|
One way to promote learning of code ...
Cecil Moore wrote: wrote: Nobody really knows how "hard" the old exams really were, because they're not available for comparison. But the ARRL License Manuals are still around, e.g. The unit of resistance is the ______. A. Volt B. Amp C. Watt D. Ohm -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com E. WHAT?!? :-) LA |
One way to promote learning of code ...
|
One way to promote learning of code ...
John Kasupski wrote:
On 7 Jan 2007 12:45:29 -0800, wrote: Why should anyone think that riding a Harley is better - or that much different - than driving a Honda? The guy down the street from me has a 1957 Panhead. I don't know anybody who has a 1957 Honda. That's because as I type this, I'm drinking my Pepsi out of the '57 Honda. John Kasupski, KC2HMZ Yeah ... Well, I like those rice burners! Had a Kawasaki Black Ghost, damn that was a bike! Now I am too old for those rice rockets, but a nice hog and a year long putt to look over the states is in the works :) At my age, time to do it or shut up ... Regards, JS |
One way to promote learning of code ...
On Sun, 7 Jan 2007 09:47:23 -0500, "Carl R. Stevenson"
wrote: Actually, I believe that the main reason that most emergency/public service stuff is done using voice (or digital modes) is that they're faster and more convenient to use in a "tactical" situation. Yeah. Imagine a high speed chase in the city, and the cop in the pursuing patrol car tapping out the street names with his key with one hand while he steers the car with the other hand. Or attempts to steer the car. Presenting CW as "something fun" is fine (as long as the presentee is allowed to decide for him/her self whether it's really fun or not :-) Presenting it as a "standard" or "value" (implying that without CW you're as Larry and others used to say "not a REAL ham" is not the way. Those who like CW should take comfort ... by all reports, in most of the other countries that have eliminated the CW requirement, MORE people are learning it now that before - folks may choose to do something if it's presented right and their choice, but tend not to like having things forced upon them. I think by now we should be happy because someone shows interest in ham radio at all, regardless of which modes of operation they're interested in. John Kasupski, KC2HMZ |
One way to promote learning of code ...
John Kasupski wrote:
... I think by now we should be happy because someone shows interest in ham radio at all, regardless of which modes of operation they're interested in. John Kasupski, KC2HMZ AMEN! Regards, JS |
One way to promote learning of code ...
wrote in message oups.com... [snip] Note that FCC *eliminated* the multiple-choice Morse Code test option, leaving only the one-minute-solid-copy and fill-in-the-blanks options. It's my understanding that it was the NVEC council who decided to eliminate the multiple choice option. This was for two reasons. One was to make the exam consistent no matter which VEC was responsible for the administering the program. Prior to that, some VECs used the multiple choice while others used the fill in the blank. The second reason was that now only 5wpm was needed for General and Extra, eliminating the multiple choice test would require that the applicant have a better grasp of the code rather than being a good guesser on the multiple choice. Part 97 only required that the applicant pass the test and did not define how that test was to be designed or administered. Dee, N8UZE |
One way to promote learning of code ...
"John Smith I" wrote in message ... wrote: ... Actually, without skill in morse, you simply will not be able to participate in QSO's with a large subset of the stations you listed. A lot of good DX (and QRP etc.) is only available in Morse (sometimes only in the extra class sections). Actually, that is outrageous. With any decent code reader software and the audio of your rig into the line in of your sound card in your computer, you can copy and send CW much, MUCH faster, concisely and intelligibly than any "CW Freak" out there ... you can send CW so fast, they only WISH they could copy it! ... technology, ain't it wonderful? Welcome to the new millennium! Well, thank you. And Im glad to see you enjoy the new toys that Santa Claus gave you. |
One way to promote learning of code ...
Stefan Wolfe wrote:
... Well, thank you. And Im glad to see you enjoy the new toys that Santa Claus gave you. Let me give you the complete picture, he left it under my tree about 1996 ... JS |
One way to promote learning of code (long)
Cecil Moore wrote in news:_9goh.25784$QU1.5684
@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net: wrote: Nobody really knows how "hard" the old exams really were, because they're not available for comparison. But the ARRL License Manuals are still around, e.g. The unit of resistance is the ______. A. Volt B. Amp C. Watt D. Ohm I have in front of me a Coleco Radio Amateur Question and Answer License guide from 1956, the "golden Age of Amateur Radio" The booklet is a 6 by 8.5 inch paperback of 32 pages. It notes on the cover that it contains: FCC-type Multiple Choice Questions Typical FCC-Type Practice Exams Questions Grouped by Subjects Novice, Technician and General CLasses Let us take a look at some of the questions..... 1. The Instrument used to measure resistance is: a. wattmeter b. ammeter c. voltmeter d. ohmmeter 2 The unit of power is: a. the ampere b. the coulomb c. the watt d. the joule 3. The third harmonic of 350 c.p.s. is: a. 117 c.p.s. b. 250 c.p.s. c. 700 c.p.s. d. 1050 c.p.s. 4. The instrument used to measure current is: a. wattmeter b. ammeter c. voltmeter d. ohmmeter 5. The frequency of a sine wave is: a. the time in seconds for one cycle b. the amplitude of the wave c. the number of cycles per second d. the angle of rotation gawsh-awful simple stuff there. Some are a little less elementary, but still not too bad... 17.The Q of a resonant circuit is the: a. inductive reactance divided by the resistance b. inductance divided by the resistance c. circulating current divided by the capacitance d. circulating current divided by the inductance 18. If a 6 henry choke is connected in series with a 12 henry choke, (with no mutual inductance between them) the total inductance is a. 4 henries b. 3 henries c. 36 henries d. 18 henries Here is a formula... 20. The formula for the reactance of an inductor is: (in the form that can be handled by newsgroup text) a. 2pi/fL b. 1/2Pi*fL c. 1/2*fL d. 2Pi*fL/2 a couple more formulae, then back to some "cyphering" 22. What is the total resistance of one 10 ohm resistor and two 20 ohm resistors all connected in series a. 50 ohms b. 5 ohms c. 30 ohms d. 45 ohms Okay, we move on to Vacuum tube questions. I'll not go too much into these, as I suspect most of us would agree that vacuum tubes aren't terribly relevant to getting a license these days... 28, The maximum safe heat radiation capability of the plate of a tube is indicated by the following rating: a. transconductance expressed in mhos b. maximum plate dissapation expressed in watts c. plate resistance expressed in ohms d. grid bias expressed in volts okay - now we get to one of the dreaded "schematics" 30. Draw a schematic diagram of a pentode audio power amplifier stage with an output coupling transformer and load resistor, showing suitable instruments connected in the secondary for measurement of the audio frequency voltage and current; and name each component part. analysis he Most of the components are named for us. The output transformer with a load resistor and a voltmeter and ammeter are no-brainers. Various things like the screen, grid, and cathode resistors are known even to a tube neophyte as myself. In truth, I didn't think of the bypass caps. I suppose I would have gotten this one wrong. But I suspect if I was taking the test in those days, I would have had more exposure to hollow state technology. Certainly I would get that one now if I were to take it a second time. I don't feel like typing much more. Hopefully I've made my point. And if anyone missed it, my point is that the tests given in the so called "golden age" of Amateur radio were definitely NOT harder than the tests administered today. Of course those rascals from Coleco could have just been pulling our legs, making a booklet that was not relevent to the tests as they really were at that time. Kinda doubt that though. So what really happened? My guess is that they only *seemed* harder to those who took them - at the time they took them. A lot of people are not very experienced when they are starting out - otherwise they wouldn't be starting out. Those tests might just seem plenty difficult to a real newbie. So the newbie passes the test. Newbie learns a lot over the years, and eventually becomes an old timer. As an old timer, the ex newbie forgets that so much of their learning took place between those first tests, and what he/she eventually ended up with as a knowledge base. So the old time starts to think that all hams should be tested according to the old timer's knowledge level. Or than again, maybe they just want to bitch. (Sorry all, for the reasoned response - I realize that it doesn't belong in this group - heheh. - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - |
One way to promote learning of code (long)
Mike Coslo wrote:
... .... and inductors of that size find, really, no use in amateur radio these days, high voltage electrolytics are getting impossible to find, nor are tubes used much, only us old-old timers for sentimental reasons. And then, any tubes I have used recently have come from russia ... I suspect there is good reasons they have changed the exams ... JS |
One way to promote learning of code ...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ... wrote in message It is unfortunate that the PACTOR 2 and 3 are proprietary and yet have an established infrastructure that hams could use for e-mail (similar to/same as sailmail). I don't understand why hams let that happen. I was looking for a way to send email to family in the USA when I visit relatives on Siquijor Island in the Philippines (recently they did open up 1 internet cafe on the island about 12 Km from where I stay, operating at dial-up speeds, but I would rather just use my radio if I could). I came across ALE as a possible mode where I could just use a PC and a rigblaster but ALE is still very experimental with none of the established infrastructure that PACTOR 2/3 have. I think ALE and PACTOR may be technically illegal in the amateur bands due to their transmission protocols, not always listening for spectrum occupation before transmitting, on their extremely wide bandwidths. Anyhow, being largely a seafaring nation, and a poor nation largely unable to afford modern rigs, code is still king in the Phils and you hear it all the time on 40m and 80m. Even on their cell phones, (which curiously they CAN afford), when they receive an SMS message, you hear the phones beeping di-di-dit dah-dah di-di-dit ("SMS", for those of you from 6 land ;-)) when they receive new messages. Due to cost, they use SMS much more often than voice. Every school child in the Philippines knows basic morse since so many of the kids end up going on to school for seafaring occupations. They did not pay any attention to the USA FCC's elimination of code requirements for navigation although I am sure that 50 years from now they will be up to our current US standards. As Carl and the other techies know, for computer transmissions in real time QSO's, psk31 is an extremely simple and very narrow band mode that you can use directly to your rig from the sound card of your PC (it is highly recommend that you build a simple isolation circuit between PC and rig). In my opinion, psk31 is superior to code and will overtake computer CW in about 25 years after every 3rd world ham has access to a PC for non-productive hobby use (right now, many countries do not even have access to PC's in the primary schools yet). Assuming you have a few toroids and tranistors available at home or work, the cost is free. Interestingly, there is a small movement among psk31ers trying to make PACTOR illegal due to its huge bandwidth and what seems like malicious digital QRM when it wipes out every station in its path when it transmits without checking for existing band usage...if you have ever used psk31 and got smeared by PACTOR you would know what I mean. ALE and PACTOR should not be illegal of course, but they should have a dedicated portion of the AR spectrum limited for their usage where it could be a "primary" occupant and other modes are "secondary". The gentlemens' agreements in the band plans don't always help these days. |
One way to promote learning of code (long)
John Smith I wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: ... ... and inductors of that size find, really, no use in amateur radio these days, high voltage electrolytics are getting impossible to find, nor are tubes used much, only us old-old timers for sentimental reasons. And then, any tubes I have used recently have come from russia ... I suspect there is good reasons they have changed the exams ... of course there was it was part of the Nocder consprisracy to dumb down the ARS :) |
One way to promote learning of code (long)
Mike Coslo ) writes:
I don't feel like typing much more. Hopefully I've made my point. And if anyone missed it, my point is that the tests given in the so called "golden age" of Amateur radio were definitely NOT harder than the tests administered today. Of course those rascals from Coleco could have just been pulling our legs, making a booklet that was not relevent to the tests as they really were at that time. Kinda doubt that though. It is hard to judge these things. I once posted about something, and mentioned passing the test when I was 12, in 1972, and I got email from someone practically denouncing me, saying he knew the test was really difficult back then, which means I couldn't have passed at such an early age. It never seemed difficult to me back then. The code was harder, I failed the code reception test the first month and had to retake it the next month. But the theory test required drawing a number of things, and I did okay. Oddly, it's in retrospect that I realize didn't particularly know what I was doing, I didn't memorize answers and I was reading as many technical things as I could get my hands on, but later I did realize that I didn't know much back then. Yet, I would say the test here in Canada must have gotten simpler, if for no other reason than that there was the restructuring in 1990 where the entry level license took away things that I was allowed to do when I passed the test, such as a full kilowatt and building anything I wanted. Michael VE2BVW |
One way to promote learning of code (long)
Michael Black wrote:
... I was truly dumbfounded by the barrage of posts from old timers claiming such difficult tests in past years. Now, having had the benefit of time to giving in considerable thought, that speaks more about the individuals posting than anything else, now doesn't it? Regards, JS |
One way to promote learning of code ...
"John Smith I" wrote in message ... Stefan Wolfe wrote: ... Well, thank you. And Im glad to see you enjoy the new toys that Santa Claus gave you. Let me give you the complete picture, he left it under my tree about 1996 ... I think you are serious...you think computer-generated/received CW is really some advanced technology of the new millenium and you got your first taste of it in 1996. Have you ever thought that that there were far more "advanced" digital modes, superior to and more efficinet than CW, as long as one decided to connect a PC to a radio? I personally ignore computer CW....CW is not meant for a computer nor will it ever be...it is a human mode that has a "body language" to it that computers are not good at reading. For computers, PSK31 is a very simple, far superior machine mode to computer CW in every way. If you said "PSK31, welcome to the new millenium" I could go along with that. But computer generated CW? Sort of like attaching a lawn mower engine to a bicycle and calling it a motorcycle, isn't it? But far be it from me to criticize your toys. ;-) |
One way to promote learning of code ...
|
One way to promote learning of code ...
Cecil Moore wrote in news:tL6oh.32477$Gr2.30874
@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net: John Smith I wrote: ... technology, ain't it wonderful? Welcome to the new millennium! My SCS PTC2e multimode controller will copy PACTOR2 DX signals from Europe that I cannot even hear and don't even budge the S-meter. It also copies CW at faster speeds than I can copy. That's true insofar as it goes, but code that is sent badly by hand is hard for any hardware or software to copy, other than the human brain, and code is easy to send badly by hand!!! For this reason many even send by computer and read by ear. I don't, I just don't use the mode atall, but those who indicate that machine reading has problems have a good point. |
One way to promote learning of code ...
John Kasupski wrote in
: On 7 Jan 2007 12:45:29 -0800, wrote: Why should anyone think that riding a Harley is better - or that much different - than driving a Honda? The guy down the street from me has a 1957 Panhead. I don't know anybody who has a 1957 Honda. That's because as I type this, I'm drinking my Pepsi out of the '57 Honda. John Kasupski, KC2HMZ I just read a review of a 1957 Riuko that is still on the road. Granted, that's a copy of a Harley, but it was made in Japan. I didn't think Honda had entered the US market by 1957, but I'm sure there are still some '60s Honda motorcycles out there somewhere. Myself, I owned a Suzuki, a Kawasaki and a couple of Yamahas, but no Hondas, Harleys or even Riukos. |
One way to promote learning of code ...
Stefan Wolfe wrote:
I think you are serious...you think computer-generated/received CW is really some advanced technology of the new millenium and you got your first taste of it in 1996. Have you ever thought that that there were far more "advanced" digital modes, superior to and more efficinet than CW, as long as one decided to connect a PC to a radio? I personally ignore computer CW....CW is not meant for a computer nor will it ever be...it is a human mode that has a "body language" to it that computers are not good at reading. For computers, PSK31 is a very simple, far superior machine mode to computer CW in every way. If you said "PSK31, welcome to the new millenium" I could go along with that. But computer generated CW? Sort of like attaching a lawn mower engine to a bicycle and calling it a motorcycle, isn't it? But far be it from me to criticize your toys. ;-) PSK31 is obsolete ... and much too slow to be useful. What software do you use to encode/decode and xfer mp3's and videos with on the bands? What encryption method (algorithm) do you prefer? mp3? ogg-vorbis? Do you use the same method for your speech packets? Do you use variable bit encoding? Are you aware that ogg-vorbis is open source and can be freely used? You have missed the whole point, does the above help clarify it for you? JS |
One way to promote learning of code (long)
Mike Coslo wrote:
3. The third harmonic of 350 c.p.s. is: a. 117 c.p.s. b. 250 c.p.s. c. 700 c.p.s. d. 1050 c.p.s. What's the second overtone? :-) So what really happened? My guess is that they only *seemed* harder to those who took them - at the time they took them. I thought the Conditional exam seemed difficult in 1952 (except for the easy 13 wpm code) and flunked the Conditional written once when I was 14. 48 years later I aced the Extra with a grade of 100%. The extra written exam seemed very easy after a EE degree and 40 years of engineering experience. :-) But in 2000, 20 wpm seemed difficult. Go figure. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
One way to promote learning of code ...
Stefan Wolfe wrote:
I personally ignore computer CW... I personally ignore any electronically assisted CW. I don't see much difference between an electronic keyer and a PC. Some hams had the audacity to use electronic keys on straight key night. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
One way to promote learning of code ...
Dave Heil wrote:
What are we to make of it--that people generally take the easiest route to something? When one is dealing with a governmental licensing bureau, there is no "easiest route". Only one route is offered by the rule *makers* for each license class. The *takers* of the exam cannot be blamed for the present licensing structure. How can a new general class ham be considered to be inferior to an older general class ham when each ham took the one and only exam available at his particular time of testing? Incidentally, mice that take the easiest route to the cheese hidden in a maze are considered to be the most intelligent. :-) -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
One way to promote learning of code ...
Cecil Moore wrote:
Dave Heil wrote: What are we to make of it--that people generally take the easiest route to something? When one is dealing with a governmental licensing bureau, there is no "easiest route". Only one route is offered by the rule *makers* for each license class. That's correct, but almost everyone *starts* with a license class having less difficult requirements. You did it. I did it. Jim did it. The *takers* of the exam cannot be blamed for the present licensing structure. ....and I haven't blamed them. They took the exams which were available to them. How can a new general class ham be considered to be inferior to an older general class ham when each ham took the one and only exam available at his particular time of testing? Now you're asking something different. Such a General Class licensee could easily be considered to have learned less material since less material is required in order to pass the exam. Surely you can see that. Incidentally, mice that take the easiest route to the cheese hidden in a maze are considered to be the most intelligent. :-) The easiest way might not be the fastest way--and mice don't take amateur radio exams. Dave K8MN |
One way to promote learning of code ...
Dave Heil wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote: How can a new general class ham be considered to be inferior to an older general class ham when each ham took the one and only exam available at his particular time of testing? Now you're asking something different. Such a General Class licensee could easily be considered to have learned less material since less material is required in order to pass the exam. Surely you can see that. Certainly I can see that - times change. But should the new General Class licensee be forever relegated to the untouchable "nocode CBer" caste simply because of the timing of his birth? What if he has a PhD in RF engineering to go with his brand new General Class Amateur Radio License? What if he is ex-military and can do 40 wpm in Morse code? Isn't that worth anything or is he predestined to be forever shunned by older amateur radio operators because his exam was easier through no fault of his own? -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
One way to promote learning of code ...
Cecil Moore wrote:
Dave Heil wrote: What are we to make of it--that people generally take the easiest route to something? When one is dealing with a governmental licensing bureau, there is no "easiest route". Only one route is offered by the rule *makers* for each license class. Actually, that's not always true. For example, from 1990 to 2000, there were medical waivers for the 13 and 20 wpm Morse Code tests. Those who wanted a General, Advanced or Extra class license had the choice of passing the required test *or* getting a waiver. Depending on the individual, one route could be easier than the other. Similarly, for a couple of decades now the Morse Code test(s) could be passed by either one-minute-solid-copy or fill-in-the-blank route - whichever was easier for the individual. The *takers* of the exam cannot be blamed for the present licensing structure. In general, that's true. However, if a particular individual worked for changes in the licensing structure.... How can a new general class ham be considered to be inferior to an older general class ham when each ham took the one and only exam available at his particular time of testing? One person's *knowledge* may be less than another's, depending on what was on the tests at the time. However, a test is simply one data point, not the whole picture. There's a big difference between pointing out changes in the license tests and making sweeping generalizations about those who passed them. Incidentally, mice that take the easiest route to the cheese hidden in a maze are considered to be the most intelligent. :-) -- All mice take the easiest route. Some just do it faster than others. 73 es KC de Jim, N2EY |
Dave aronagence contiues
wrote in message ... On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 18:35:48 GMT, Dave Heil wrote: Cecil Moore wrote: Dave Heil wrote: What are we to make of it--that people generally take the easiest route to something? When one is dealing with a governmental licensing bureau, there is no "easiest route". Only one route is offered by the rule *makers* for each license class. That's correct, but almost everyone *starts* with a license class having less difficult requirements. You did it. I did it. Jim did it. so what? The *takers* of the exam cannot be blamed for the present licensing structure. ...and I haven't blamed them. They took the exams which were available to them. bull**** Dave you blamed them 2 layers back in this thread How can a new general class ham be considered to be inferior to an older general class ham when each ham took the one and only exam available at his particular time of testing? Now you're asking something different. no he is not Such a General Class licensee could easily be considered to have learned less material since less material is required in order to pass the exam. Surely you can see that. so what? that is not the same as inferior Dave your use of langage is slipshod Incidentally, mice that take the easiest route to the cheese hidden in a maze are considered to be the most intelligent. :-) The easiest way might not be the fastest way--and mice don't take amateur radio exams. meaning you don't value intelgence you value only your hazing ritual Mark snipes with, "Dave your use of langage is slipshod" "you don't value intelgence " Mark, you idiot. Your spelling is slipshod and your "intelgence" is lacking. |
One way to promote learning of code ...
|
Dave aronagence contiues
DeLorean wrote: wrote in message ... On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 18:35:48 GMT, Dave Heil wrote: meaning you don't value intelgence you value only your hazing ritual Mark snipes with, "Dave your use of langage is slipshod" "you don't value intelgence " Mark, you idiot. Your spelling is slipshod and your "intelgence" is lacking. my spelling is slipshod always has been and always will and you logic lacking in assuming that spelling (or code skill) is conceted to intelgence my spelling ym slipshod but I use words corectly dave does not dave say that claiming ALL new hams are inferior to him becuase is not blaming them for the tests that is simply bull**** much like you "not naybody" |
One way to promote learning of code ...
"John Smith I" wrote in message ... Stefan Wolfe wrote: I think you are serious...you think computer-generated/received CW is really some advanced technology of the new millenium and you got your first taste of it in 1996. Have you ever thought that that there were far more "advanced" digital modes, superior to and more efficinet than CW, as long as one decided to connect a PC to a radio? I personally ignore computer CW....CW is not meant for a computer nor will it ever be...it is a human mode that has a "body language" to it that computers are not good at reading. For computers, PSK31 is a very simple, far superior machine mode to computer CW in every way. If you said "PSK31, welcome to the new millenium" I could go along with that. But computer generated CW? Sort of like attaching a lawn mower engine to a bicycle and calling it a motorcycle, isn't it? But far be it from me to criticize your toys. ;-) PSK31 is obsolete ... and much too slow to be useful. What software do you use to encode/decode and xfer mp3's and videos with on the bands? What encryption method (algorithm) do you prefer? mp3? ogg-vorbis? Do you use the same method for your speech packets? Do you use variable bit encoding? Are you aware that ogg-vorbis is open source and can be freely used? You have missed the whole point, does the above help clarify it for you? You missed my point. Psk31 is an example of a computer mode that connects directly to a PC sound card, like "computer" CW. I did not need to go into more sophisticated modes to trump your example of electronic CW as being new millenium high technology. It was a very poor example. Psk31 is just one a newer mode that is simpler than computer CW and better. BTW, it is not obsolete. Check 14.070 MHz when the band is open (or not) when you get a chance. Anyway, I do not understand your query; are you saying that mp3 is an "encryption" method? I thought it was an audio codec (like ogg vorbis). Yes, I am aware that ogg vorbis is open source. Do you wish to change the thread to discuss audio codecs? If you intended to discuss encryption as a separate topic, you had better not be planning on sending "encypted" communications over the bands unless you are controlling satellite telemetry from your earth station. Or are you saying that sending audio codecs over the bands is your best example of new millenium high technology? That is being done right now and you can buy it pre-packaged in the latest Kenwood rice box if you wish. |
One way to promote learning of code ...
Dave Heil wrote:
... I don't think anyone cares if an old bunch of grouchy guys have a hobby of tapping dit-dahs to each other ... But, when they attempt to force their hobby on others who don't enjoy it, THERE ARE REAL PROBLEMS WITH THAT! JS |
One way to promote learning of code ...
Stefan Wolfe wrote:
You missed my point. Psk31 is an example of a computer mode that connects directly to a PC sound card, like "computer" CW. I did not need to go into more sophisticated modes to trump your example of electronic CW as being new millenium high technology. It was a very poor example. Psk31 is just one a newer mode that is simpler than computer CW and better. BTW, it is not obsolete. Check 14.070 MHz when the band is open (or not) when you get a chance. Anyway, I do not understand your query; are you saying that mp3 is an "encryption" method? I thought it was an audio codec (like ogg vorbis). Yes, I am aware that ogg vorbis is open source. Do you wish to change the thread to discuss audio codecs? If you intended to discuss encryption as a separate topic, you had better not be planning on sending "encypted" communications over the bands unless you are controlling satellite telemetry from your earth station. Or are you saying that sending audio codecs over the bands is your best example of new millenium high technology? That is being done right now and you can buy it pre-packaged in the latest Kenwood rice box if you wish. You still miss the point. To chat with the OT CW'ers you need to key a xmitter from either a port on the sound card, usb, serial, or parallel port on the computer. You also need software to read the code from the rig through the line in on the computer--AND, (and here is the important point) this is how you play with the OT's and CW!!! I mean, it is good for a laugh :) If you think I use morse for anything but personal amusement, you are gravely mistaken! JS |
One way to promote learning of code ...
|
One way to promote learning of code (long)
|
One way to promote learning of code (long)
Cecil Moore wrote in news:DLsoh.3912$ji1.2859
@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net: Mike Coslo wrote: 3. The third harmonic of 350 c.p.s. is: a. 117 c.p.s. b. 250 c.p.s. c. 700 c.p.s. d. 1050 c.p.s. What's the second overtone? :-) So what really happened? My guess is that they only *seemed* harder to those who took them - at the time they took them. I thought the Conditional exam seemed difficult in 1952 (except for the easy 13 wpm code) and flunked the Conditional written once when I was 14. 48 years later I aced the Extra with a grade of 100%. The extra written exam seemed very easy after a EE degree and 40 years of engineering experience. :-) But in 2000, 20 wpm seemed difficult. Go figure. Cecil, DId you get that license at an really early age? You were licensed as a Conditional 2 years before I was born! I've seen the picture of you on your bike, and you don't look that old.. - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - |
One way to promote learning of code ...
"Alun L. Palmer" wrote in
: John Kasupski wrote in : On 7 Jan 2007 12:45:29 -0800, wrote: Why should anyone think that riding a Harley is better - or that much different - than driving a Honda? The guy down the street from me has a 1957 Panhead. I don't know anybody who has a 1957 Honda. That's because as I type this, I'm drinking my Pepsi out of the '57 Honda. John Kasupski, KC2HMZ I just read a review of a 1957 Riuko that is still on the road. Granted, that's a copy of a Harley, but it was made in Japan. I didn't think Honda had entered the US market by 1957, but I'm sure there are still some '60s Honda motorcycles out there somewhere. Myself, I owned a Suzuki, a Kawasaki and a couple of Yamahas, but no Hondas, Harleys or even Riukos. 1957 was a banner year for Honda. That was when they produced their first 2 cylinder motor under the Dream moniker. I've owned a Honda 90, Suzuki 100 dualrange, a Honda SL 350, two Yamaha XS 350's, a Montesa VR 250, and one really exotic - a Rickman Zundapp. - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - |
One way to promote learning of code (long)
Mike Coslo wrote:
Cecil, DId you get that license at an really early age? You were licensed as a Conditional 2 years before I was born! I've seen the picture of you on your bike, and you don't look that old.. You're too kind, Mike. I became a member of the Old Old Timer's Club 15 years ago. I've been a ham for 55 years. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
One way to promote learning of code (long)
Cecil Moore wrote:
You're too kind, Mike. I became a member of the Old Old Timer's Club 15 years ago. I've been a ham for 55 years. Cecil: Enough! Quit rubbing it in! joints creaking! JS |
One way to promote learning of code ...
Cecil Moore wrote:
Stefan Wolfe wrote: I personally ignore computer CW... I personally ignore any electronically assisted CW. I don't see much difference between an electronic keyer and a PC. Ignoring someone because of how their CW is generated is just as prejudiced as ignoring someone because they didn't have to pass a code test... |
One way to promote learning of code ...
Cecil Moore wrote:
Stefan Wolfe wrote: I personally ignore computer CW... I personally ignore any electronically assisted CW. I don't see much difference between an electronic keyer and a PC. Some hams had the audacity to use electronic keys on straight key night. Personally, I have a problem breaking over ~80+ WPM CW ... .... that is as fast as I can type :( But, brightside to this is, I can copy faster, right up 'till the di's overrun the dahs! Regards, JS |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:24 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com