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...

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.

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.

I've never mentioned the "dumbing down" argument. My point is that there is
a body of basic knowledge that all should know. The difficulty arises in
determining what that basic knowledge should be. Generally, the experienced
people should be the ones to define what constitutes basic knowledge. The
beginners are too inexperienced to do so.

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.

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..

Please do not insult me by stereotyping like that.

You do not have a Ham Husband?

I happen to be a degreed
engineer (B.S. in Aerospace Engineering) with 20 years of applied experience
in engineering (aerospace, nuclear, mechanical and automotive fields).

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

I've never mentioned the "dumbing down" argument. My point is that there
is
a body of basic knowledge that all should know. The difficulty arises in
determining what that basic knowledge should be. Generally, the
experienced
people should be the ones to define what constitutes basic knowledge.
The
beginners are too inexperienced to do so.

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.

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..

Please do not insult me by stereotyping like that.

You do not have a Ham Husband?


You are choosing to be obtuse. Yes I have a Ham Husband but no he does not
take care of Ohm's law or Theory for me.

I happen to be a degreed
engineer (B.S. in Aerospace Engineering) with 20 years of applied
experience
in engineering (aerospace, nuclear, mechanical and automotive fields).

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

I've never mentioned the "dumbing down" argument. My point is that there
is
a body of basic knowledge that all should know. The difficulty arises in
determining what that basic knowledge should be. Generally, the
experienced
people should be the ones to define what constitutes basic knowledge.
The
beginners are too inexperienced to do so.

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.

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..

Please do not insult me by stereotyping like that.

You do not have a Ham Husband?

You are choosing to be obtuse.

I tell David Heil/K8MN that allatime.

Yes I have a Ham Husband but no he does not
take care of Ohm's law or Theory for me.

OK.

I happen to be a degreed
engineer (B.S. in Aerospace Engineering) with 20 years of applied
experience
in engineering (aerospace, nuclear, mechanical and automotive fields).

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?

Were you able to hire out your PE exams?

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?

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

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.

" 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

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.

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.

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

Neither do the regs forbid it. Go figure!

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.


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.



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?

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

That has long been evident.

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.


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

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

Dave K8MN

"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

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

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.