when I do.

I use my IEEE e-mail alias. No charge. As a Lifetime
Member I could have taken advantage of it sooner. There
is some spam filtering with that mail alias but not as
much as I hoped.

Miccolis bitterly complains about my PREVIOUS "handles"
and confuses an e-mailing alias with 'screen name." :-)

Meanwhile, Robesin has posted my name, call and address much more than
I have.

That's so swell of him.

I guess when Mark posts Robesin's address and phone number, it's just
tit for tat. No?

The PCTA amateur extra morsemen rationalize that as "providing
a SERVICE." :-)

Whatever the PCTA amateur extra morsemen do is 'quitefine.'

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

From: "Dee Flint" on Sat, Oct 28 2006 10:27pm

wrote in message
Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message

[snip]

I can't help but think that all engineers, aerospace or civil or
otherwise, had to learn Ohm's Law as part of "thier" professional
certification. If I am wrong, then shame on the state of American
Engineerism, and shame on America. No wonder we're overrun with
engineers from India, Pakistan, China and Russia.

Mechanical engineers don't have a need for Ohm's law. They go hire the
electrical engineers.

Really? That's NOT been my experience over the last half
century in the Los Angeles Aerospace Industry. I've NEVER
been hired by any mechanical engineers...the final interview
before a hiring okay has ALWAYS been done by EEs.

Aerospace engineering is a branch of mechanical
engineering (we don't get to drop the lesser terms in the equations since
they have a significant impact for our field).

Really? Rocketdyne (my last big corporate employer) makes
the SSME (Space Shuttle Main Engine). A rocket motor (simple)
might need a spark plug or other igniter to start it up (if
not using hypergolic fuel). However, each SSME has a STRAP-
ON COMPUTER, primarily to regulate the liquid oxygen flow.
Can't use a conventional flowmeter...the LOX just eats them
up (rapid oxidation from pure oxygen). Since the SSME is
throttleable there's a wide range of variables involved,
something that can only be solved in real time by a computer.
Computer was designed and built by Minneapolis-Honeywell and
is probably the MOST robust computer ever made. Perhaps you
want to argue that Rocketdyne is "not" involved in aerospace
engineering? [feel free, but you would be WRONG]

If you go a bit north of Rocketdyne in Canoga Park, CA, you
would reach Hughes Aircraft Missle Division. Nice place.
I worked there when Ramo-Wooldridge occupied that facility.
Stouffers ran both the RW and HAC cafeteria, good good food.
Is the Phoenix air-air missle considered part of "aerospace?"
I'd say so, and thousands of other engineers would say so.
However, for a missle there is a STRONG interplay between
the tin benders and solder slingers to get an optimum
package with the most bang for its buck...and get it to the
target RELIABLY. HAC has had an excellent record in air-air
misslery, beginning with their first, the GAR-1 and GAR-2
(launched from F-102s, Shrub's NG plane). Air-air missles
NEED little computers on board along with air data sensors
and control acuators to do their task. A mechanical who
specializes in aerodynamics is certainly needed but those
would be out of a job without the electronics specialist
working side-by-side.

Would a satellite or space probe work without solar cells?
[only for a short time] Solar cells are ELECTRICAL things,
charging up the internal batteries (another electrical
thing) to keep the payload (electronics) working. Feel
free to go out to JPL and tell them "aerospace is all
mechanical engineering." :-)

I could expand on avionics...stuff that acquires and tracks
targets (military) or guides aircraft (military and civilian)
or does "fly-by-wire" (control surface acuation via electrical
coupling from manual controls). Absolutely needed in the
high-performance aircraft of today. But, you say that is
due to "aerospace being all mechanical engineering?" No.
Have you seen the "glass cockpit" of today's aircraft?
Gone are the mechanical and aerodynamic gauges, replaced
with flat-screen LCD and Plasma displays operated through
microprocessors from sensors with no moving parts.

Again we go hire the electrical engineers.

Nonsense.

Same with civil and structural engineers.

More nonsense. "Civil engineers?" Building rigid
airships? :-)

On the
other hand electrical engineers generally do not study basic pressure vessal
theory but go hire the mechanical engineers for that.

I might have had some past jobs that made me a 'vassal' but
at Rocketdyne I never had any responsibility for pressure
VESSLES. That was for the smoke-and-fire guys to do. :-)

By the way, the almost-catastrophy of the Apollo 13 mission
was a LOX tank blowing up in the Service Module. Specifially
it was failure of the LOX stirring thermostate within it, a
design responsibility of mechanicals with thermodynamics
specialty. :-) [one of three VESSLES holding LOX in the
Service Module]


Learning Oh,'s Law for a hobby is one thing, but a professional
engineer........

Again it depends on the field. We all studied common areas such as calculus
and fast fourier transforms but items unique to a field generally were not
taught across the board.

Tsk, tsk. Bad school. Sit in corner. :-)

We didn't study Ohms law and the electrical
engineers didn't study cantilever beam theory.

Really? "Beam theory" (cantilever and others) was a REQUISITE
in southern California colleges; most instructors prolly
couldn't hack the basic electrical stuff anyway. Ever look into
a Texas Instruments 'DLP' IC? CANTILEVER BEAM MOVEMENT of the
micromachined mirrors does every single lil' pixel in that IC.
TI has a virtual monopoly on the DLP for very large screen
DTV displays.

One need not use 'cantilever beam theory' to design a
horizontal ham antenna (such as a parasitic beam)...just
go out and BUY one, ready-made, some-assembly-required,
then watch it fall down in the next big windstorm. :-)

---

As far as actual KNOWLEDGE gained, a 'degree' has LITTLE
value except in the eyes of personnel departments and
department managers (the ones who think they can run people
but sure don't know how to run the equipment). I finally
got one...LONG AFTER the fact of having quite a bit of
design responsibility and a whole heaping gob of experience.
Personally, I feel mine is a negative worth due to lots of
LOST time attending 'requisite' classes...just so a few
instructors could write down I passed their courses and a
few others in a college (or university) could rubber-stamp
a 'sheepskin.'

The point is BEING ABLE TO DO THE JOB, not the number of
diplomas (suitable for framing) on display, or the number
of alphabetic characters one can put after a signature.

Does anyone NEED a radio license to effectively run,
repair, maintain, calibrate, test a radio transmitter? NO.
The license is a LEGAL requirement. The TEST for any radio
license, amateur or commercial, is ridiculously SIMPLE, and
has NEVER been made complex or comprehensive by the
FCC. It is an AUTHORIZATION by a government agency,
NOT a "qualification". It might as well be a fancy hunting
or fishing license.

However, the FCC regulations for radio amateurs is strict
on technical performance, a responsibility for EACH
licensee. Can you do any sort of comprehensive test to
insure compliance with the LAW? I can. I could long
before any degree was received.

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

From: Dee Flint on Sun, Oct 29 2006 8:48 am

wrote in message
Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message


No I do not say that all those who learned the code are highly proficient.
I am saying that setting someone up with CWGet for a contest is a recipe for
failure and a very unenjoyable contest experience. When I first started cw
contesting, I had to listen to the station many times through picking out
their call letter by letter over a dozen exchanges before throwing in my
call. I also sent PSE QRS 5 on many occasions to get the balance of the
exchange. But it worked.

If they choose to view as merely a hurdle to pass and never try it, that's
sad but that's their problem.

Never been a problem to me.

I can't see any personal enjoyment in "contesting," using
kilodollars worth of equipment just to accumulate the most
radio contacts in a short period of time. But, if that's
your Thing, go for it.

I started out in HF radio with the mission of keeping
communications channels open and working 24/7. Not my
thing to hop all over some small band and making
transitory contact with some individual one will probably
never "work" again. I put that on par with being a fan
of "Wheel of Fortune." :-)

The FCC has nothing on "contesting," doesn't require it of
any licensee.

Then there are the majority of hams who have no-code licenses...

While they have numbers, way too many of them are inactive or have low
activity levels.

You don't hear them so they don't exist?!?

When I work VHF/UHF contests, I sometimes check the call
signs of the people worked. Most are Extras, some are Generals, and I've
only worked ONE Technician. And that's in a voice contest. Why is that?
They have full band privileges and full power privileges yet they don't use
them. Why? Same deal with the grid square hunters. And so on.

Tsk. VHF-UHF is LOS stuff regularly, sometimes "DX" when
there are atmospheric inversion layers for ducting or other
weird effects.

Did it ever occur to you that OTHER people on ham bands
are NOT really into 'contesting?" Maybe they LIKE to get
to know the other party on a radio circuit?



The ITU has a standard definition of what constitutes International Morse
Code that is sufficient for the purpose.

It's a date-update of an old CCITT *TELEGRAM* standard.

Would you like a copy? :-)

IT DOES NOT SPECIFY WORD *RATE*!


The FCC doesn't need to define it.
They say we must pass the International Morse Code.

The FCC *references* the CCITT-ITU document in
Definitions.

The FCC does NOT LEGALLY DEFINE word rate.

Sunnuvagun.

Now, if the FCC ever gets the 2004 "Omnibus" R&O published
in the Federal Register, we will see if they bothered to
update the old CCITT document to the current ITU document.

:-)



Most engineering jobs do not require that one even have a PE license or
registration or whatever they call it these days.

'Professional Engineer' is a STATE license thing. Requirements
vary between states, but not a great deal.

The state PE license is a nice LEGAL thing because the LEGAL
system is set up to recognize it.

Corporations and businesses who DO THE WORK are less interested
in the number of diplomas and licenses one has...they want
people who can DO THE WORK. If they can DO THE WORK, they are
paid accordingly. Getting PAID for services rendered IS a
legally-acceptible definition of 'professional' activity. Ergo,
an engineer who does engineering work, has engineering
responsibility, and CAN DO THE WORK is generally referred to as
a professional. Really.



So you do use ohm's law and theory, you just don't think it belongs in
amateur licensing?

No I did not say that. I believe that they do belong in the licensing setup
as again for amateur radio, they are basics of the field. Just because my
usage of them is low doesn't mean they don't belong there.

But, but, but...an amateur MUST learn morse code?!? :-)

Lots of amateurs tossed their code keys, had "key burial"
ceremonies after getting their license, and continued to
have fun as licensed amateurs.

There's lots and lots of hypocrisy running around loose in
there... :-(


One needs to
learn the basics as they don't yet know what direction their hobby will take
them. Learning the basics helps them decide which and when or if they want
to further explore various branches of amateur radio.

In crowded, congested ham bands it would seem mo' bettah
to LEARN how to maintain, repair, calibrate their radios.
The FCC has lots technical requirements on radios which
licensees are REQUIRED to obey.

Not to worry. The ready-built designer-manufacturers of
today's ham radios have done all the ADVANCED work for you.
No need to sweat actually LEARNING some beyond-basic
knowledge. Just plug it in and go. You can read the
operating manual as you go along.

You keep stressing the NEED to do radiotelegraphy. I don't
see it. The rest of the world isn't stressing any of that
"CW" need...they just gave up on morse code.


Similarly, there were several courses I took as part of the basics of
engineering but seldom used. I've never done fast fourier transforms in my
work as my career did not go that direction. I've rarely used calculus. On
the other hand, I spent a significant chunk of my career (12 years out of 33
years) writing engineering software using Fortran and later Visual Basic.

Sunnuvagun! In 1973 I managed to access the RCA corporate
mainframe to do my first FORTRAN coding. I got the basics
from Dan McCracken's large softcover on Programming in
FORTRAN IV. 33 years ago! Took me only about three months
(of my own time) to get acquainted with FORTRAN...was much
more difficult 'selling' the group bean counter to get
access. By 1975 I had 6 programs in the RCA Central
Software Library that I'd written and debugged. Wasn't all
that hard.

Oh, and Dartmouth BASIC was already in industry use 33
years ago. Visual Basic hasn't been out near that long.
Power Basic for Windows 8 is the present package I have,
sufficiently like FORTRAN to make an easy transition.

Computer programming is NOT for everyone. Some haven't got
the aptitude for it. Programming does NOT teach one how to
MAKE a computer, just how to USE it in ONE kind of
application. [like morse proficiency is "supposed to make
one a good radio operator" but doesn't teach squat in how
a radio works or how to fix one]

What is much better for radio amateurs *OR* just radio
and electronics hobbyists in regards to basic theory
knowledge is using a SPICE program set. Linear
Technology Corp. has made a modern SPICE program set
absolutely FREE, just download it at www.linear.com.
"LTSpice/SwitcherCAD." Use the Search box at the home
page. The single download is an automatically-
unpacking .EXE file, just run it and it installs by
itself. It's got a fairly simple Schematic drawing
feature that automatically generates Netlists. A fair
selection of common active device models is supplied
in its Library. Only for Windows OS up to XP as far
as I know.

SPICE program packages *ALL* take some time on the
learning curve. The lovely part of them is that they
do NOT require parts, NO workbench, NO test equipment.
At first they are frustrating in a large amount of
program commands and conventions that must be observed.
Once over that hump, they can be marvelous instruction
machines in allowing quick changes of a circuit to see
the effect on Transient (time-domain) or Linear AC
(frequency-domain) response. They can handle simple,
medium, or large scale circuits...anything from just
an R-C network to fancy oscillators to complex filters,
passive or active.

In working on a "SPICE bench" there is a subtle input
to the mind. The pathways there are opened to first
understand the interrelationships of components in a
circuit...and what those components are made of,
electrically. Once those pathways are opened, it
becomes easier to understand the more complex theory
behind the circuitry. All that can be done without
lots of expensive (or cheap) parts, no danger of
"burning out" something, no smoke and fire. :-)

"All electronics works by smoke. If the smoke leaks
out, it won't work." - anon.

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

From: on Sun, Oct 29 2006 1:50 pm

On 29 Oct 2006 13:43:20 -0800, "
wrote:
From: on Sun, Oct 29 2006 6:32am
Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
wrote:


The ONLY separate pass-fail TEST is for manual telegraphy.

Wow! I guess CW is more valued than ALL OF THE OTHER MODES COMBINED!

Not so. However, all the digital and image modes are merely a matter of
connecting the radio to the computer and running the appropriate software.

Then why do the military service have technical schools to do somehting
so very simple?

Why aren't the communications billets merely a direct duty assignment
after basic training?

Heh heh heh...I can't wait to see Dee's answer on that! :-)

she choose to duck it

I expected that. Next in line is good old Jimmie Noserve. :-)


Once I decided to try the digital thing, I made the interface and was up and
running in an hour. After a couple of months, it became rather boring.

Do you suppose that there are licensed amateurs that find CW boring?

Gosh, from what I've seen, DATA on ham bands is a lot like
the old computer-modem comms by wireline! Sort of like the
Internet and USENET access now. Maybe Dee just get 'bored'
easily?

and of course what bores HER MUST bore the rest of us

There ya go!

What was late Marie Antoinnette saying about cake? :-)


Whole government agencies gave up on code. Commercial businesses gave
up on code.

Sunnuvagun! :-)

Maybe the whole rest of the radio world KNOWS something that the
morsepersons don't?

sure they do everybody knows something others don't even the Morse
People know things they are just too bigg for their keyers

Heh heh heh heh...Morsepersons are SUPERIOR to ordinaries.

The morsepersons had to test for morse code so everyone else
damn well had to test for it too! :-)

Yawn...just another day in RRAP where the SUPERIOR ones look
down their paddles at the mundane mortals...AS IF they were
really superior. :-)

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:

The ONLY separate pass-fail TEST is for manual telegraphy.

Wow! I guess CW is more valued than ALL OF THE OTHER MODES COMBINED!

Not so. However, all the digital and image modes are merely a matter of
connecting the radio to the computer and running the appropriate
software.

Then why do the military service have technical schools to do somehting
so very simple?

Why aren't the communications billets merely a direct duty assignment
after basic training?

Beats me. But you know what they say. There's the right way, the wrong way
and the Army way. I would not presume to pass judgement on their training.
However it may be that some of the recruits have not yet learned to read a
schematic and have never operated a soldering iron. I'm quite sure that is
not part of basic training.

What's to know? Follow the little lines, right? And a soldering
pencil is just another appliance.

Once I decided to try the digital thing, I made the interface and was up
and
running in an hour. After a couple of months, it became rather boring.

Do you suppose that there are licensed amateurs that find CW boring?

So what if it is boring. That is no reason not to learn it. I suspected
that digital would end up being boring but since I believe that a person
should be striving to increase their knowledge and skills, I decided it was
time to become familiar with this area. Afterall, I might find myself in
the position of being asked to Elmer someone in this area.

On
the other hand, code needs to be learned before it can be tried. Many
people will give up learning before they've had a chance to try it if
there
is not a test for it.

Whole government agencies gave up on code. Commercial businesses gave
up on code.

They have different goals and objectives than amateur radio.

Saving lives and property. Highly disimilar from amateur radio.

Government
agencies and commercial business do not have the goal of individual self
training and experimentation. Comparing amateur radio to
government/commercial applications is like comparing apples to pomegranates.
They're both red fruits but there the similarity ends.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

That must be why the GROL exam was lifted from the Amateur Advanced
Exam (minus the amateur rules and CW req't).

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

Mark in the Dark, wrote in
:

On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 00:07:22 GMT, Slow Code wrote:

"A. G. Bell" anon@anon wrote in :

you sure do post your crap fast


Your **** pile is higher Markie. It's so large, you dug a hole in it and
live in it like it was a cave.

Learn CW!

SC

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

" wrote in
ups.com:

From: "Dee Flint" on Sat, Oct 28 2006 5:47pm

wrote in message
Slow Code wrote:

Larry, Dee and Me are the only pro 'Keep the code test' people in the
group anymore.

Then the presentation of sound reasoning has been successful.

No most of them have left due to the spam created by Mark Morgan, the
interminable pontification of Len Anderson, the compulsive responses
that some seem to feel that they must post to the spam, the vulgarity of
people like Opus, the slamming that people like Slow Code do to those
who licensed or will license under the current system and so on.

Mark Morgan is an NCTA.

Len Anderson is an NCTA.

Opus is an NCTA.

We are all "vulgar" BECAUSE we are NCTA? Must be... :-)

Carl Stevenson is an NCTA. He quit posting. Is the
present head of NCI.

Hans Brakob is a sort-of NCTA even though he IS a morseperson
of long experience. Hans doesn't post much now.

Cecil Moore, a long-timer, one who DOES "CW" but
doesn't think the code test should be there. [anyone
who owns and rides a spiffy Harley is hardly bad...]
Cecil hangs out in rec.radio.amateur.antenna now.


-Chop-


Sorry to interrupt your gas pain Len. There's still CB for you NCTA types
and if the shoe fits....


Let us have our tradition.

SC

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

" wrote in
oups.com:

From: Dee Flint on Sun, Oct 29 2006 8:48 am

wrote in message
Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message


No I do not say that all those who learned the code are highly
proficient. I am saying that setting someone up with CWGet for a contest
is a recipe for failure and a very unenjoyable contest experience. When
I first started cw contesting, I had to listen to the station many times
through picking out their call letter by letter over a dozen exchanges
before throwing in my call. I also sent PSE QRS 5 on many occasions to
get the balance of the exchange. But it worked.

If they choose to view as merely a hurdle to pass and never try it,
that's sad but that's their problem.

Never been a problem to me.

I can't see any personal enjoyment in "contesting," using
kilodollars worth of equipment just to accumulate the most
radio contacts in a short period of time. But, if that's
your Thing, go for it.

I started out in HF radio with the mission of keeping
communications channels open and working 24/7. Not my
thing to hop all over some small band and making
transitory contact with some individual one will probably
never "work" again. I put that on par with being a fan
of "Wheel of Fortune." :-)

The FCC has nothing on "contesting," doesn't require it of
any licensee.

Then there are the majority of hams who have no-code licenses...

While they have numbers, way too many of them are inactive or have low
activity levels.

You don't hear them so they don't exist?!?

When I work VHF/UHF contests, I sometimes check the call
signs of the people worked. Most are Extras, some are Generals, and
I've only worked ONE Technician. And that's in a voice contest. Why is
that? They have full band privileges and full power privileges yet they
don't use them. Why? Same deal with the grid square hunters. And so
on.

Tsk. VHF-UHF is LOS stuff regularly, sometimes "DX" when
there are atmospheric inversion layers for ducting or other
weird effects.

Did it ever occur to you that OTHER people on ham bands
are NOT really into 'contesting?" Maybe they LIKE to get
to know the other party on a radio circuit?



The ITU has a standard definition of what constitutes International
Morse Code that is sufficient for the purpose.

It's a date-update of an old CCITT *TELEGRAM* standard.

Would you like a copy? :-)

IT DOES NOT SPECIFY WORD *RATE*!


The FCC doesn't need to define it.
They say we must pass the International Morse Code.

The FCC *references* the CCITT-ITU document in
Definitions.

The FCC does NOT LEGALLY DEFINE word rate.

Sunnuvagun.

Now, if the FCC ever gets the 2004 "Omnibus" R&O published
in the Federal Register, we will see if they bothered to
update the old CCITT document to the current ITU document.

:-)



Most engineering jobs do not require that one even have a PE license or
registration or whatever they call it these days.

'Professional Engineer' is a STATE license thing. Requirements
vary between states, but not a great deal.

The state PE license is a nice LEGAL thing because the LEGAL
system is set up to recognize it.

Corporations and businesses who DO THE WORK are less interested
in the number of diplomas and licenses one has...they want
people who can DO THE WORK. If they can DO THE WORK, they are
paid accordingly. Getting PAID for services rendered IS a
legally-acceptible definition of 'professional' activity. Ergo,
an engineer who does engineering work, has engineering
responsibility, and CAN DO THE WORK is generally referred to as
a professional. Really.



So you do use ohm's law and theory, you just don't think it belongs in
amateur licensing?

No I did not say that. I believe that they do belong in the licensing
setup as again for amateur radio, they are basics of the field. Just
because my usage of them is low doesn't mean they don't belong there.

But, but, but...an amateur MUST learn morse code?!? :-)

Lots of amateurs tossed their code keys, had "key burial"
ceremonies after getting their license, and continued to
have fun as licensed amateurs.

There's lots and lots of hypocrisy running around loose in
there... :-(


One needs to
learn the basics as they don't yet know what direction their hobby will
take them. Learning the basics helps them decide which and when or if
they want to further explore various branches of amateur radio.

In crowded, congested ham bands it would seem mo' bettah
to LEARN how to maintain, repair, calibrate their radios.
The FCC has lots technical requirements on radios which
licensees are REQUIRED to obey.

Not to worry. The ready-built designer-manufacturers of
today's ham radios have done all the ADVANCED work for you.
No need to sweat actually LEARNING some beyond-basic
knowledge. Just plug it in and go. You can read the
operating manual as you go along.

You keep stressing the NEED to do radiotelegraphy. I don't
see it. The rest of the world isn't stressing any of that
"CW" need...they just gave up on morse code.


Similarly, there were several courses I took as part of the basics of
engineering but seldom used. I've never done fast fourier transforms in
my work as my career did not go that direction. I've rarely used
calculus. On the other hand, I spent a significant chunk of my career
(12 years out of 33 years) writing engineering software using Fortran
and later Visual Basic.

Sunnuvagun! In 1973 I managed to access the RCA corporate
mainframe to do my first FORTRAN coding. I got the basics
from Dan McCracken's large softcover on Programming in
FORTRAN IV. 33 years ago! Took me only about three months
(of my own time) to get acquainted with FORTRAN...was much
more difficult 'selling' the group bean counter to get
access. By 1975 I had 6 programs in the RCA Central
Software Library that I'd written and debugged. Wasn't all
that hard.

Oh, and Dartmouth BASIC was already in industry use 33
years ago. Visual Basic hasn't been out near that long.
Power Basic for Windows 8 is the present package I have,
sufficiently like FORTRAN to make an easy transition.

Computer programming is NOT for everyone. Some haven't got
the aptitude for it. Programming does NOT teach one how to
MAKE a computer, just how to USE it in ONE kind of
application. [like morse proficiency is "supposed to make
one a good radio operator" but doesn't teach squat in how
a radio works or how to fix one]

What is much better for radio amateurs *OR* just radio
and electronics hobbyists in regards to basic theory
knowledge is using a SPICE program set. Linear
Technology Corp. has made a modern SPICE program set
absolutely FREE, just download it at www.linear.com.
"LTSpice/SwitcherCAD." Use the Search box at the home
page. The single download is an automatically-
unpacking .EXE file, just run it and it installs by
itself. It's got a fairly simple Schematic drawing
feature that automatically generates Netlists. A fair
selection of common active device models is supplied
in its Library. Only for Windows OS up to XP as far
as I know.

SPICE program packages *ALL* take some time on the
learning curve. The lovely part of them is that they
do NOT require parts, NO workbench, NO test equipment.
At first they are frustrating in a large amount of
program commands and conventions that must be observed.
Once over that hump, they can be marvelous instruction
machines in allowing quick changes of a circuit to see
the effect on Transient (time-domain) or Linear AC
(frequency-domain) response. They can handle simple,
medium, or large scale circuits...anything from just
an R-C network to fancy oscillators to complex filters,
passive or active.

In working on a "SPICE bench" there is a subtle input
to the mind. The pathways there are opened to first
understand the interrelationships of components in a
circuit...and what those components are made of,
electrically. Once those pathways are opened, it
becomes easier to understand the more complex theory
behind the circuitry. All that can be done without
lots of expensive (or cheap) parts, no danger of
"burning out" something, no smoke and fire. :-)

"All electronics works by smoke. If the smoke leaks
out, it won't work." - anon.




There's a product at the drug store you might want to try: Gas-X. It
should be pretty close to the 'Depends' isle you're familiar with.

SC

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

" wrote in
ups.com:


Heh heh heh heh...Morsepersons are SUPERIOR to ordinaries.


Salute us when you say that.


The morsepersons had to test for morse code so everyone else
damn well had to test for it too! :-)


Yes, because we'd rather work ambishes ops than lazy no code ones...
errr, I mean lazy no good ones.


Yawn...just another day in RRAP where the SUPERIOR ones look
down their paddles at the mundane mortals...AS IF they were
really superior. :-)




Wheeew! Starting to get a bit gassy again at the end there.


SC

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
From: "Dee Flint" on Sat, Oct 28 2006 10:27pm

wrote in message
Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message

If you go a bit north of Rocketdyne in Canoga Park, CA, you
would reach Hughes Aircraft Missle Division.

"Missile", Len.
prove postive of 2 thing DX is running poorly tonight and Heil has
nothing worthwhile to say

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

"Dave Heil" wrote in message
ink.net...
wrote:
From: Dee Flint on Sun, Oct 29 2006 8:48 am

wrote in message
Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message

[snip]
I started out in HF radio with the mission of keeping
communications channels open and working 24/7. Not my
thing to hop all over some small band and making
transitory contact with some individual one will probably
never "work" again. I put that on par with being a fan
of "Wheel of Fortune." :-)

In this weekend's CQ Worldwide DX Contest, serious ops likely contacted
the same station on a number of bands. They likely worked most of those
stations on a number of bands last year and the year before. Don't worry
too much about it. You'd have to obtain an amateur radio license before
you could participate.


That's for sure Dave. I have worked WP2Z a total of 25 times in 5 years and
I am only a casual contester.

Dee, N8UZE

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

Dee Flint wrote:
"Dave Heil" wrote in message
ink.net...
wrote:
From: Dee Flint on Sun, Oct 29 2006 8:48 am

wrote in message
Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message

[snip]
I started out in HF radio with the mission of keeping
communications channels open and working 24/7. Not my
thing to hop all over some small band and making
transitory contact with some individual one will probably
never "work" again. I put that on par with being a fan
of "Wheel of Fortune." :-)
In this weekend's CQ Worldwide DX Contest, serious ops likely contacted
the same station on a number of bands. They likely worked most of those
stations on a number of bands last year and the year before. Don't worry
too much about it. You'd have to obtain an amateur radio license before
you could participate.


That's for sure Dave. I have worked WP2Z a total of 25 times in 5 years and
I am only a casual contester.

Dee, N8UZE

After a while, Dee, you hit Dayton and other hamfests and you meet some
of these contest ops. I've been working Mike Wetzel W9RE for thirty
years or so in contests. I've known Tim K3LR since he was a teenager.
He and WA3FET designed the Bencher Skyhawk tribander in recent years.

Back in 1990 when I was 9L1US in Sierra Leone, I worked Don Karvonen
K8MFO on ten bands within a 24 hour period (and not in a contest). Don
and I were on Market Reef in 1986.

Dave K8MN

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
From: Dee Flint on Sun, Oct 29 2006 8:48 am

wrote in message
Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message


No I do not say that all those who learned the code are highly proficient.
I am saying that setting someone up with CWGet for a contest is a recipe for
failure and a very unenjoyable contest experience. When I first started cw
contesting, I had to listen to the station many times through picking out
their call letter by letter over a dozen exchanges before throwing in my
call. I also sent PSE QRS 5 on many occasions to get the balance of the
exchange. But it worked.

If they choose to view as merely a hurdle to pass and never try it, that's
sad but that's their problem.

Never been a problem to me.

Heck no, Leonard. You'd have to first obtain an amateur radio license
in order to worry about amateur radio contesting.
nope

I can't see any personal enjoyment in "contesting," using
kilodollars worth of equipment just to accumulate the most
radio contacts in a short period of time. But, if that's
your Thing, go for it.

Some folks use hundreds of dollars worth of equipment. Some participate
only to work states or countries or grid squares they've never
contacted. Some like to give points to those operating seriously in a
contesting event. Some just like to see if they can't beat the score of
a local friend or to see if they can do better than they did the last year.

I started out in HF radio with the mission of keeping
communications channels open and working 24/7. Not my
thing to hop all over some small band and making
transitory contact with some individual one will probably
never "work" again. I put that on par with being a fan
of "Wheel of Fortune." :-)

In this weekend's CQ Worldwide DX Contest, serious ops likely contacted
the same station on a number of bands. They likely worked most of those
stations on a number of bands last year and the year before. Don't
worry too much about it. You'd have to obtain an amateur radio license
before you could participate.

nope

The FCC has nothing on "contesting," doesn't require it of
any licensee.

Neither do the regs forbid it. Go figure!

but since it is not a requirement it needs are a not a proper basis for
making rules

Then there are the majority of hams who have no-code licenses...
While they have numbers, way too many of them are inactive or have low
activity levels.

You don't hear them so they don't exist?!?

When I work VHF/UHF contests, I sometimes check the call
signs of the people worked. Most are Extras, some are Generals, and I've
only worked ONE Technician. And that's in a voice contest. Why is that?
They have full band privileges and full power privileges yet they don't use
them. Why? Same deal with the grid square hunters. And so on.

Tsk. VHF-UHF is LOS stuff regularly, sometimes "DX" when
there are atmospheric inversion layers for ducting or other
weird effects.

Weird effects? Most of the propagation modes are fairly predictable,
Len. Line of sight varies with altitude above average terrain, with
height of antennas above ground, with gain of antennas used, with power
used and with feedline and preamps used. Enhanced propagation modes
exist commonly. I can regularly contact 6m stations within a several
hundred mile radius. At 2m and 70cm, I can work stations two hundred or
so miles away. With enhanced propagation modes at 2m or 70cm, I've
worked Iowa and Nebraska. I've contacted 67 countries on 6m in the past
six years. They range from the Marshall Islands to Madagascar.

Did it ever occur to you that OTHER people on ham bands
are NOT really into 'contesting?" Maybe they LIKE to get
to know the other party on a radio circuit?

Being a contester does not preclude ragchewing or DXing or traffic handling.

if you were reading youd understand that the point made is that the
needs of CW Contester do (and should not) drive ARS licensing

or maybe you would not be able to understand that point


Now, if the FCC ever gets the 2004 "Omnibus" R&O published
in the Federal Register, we will see if they bothered to
update the old CCITT document to the current ITU document.

:-)

Yeah. "We" will see. Those of us with amateur radio licenses will
operate under the reg changes. You may read them.

mighty white of of you



In crowded, congested ham bands it would seem mo' bettah
to LEARN how to maintain, repair, calibrate their radios.
The FCC has lots technical requirements on radios which
licensees are REQUIRED to obey.

Fix up your well equipped home workshop, Len. Get it all set up for
maintenance, repair and calibration. That way, you can go right to it
when and if you ever obtain an amateur radio license.

Not to worry. The ready-built designer-manufacturers of
today's ham radios have done all the ADVANCED work for you.
No need to sweat actually LEARNING some beyond-basic
knowledge. Just plug it in and go. You can read the
operating manual as you go along.

Why are *you* worried about it?

he isn't you seem to be

You keep stressing the NEED to do radiotelegraphy. I don't
see it.

That has long been evident.

as has the fact the FCC and ITU don't see it either

The rest of the world isn't stressing any of that
"CW" need...they just gave up on morse code.

That's incorrect, Leonard. The rest of the world didn't give up the use
or the testing. Some countries gave up testing. In the meantime, if
you'd like to become a radio amateur with HF access here in the U.S. of
A., you'll need to brush up on morse.

for while longer yet


Computer programming is NOT for everyone. Some haven't got
the aptitude for it.

Neither is amateur radio, Len, for the same reason.

but that reason has NOTHING to with Morse

Dave K8MN

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

Dave Heil wrote:

I've contacted 67 countries on 6m in the past
six years. They range from the Marshall Islands to Madagascar.

Dave K8MN

And a whole slew of out-of-banders from France.

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

an_old_friend wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
From: "Dee Flint" on Sat, Oct 28 2006 10:27pm

wrote in message
Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message

If you go a bit north of Rocketdyne in Canoga Park, CA, you
would reach Hughes Aircraft Missle Division.

"Missile", Len.

prove postive of 2 thing DX is running poorly tonight and Heil has
nothing worthwhile to say

Heil hasn't said anything worthwhile in this newsgroup for years. But
he wants to run for ARRL office. Perhaps he's found his calling?

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
wrote:

The ONLY separate pass-fail TEST is for manual telegraphy.
Wow! I guess CW is more valued than ALL OF THE OTHER MODES COMBINED!
Not so. However, all the digital and image modes are merely a matter of
connecting the radio to the computer and running the appropriate software.

Then why do the military service have technical schools to do somehting
so very simple?

I guess it is because of the raw material they have to work with.

Always a kind word for our armed forced...

Why aren't the communications billets merely a direct duty assignment
after basic training?

They can be. That's how I did it. I never set foot in an Air Force
technical school. Of course I'd already been a radio amateur for seven
years when I joined the military. I was awarded my 3-level right out of
basic training. I went directed duty to Barksdale AFB after ten days of
leave after Amarillo.

Lackland. San Antonio.

Did you catch what Robesin's got?

Whole government agencies gave up on code. Commercial businesses gave
up on code.

Oracle uses a lot of code.

Dave K8MN

Is Oracle an Extra? What's his call?

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
an_old_friend wrote:
wrote:
Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
Dee Flint wrote:
"Chris" wrote in message

Already tried it.

And dismissed it.

esp dimissing the abilty of the human operator of the machine to fill
in the problems and correct the process

As I said while it is the best that is available, it
is
still far below the capabilities of a human operator.

Correction. ...a few human operators.

indeed the PC alone far exceeds the abilties of many licensed ham
operators but hat doesn't count

I've tried it
under a
wide range of conditions and CWGet still needs a pretty good
signal to
function.

Dee, N8UZE

Morse Myth #119: All CW signals are good signals (Its the corollary
of
Morse Myth #1: CW always gets through).

Unrelated to my comments.

You would like to think that, but without efforts from folks like Carl,
Bill, Len, hans, myself and others, you would still be repeating such
myths, and would never make statements such as "Not all CW signals are
good."

You can thank us, but that's probably not very likely.

No one has said all CW signals are good.

And they aren't.

If they were always good, CWGet
would always work, which it doesn't. The ones who tout the software
solution are those who wish that it would always work.

And those who dismiss the software solution think all amateur operators
are superb morsemen.

In addition, I have repeatedly stated that each and every mode has
its
advantages and disadvantages.

If you were to compare and contrast all existing modes, it think it is
likely that you would claim that CW is the best mode.

The extremists on each side don't want to
hear that.

Dee, N8UZE

Because of the efforts made to dismiss countless Morse Myths over the
years, you were just now able to state that not all CW signals are good
without 1x2 PCTAs pooh poohing such talk.

well it is a thankless job

Dees coming around in her own way, but the brainwashing that she's
undergone is strong. Perhaps in another decade... if there's still an
amateur radio. If only she had been able to think spontaneously and
resist, the brainwashing wouldn't have been so well received.

You are mistaken. I've always been one to think spontaneously. Since I have
personally experienced conditions where it had to be CW or turn off the
radio, I advocate all hams knowing code at a basic level. To insure that
they do learn it at a basic level, testing at some point in the licensing is
appropriate. Before entering these news I'd never heard much discussion
either way on code. My opinions on its usefulness and desireability were
formed based entirely on actual operating experience. I was surprised to
learn that there was a big discussion on it in the amateur community.

Dee, place all presently licensed USA amateurs in front of stations
equipped with a manual key AND CWGET. Have them operate operate any CW
Only Contest with whichever is more comfortable for them to use. Total
the scores...

I think you get the point.

What point?

Try thinking about it just a wee little bit.

I did. It's not clear.

Spell it out for us, please.

I'll spell it out for you, Jim.

Thank you, Brian!

Any time.

Half of all USA licensed amateurs are licensed under a Code-Free
license.

You mean the Technician? If so, they are a considerable amount less
than half.

40% is more like it.

49.5% according to your very own postings.

Probably most of the coded licensees never looked back when
they learned the code to get past a licensing hurdle, don't use code,
and couldn't if their lives depended on it.

That's not a given at all.

I would expect you to say something like that.

Remember the ARRL survey that was debated so much here?

The one where as a member, I did not receive a ballot?

The one that Mike Deignan characterized as "substantive?"

Yes, I recall the survey. Looked as if it had been developed by a
bunch of dems hoping to influence the outcome of an election.

It showed that
less than 40% of those hams who were asked never used Morse Code. And
it included licensees from all license classes, not just those who had
passed code tests.

Add to that those who rarely used code.

Sure there are those who learned just enough to pass the Morse Code
test and then never used it - just as there are those who just enough
to pass the *written* tests and then never used it

Heck, your buddy Len couldn't even get the length of a 73 MHz
quarter-wave whip antenna right, and he's a "PROFESSIONAL"!

And you couldn't even get the distance to the moon, and you're a
"professional."

So put all USA licensed amateurs in fron of a station equipped with a
morse code key and with CWGet and total their scores.

I presume you mean "contest scores"

Why?

Why not? They're operating in a CW Contest. Why wouldn't you total
their scores?

Who is going to set up and pay for all those stations? What sort of
stations would they be - HF, VHF, UHF? What sort of antennas, rigs,
computers?

Think about it.

The Morsemen can bandy about the CQ WW and Field Day CW vs SSB contest
scores all they want without having to standardize station equipment.
I bring up a scenario and NOW station equipment must be standardized.

There's some bias in your approach.

Any ham who wants to operate Morse Code using CWGet or some other
software can do so right now - if they have a station that includes
rig, antenna, and computer.

Yep. I can finally agree with something you said.

Yet I don't know of any amateur radio contesters who operate that way.
Do you?

Nobody knew of anyone who operated amateur radio as in Larry Rolls
"Only CW can save the situation" but I NEVER ONCE saw your objection to
it.

I bring up a scenario and NOW you have a problems with how contestors
operate.

There's some bias in your approach.

Your "thought experiment" doesn't seem to be thought out very well.

Sure it was.

Alternative scenario snipped.


The requirements for US amateur radio license have been slowly but
steadily reduced for more than 25 years now.

Just 25 years?

I wrote "more than 25 years".

I guess you forgot about the "Conditional" license
where hams get an upgrade from their buddy.

What does that mean?

Besides, the Conditional stopped being issued about 30 years ago.

Yep, but nobody ever claimed that amateur radio was being dumbed down.
The USA amateur service has a proud history of it.

How was it "dumbing down" to eliminate the Conditional?

Jeez you're thick. It was dumbing down to create such a license class.

Not just the code tests
but also the writtens. That's not the fault of those taking the tests.

No, of course not. It's not anyones fault except the FCC that they put
offices so far away from ham's residences.

??

The reason FCC stopped doing testing was to save money.

It doesn't cost the FCC anything for an amateur to show up for testing,
unless you want to claim that the examinees got to file a voucher for
their travel.

Actually it cost FCC a lot of money to do testing.

It was the travel distance that was key in the creation of the
Conditional license, not the desire for the FCC to save money. Try to
stay on the subject.

First off, they had to have offices with test facilities. The office
they had in Philadelphia back when I took my exams was on the 10th
floor of the Custom House at 2nd and Chestnut. Lots of square feet of
prime real estate just for the exam room.

Then there was the time of the examiners, all of whom worked for FCC.
Pay and benefits. At least two people per office, three days a week.
Times the number of offices all over the country.

Then add the FCC folks who revised the exams, duplicated them, and
distributed them to the various offices all over the country. And the
cost of doing all that.

The VE system eliminated all that expense. All FCC has to do now wrt
amateur license testing is to look over the QPC submissions and approve
them. And occasionally retest somebody.

That's all wunnerful, but you vectored off of the subject. Maybe next
time you'll be able to cut and paste something germane to the subject.

Eliminating Element 1 will not save the FCC any expense. Keeping it
will not cost them anything, either. Maybe that's why it's taking them
so long.

Maybe. But they didn't even make the effort to define Morse Code in
the rules for the last 3 R&Os. Yet they tell you that the exam myst be
5WPM, and you've got all these VEs getting to define what that means.

They replaced
their paid examiners with unpaid volunteers.

Good thing there wasn't a union.

Why?

Are you anti-union? Do you favor scabs?

It's basic knowledge, pure and simple. Most of the people I know don't use
any of the theory either but it is part of the basic knowledge set. I've
used ohm's law only a couple of times in the 14 years I've been licensed.
I've used the dipole equation half a dozen times. I've never used smith
charts. One could get by without the theory but having learned it, I can
choose where I want to focus my attention in amateur ration.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee, you have a Ham Husband to take care of the Ohm's Law and Theory
end of your station, so it's no wonder you have no real use for it..

Brian, do you think that using a false sexist claim is somehow going to
cause you to win the debate?

No false sexist claim.

It's a sexist claim to assume that Dee's husband takes care of the
Ohm's Law and Theory
end of her station

Why? She said she hardly, if ever, used it. Somebody's got to be
doing it?

You're presuming she's not doing what needs to be done, and is
dependent on someone else to deal with the theory. I don't think that's
the case at all.

If I considered your opinion to be wrong, do I get to call you a liar?

W3RV uses his sister to put up antennas for him
these days.

Where do you get that idea?

Hmmm?

I've put up antennas with W3RV. Or rather, I helped out a little, since
he had it all worked out on his own. No sisters involved.

He does know quite a lot about antennas, particularly the practical
side. He even knows that a quarter wave at 73 MHz is a lot longer than
three and one quarter inches....

Prolly for illegal operation. He has no authorization in that area.

Fair is fair, yes?

You're not fair at all.

Since you have a corner on the fairness market, do you plan to be the
RRAP Moderator?

Wait and see.

ARRL November CW Sweepstakes starts Saturday afternoon and ends Sunday
night. I'll be there - will you?

Nope, but knock yourself out.

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

wrote:
an_old_friend wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
From: "Dee Flint" on Sat, Oct 28 2006 10:27pm

wrote in message
Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message

If you go a bit north of Rocketdyne in Canoga Park, CA, you
would reach Hughes Aircraft Missle Division.

"Missile", Len.

prove postive of 2 thing DX is running poorly tonight and Heil has
nothing worthwhile to say

Heil hasn't said anything worthwhile in this newsgroup for years. But
he wants to run for ARRL office. Perhaps he's found his calling?
indeed but normal even he finds more to say than repeatly correcting
one word

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

Dee Flint wrote:

[snip]

Depends on how bad you want the privileges. Just don't ask for something
for nothing. Originally I had no interest in ham radio but my husband at
the time dragged me to a class as something we could do together. As I
got
involved, I found it interesting. I deduced very early on that what I
wanted to get out of ham radio would best be served by going all the way
to
Extra. Since I wanted the privileges, I met the requirements including
the
20 wpm.

So if he dragged you to a class, how did you end up presiding over the
class that took him to Extra?


Different husband. My previous husband dragged me to the Tech class. We
split up a few years later. Then after that I met the man who was to become
my current husband. It is my current husband who took the Extra class that
I was teaching. Sorry for the confusion there.

No problem.

Although it would have been possible for me to have taught my previous
husband since I reached Extra a couple of months before he did.

Anyone can teach a class licensed or not, but an Extra (actually 3
Extras) must proctor the Extra exam.

Not everyone wants those privileges. Kim is a case in point. She is a
Tech
Plus and could have gotten her General with just a written test and no
further code testing as of April 2000. She chose not to because she did
not
really like HF operations. The typical background static of HF bothers
her.
Her interests lie in VHF and up. Since she has full privileges there,
the
General does not serve her goals.

Yep. Technician is a whole lot of priveleges.

That's the beauty of anon postings, they don't have to follow their own
"style."

Very true. But it takes a lot of discipline to consistently write in a
different style and not make tell tale slips. When Len Anderson was
posting
as Avery Fineman, it was quite obvious they were the same person.

When I post as Hot-Ham, there's no intent to deceive. There is an
intent to have a throw-away email address that I've checked the mailbox
content about twice. It can fill up with all that spam that the
spammers desire.

I Am What I Am. That a famous quote of Popeye.

And I don't criticize some one who does that. It is only when there is the
apparent intent to deceive (Len Anderson) or the appaerent intent to violate
their ISPs TOS (Mark Morgan), that it is unreasonable.

Welp, good breeding keeps me from doing what Robesin does. And Robesin
wasn't stopped until someone out-assholed him. All Mark asked for was
an apology for being called a rapist. Robesin couldn't do that.

I began posting as hot-ham when I gave up Billy Beeper at Hans request.
I'd prefer to not post with my name and/or call as I used to, as I
seem to get lots and lots of spam when I do.

Meanwhile, Robesin has posted my name, call and address much more than
I have.

That's so swell of him.

I guess when Mark posts Robesin's address and phone number, it's just
tit for tat. No?

Doesn't really matter as with the internet this information is findable
one
way or another if one cares to go after it. Posting it here only shows
that
you have the internet search skills of any average user and get some kind
of
juvenile thrill out of posting it.

Dee, N8UZE

The intent is to intimidate.

Such an attempt is foolish. Anyone who is intimidated by that must not be
aware how easy that information is to find these days.

Dee, N8UZE

Information coupled with action is called stalking.

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
an_old_friend wrote:
wrote:
Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
Dee Flint wrote:
"Chris" wrote in message

Already tried it.

And dismissed it.

esp dimissing the abilty of the human operator of the machine to fill
in the problems and correct the process

As I said while it is the best that is available, it
is
still far below the capabilities of a human operator.

Correction. ...a few human operators.

indeed the PC alone far exceeds the abilties of many licensed ham
operators but hat doesn't count

I've tried it
under a
wide range of conditions and CWGet still needs a pretty good
signal to
function.

Dee, N8UZE

Morse Myth #119: All CW signals are good signals (Its the corollary
of
Morse Myth #1: CW always gets through).

Unrelated to my comments.

You would like to think that, but without efforts from folks like Carl,
Bill, Len, hans, myself and others, you would still be repeating such
myths, and would never make statements such as "Not all CW signals are
good."

You can thank us, but that's probably not very likely.

No one has said all CW signals are good.

And they aren't.

If they were always good, CWGet
would always work, which it doesn't. The ones who tout the software
solution are those who wish that it would always work.

And those who dismiss the software solution think all amateur operators
are superb morsemen.

In addition, I have repeatedly stated that each and every mode has
its
advantages and disadvantages.

If you were to compare and contrast all existing modes, it think it is
likely that you would claim that CW is the best mode.

The extremists on each side don't want to
hear that.

Dee, N8UZE

Because of the efforts made to dismiss countless Morse Myths over the
years, you were just now able to state that not all CW signals are good
without 1x2 PCTAs pooh poohing such talk.

well it is a thankless job

Dees coming around in her own way, but the brainwashing that she's
undergone is strong. Perhaps in another decade... if there's still an
amateur radio. If only she had been able to think spontaneously and
resist, the brainwashing wouldn't have been so well received.

You are mistaken. I've always been one to think spontaneously. Since I have
personally experienced conditions where it had to be CW or turn off the
radio, I advocate all hams knowing code at a basic level. To insure that
they do learn it at a basic level, testing at some point in the licensing is
appropriate. Before entering these news I'd never heard much discussion
either way on code. My opinions on its usefulness and desireability were
formed based entirely on actual operating experience. I was surprised to
learn that there was a big discussion on it in the amateur community.

Dee, place all presently licensed USA amateurs in front of stations
equipped with a manual key AND CWGET. Have them operate operate any CW
Only Contest with whichever is more comfortable for them to use. Total
the scores...

I think you get the point.

What point?

Try thinking about it just a wee little bit.

I did. It's not clear.

Spell it out for us, please.

I'll spell it out for you, Jim.

Thank you, Brian!

Any time.

Half of all USA licensed amateurs are licensed under a Code-Free
license.

You mean the Technician? If so, they are a considerable amount less
than half.

40% is more like it.

49.5% according to your very own postings.

You are mistaken, Brian.

The Technician license does not make up 49.5% of US hams. The total of
Technicians and Technician Pluses reaches about that level. (All
Technician Pluses are Morse Code tested).

In addition, many hams whose licenses say "Technician" are code tested
and have some HF privileges. These include:

- all Tech Pluses who have renewed since April 15, 2000
- all Novices who have upgraded to Technician
- all Technicians who have passed Element 1, but not the written exam
for General

btw, no US amateur radio license is "code-free". All of them can use
Morse Code.

Probably most of the coded licensees never looked back when
they learned the code to get past a licensing hurdle, don't use code,
and couldn't if their lives depended on it.

That's not a given at all.

I would expect you to say something like that.

Remember the ARRL survey that was debated so much here?

The one where as a member, I did not receive a ballot?

The one that Mike Deignan characterized as "substantive?"

Yes, I recall the survey. Looked as if it had been developed by a
bunch of dems hoping to influence the outcome of an election.

You mean like this:

http://www.rawstory.com/showoutartic...s/15869924.htm

btw, next Tuesday I get to choose between Curt Weldon and Joe Sestak.
Which do you think I should vote for?

It showed that
less than 40% of those hams who were asked never used Morse Code. And
it included licensees from all license classes, not just those who had
passed code tests.

Add to that those who rarely used code.

Why?

Even if someone rarely uses it, that means they still remember it and
can use it at some level.

Sure there are those who learned just enough to pass the Morse Code
test and then never used it - just as there are those who just enough
to pass the *written* tests and then never used it

Heck, your buddy Len couldn't even get the length of a 73 MHz
quarter-wave whip antenna right, and he's a "PROFESSIONAL"!

And you couldn't even get the distance to the moon,

You are mistaken.

You've repeatedly claimed that I mis-stated the distance from Earth to
the moon on rrap.
Show us where I did that - if you can.

I don't think you can, because it did not happen. If I did it, show us.

Otherwise you're just making things up.

and you're a "professional."

I've never claimed to be a professional astronomer.

Len claims to be a "PROFESSIONAL in radio-electronics" (whatever that
is) but he messes up on the length of an antenna for a radio service he
has claimed to use.

So put all USA licensed amateurs in fron of a station equipped with a
morse code key and with CWGet and total their scores.

I presume you mean "contest scores"

Why?

Why not? They're operating in a CW Contest. Why wouldn't you total
their scores?

What's the point?

Who is going to set up and pay for all those stations? What sort of
stations would they be - HF, VHF, UHF? What sort of antennas, rigs,
computers?

Think about it.

I did. That's why I'm asking the question.

Do you think the taxpayers should subsidize amateur radio stations?

The Morsemen

Who are they?

can bandy about the CQ WW and Field Day CW vs SSB contest
scores all they want without having to standardize station equipment.
I bring up a scenario and NOW station equipment must be standardized.

Who said anything about standardizing station equipment? Not me.

I simply want to know where all those stations are supposed to come
from.

There's some bias in your approach.

None at all.

Any ham who wants to operate Morse Code using CWGet or some other
software can do so right now - if they have a station that includes
rig, antenna, and computer.

Yep. I can finally agree with something you said.

So a version of the experiment you describe can happen in every
contest. But it doesn't.

Yet I don't know of any amateur radio contesters who operate that way.
Do you?

Nobody knew of anyone who operated amateur radio as in Larry Rolls
"Only CW can save the situation" but I NEVER ONCE saw your objection to
it.

So what? I don't read everything written to rrap. Larry hasn't posted
here in *years*.

I bring up a scenario and NOW you have a problems with how contestors
operate.

Not at all.

I just don't see anyone using CWGet to operate a contest - even though
they could. Heck *you* could. Why don't you?

There's some bias in your approach.

None at all.

Your "thought experiment" doesn't seem to be thought out very well.

Sure it was.

Alternative scenario snipped.

Why? Aren't you up to such a simple challenge? Here it is again:

Field Day 2007.

Entry class 1B-1 (one transmitter, one operator).

The challenge is to assemble, transport, set up, operate, and take down
a complete FD station - singlehanded, no outside help - and make the
highest score.

Field Day location must not be owned by the participant and must not be
a licensed amateur station location. Station location must be under FCC
jurisdiction.

All equipment used must be legitimately owned by the operator.

All FCC regulations and ARRL rules that apply to Field Day must be
complied with by all involved.

Results report must be submitted to ARRL before the deadline. Highest
official score wins.

A simple, real-world challenge. What's the problem?

The requirements for US amateur radio license have been slowly but
steadily reduced for more than 25 years now.

Just 25 years?

I wrote "more than 25 years".

I guess you forgot about the "Conditional" license
where hams get an upgrade from their buddy.

What does that mean?

Besides, the Conditional stopped being issued about 30 years ago.

Yep, but nobody ever claimed that amateur radio was being dumbed down.
The USA amateur service has a proud history of it.

How was it "dumbing down" to eliminate the Conditional?

Jeez you're thick.

No, Brian, I'm not "thick". You just did a poor job of explaining.

It was dumbing down to create such a license class.

Why? The Conditional and its predecessor Class C go back to before the
FCC.

Not just the code tests
but also the writtens. That's not the fault of those taking the tests.

No, of course not. It's not anyones fault except the FCC that they put
offices so far away from ham's residences.

??

The reason FCC stopped doing testing was to save money.

It doesn't cost the FCC anything for an amateur to show up for testing,
unless you want to claim that the examinees got to file a voucher for
their travel.

Actually it cost FCC a lot of money to do testing.

It was the travel distance that was key in the creation of the
Conditional license, not the desire for the FCC to save money.

I was writing about the reason the FCC stopped doing license testing
for *all* license classes. That's part of the reduction in
requirements.

Try to stay on the subject.

I am on the subject. You're trying to change it.

First off, they had to have offices with test facilities. The office
they had in Philadelphia back when I took my exams was on the 10th
floor of the Custom House at 2nd and Chestnut. Lots of square feet of
prime real estate just for the exam room.

Then there was the time of the examiners, all of whom worked for FCC.
Pay and benefits. At least two people per office, three days a week.
Times the number of offices all over the country.

Then add the FCC folks who revised the exams, duplicated them, and
distributed them to the various offices all over the country. And the
cost of doing all that.

The VE system eliminated all that expense. All FCC has to do now wrt
amateur license testing is to look over the QPC submissions and approve
them. And occasionally retest somebody.

That's all wunnerful, but you vectored off of the subject.

Nope.

Maybe next
time you'll be able to cut and paste something germane to the subject.

The subject was the reduction in license requirements by FCC giving
over the testing to VEs.

Eliminating Element 1 will not save the FCC any expense. Keeping it
will not cost them anything, either. Maybe that's why it's taking them
so long.

Maybe. But they didn't even make the effort to define Morse Code in
the rules for the last 3 R&Os.

Why should they? Is there any doubt?

Yet they tell you that the exam myst be
5WPM, and you've got all these VEs getting to define what that means.

It's not a problem to anyone with common sense.

They replaced
their paid examiners with unpaid volunteers.

Good thing there wasn't a union.

Why?

Are you anti-union?

No. Are you?

Do you favor scabs?

Bandages are better.

It's basic knowledge, pure and simple. Most of the people I know don't use
any of the theory either but it is part of the basic knowledge set. I've
used ohm's law only a couple of times in the 14 years I've been licensed.
I've used the dipole equation half a dozen times. I've never used smith
charts. One could get by without the theory but having learned it, I can
choose where I want to focus my attention in amateur ration.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee, you have a Ham Husband to take care of the Ohm's Law and Theory
end of your station, so it's no wonder you have no real use for it..

Brian, do you think that using a false sexist claim is somehow going to
cause you to win the debate?

No false sexist claim.

It's a sexist claim to assume that Dee's husband takes care of the
Ohm's Law and Theory
end of her station

Why? She said she hardly, if ever, used it. Somebody's got to be
doing it?

You're presuming she's not doing what needs to be done, and is
dependent on someone else to deal with the theory. I don't think that's
the case at all.

If I considered your opinion to be wrong, do I get to call you a liar?

Why would you do that?

Have I ever called *anyone* here a liar?

W3RV uses his sister to put up antennas for him
these days.

Where do you get that idea?

Hmmm?

I've put up antennas with W3RV. Or rather, I helped out a little, since
he had it all worked out on his own. No sisters involved.

He does know quite a lot about antennas, particularly the practical
side. He even knows that a quarter wave at 73 MHz is a lot longer than
three and one quarter inches....

Prolly for illegal operation. He has no authorization in that area.

Actually, he does. Part 95 remote control, same as your buddy Len. And
everybody else.

Fair is fair, yes?

You're not fair at all.

Since you have a corner on the fairness market, do you plan to be the
RRAP Moderator?

Wait and see.

ARRL November CW Sweepstakes starts Saturday afternoon and ends Sunday
night. I'll be there - will you?

Nope, but knock yourself out.

I'll be awake and operating. CWGet won't be part of it.

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

Such an attempt is foolish. Anyone who is intimidated by that must not
be
aware how easy that information is to find these days.

Dee, N8UZE

Information coupled with action is called stalking.
yea when it also includes using the Usmail to harras and false call to
law enforencement and..

and...
and...
and...

.......and that is what happens when you big, tough, macho guys choose to be
an idiot and use your real names and callsigns on Usenet.
We told you so!

Neener! Neener! Neener!

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

wrote in message
ups.com...
wrote:

[snip]
It's a sexist claim to assume that Dee's husband takes care of the
Ohm's Law and Theory
end of her station

Why? She said she hardly, if ever, used it. Somebody's got to be
doing it?

You're presuming she's not doing what needs to be done, and is
dependent on someone else to deal with the theory. I don't think that's
the case at all.


No he's simply presuming that every aspect of amateur radio needs to deal
with every aspect of theory. That is a fundamental fallacy that too often
is used in an attempt to sidetrack a debate.

Dee, N8UZE

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

From: on Mon, Oct 30 2006 3:58
pm

wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:

EXCESSIVE QUOTING not germane to posting elided


Half of all USA licensed amateurs are licensed under a Code-Free
license.

You mean the Technician? If so, they are a considerable amount less
than half.

40% is more like it.

49.5% according to your very own postings.

You are mistaken, Brian.

Tsk, everyone not in-line with your prissy pedantry of
"exact word definition" is "mistaken." :-)

Or "in error." Or just about any other adjective set
stopping short of actually USING the word "LIAR." :-)

The Technician license does not make up 49.5% of US hams. The total of
Technicians and Technician Pluses reaches about that level. (All
Technician Pluses are Morse Code tested).

Do all those Plusses love, honor, and obey morsemanship?

Do you have 'accurate' statistics on that? Or just the
PCTA-biased 'stats' from Joe Speroni?

In addition, many hams whose licenses say "Technician" are code tested
and have some HF privileges.

Yes, in YOUR mind they DO love, honor, and obey morse...

So, if one strips away the Micollis massaging of morse,
the NO-CODE-TEST Technician class is STILL the LARGEST
US amateur radio class. Overwhelmingly.

The MAJORITY (no shaving of fractions there) of newcomers
are getting INTO US amateur radio via the NO-CODE-TEST
Tech class. Just enough to barely keep the total of all
licensees at the same level they were three years ago.

Attrition is keeping the EXPIRED numbers so large. Some
must be quitting the ARS before their lives are over...


btw, no US amateur radio license is "code-free". All of them can use
Morse Code.

BY THE WAY, prissy pedant, the phrase "code-free" refers
to the LICENSE TEST. TEST, Mother Superior. TEST.


Add to that those who rarely used code.

Why?

Even if someone rarely uses it, that means they still remember it and
can use it at some level.

I was wrong to write only two adjectives. It should be
three: Prissy, ****Y pedant. You have morse code on
the brain. [there might be a medical cure for that...]


Len claims to be a "PROFESSIONAL in radio-electronics" (whatever that
is) but he messes up on the length of an antenna for a radio service he
has claimed to use.

So, you did NOT see my own acknowledgement of my typo?

Of course not. You are operating in character-assassin mode
and SELECTIVELY highlight 'errors.' :-)

I've gotten money in return for services rendered. In the legal
sense that means I have done "professional work." The IRS thinks
so, the California Franchise Tax Board thinks so, and both have
been given the proper income tax copies.

I don't "claim" anything when I've handled an R-C control box
and flown a model aircraft. I simply DID it. :-) No morse
code or test for same required, NO license needed!


The Morsemen

Who are they?

Tsk, tsk, tsk, a worshipper at the shrine of Eniac and double-
dipped EE who CAN'T FIGURE THAT OUT?!? :-)

It is all those PCTAs who do 1906 thinking in the year 2006.

One of them is YOU. Another one is the knuckle-spanking
Mother Superior that you turn into when you go cross-dressing.
:-(


I simply want to know where all those stations are supposed to come
from.

...from off-shore manufacturers? :-)

...for "under $100" using salvage from "old TV sets?" :-)



So what? I don't read everything written to rrap. Larry hasn't posted
here in *years*.

All of three...that we know about. :-)



Jeez you're thick.

No, Brian, I'm not "thick". You just did a poor job of explaining.

You ARE thick. You couldn't figure out what "morsemen" are.


The reason FCC stopped doing testing was to save money.

It doesn't cost the FCC anything for an amateur to show up for testing,
unless you want to claim that the examinees got to file a voucher for
their travel.

Actually it cost FCC a lot of money to do testing.

It was the travel distance that was key in the creation of the
Conditional license, not the desire for the FCC to save money.

I was writing about the reason the FCC stopped doing license testing
for *all* license classes. That's part of the reduction in
requirements.

Oh, my, ON-LINE REDEFINITIONS! Goll-eeee, Gomer, you sure
NEED to win each and every argument, don't you? :-)

Tsk, tsk, tsk, the FCC privatized *ALL* radio operator
license testing. That's not just amateur...it involves
ALL RADIO SERVICES.

Hello? If you are going to MISDIRECT, at least be
ACCURATE about it! That's only common sense, and a
bit of fair play.

Justice.


The subject was the reduction in license requirements by FCC giving
over the testing to VEs.

The FCC "gave over" nothing to the COLEMs? Tsk, tsk!


Maybe. But they didn't even make the effort to define Morse Code in
the rules for the last 3 R&Os.

Why should they? Is there any doubt?

LEGALLY, the FCC does NOT define morse code WORD RATE.

The FCC defines a lot of technical requirements in Part 97.
Yet they keep thinking the CCITT-ITU Telegram Standard will
define word rate. It does not.


Yet they tell you that the exam myst be
5WPM, and you've got all these VEs getting to define what that means.

It's not a problem to anyone with common sense.

Tsk, you prattle on about "common sense." You haven't figured
out what "morsemen" are or "morsemenship" is after over a year
of use in here?!? :-)


If I considered your opinion to be wrong, do I get to call you a liar?

Why would you do that?

Have I ever called *anyone* here a liar?

You don't KNOW?!? :-)

You need to go Google yourself. :-)

Maybe not. The narcisstic would enjoy it too much. That
would be like emotional masturbation. :-)

Enjoy!