|
Dave aronagence contiues
DeLorean wrote:
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 The twit has some nerve calling anyone's use of "langage" slipshod. He can't fully understand anything he tries to read and his use of "langage" is so slipshod that most folks can't understand what he writes. In short, Mark is a twit. 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. My "aronagence contiues", does it? Mark "contiues" to post as a mindless twit. He repeatedly defines "inferior". Dave K8MN |
One way to promote learning of code (long)
John Smith I wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote: I became a member of the Old Old Timer's Club 15 years ago. I've been a ham for 55 years. Cecil: Quit rubbing it in! A year from now I'll be 70 years old. :-) -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
One way to promote learning of code ...
AaronJ wrote:
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... That's the point I was trying to make. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
One way to promote learning of code ...
wrote in message oups.com... Carl R. Stevenson wrote: wrote in message ups.com... Cecil Moore wrote: John Smith I wrote: No, the new generation of hams will make it obsolete and history! Like AM? -- The invention of the motorcycle did not make the bicycle obsolete. The invention of the car did not make walking obsolete. Power boats did not make all sailboats obsolete, although many sailboats were replaced by power boats. People still *run* marathons, even though they'd go a lot faster with a lot less effort if roller skates were used. AM did not become obsolete when SSB was invented. Morse Code did not become obsolete when voice and RTTY were invented. There will still be people who CHOOSE to use Morse if it's presented to them as fun and they're allowed to make the choice without intimidation (and without berating them) And if there's available spectrum and other Morse Code operators. And if there isn't it will be because not enough people are interested in using that mode. (I'm not trying to encourage its demise, just stating the evolutionary reality.) Except for a few people who learned Morse Code elsewhere, most would-be hams don't have any prior Morse Code skill. True ... The code test acts as a sort of Great Equalizer, Absurd ... Not at all. ALL that a code test does is indicate that you can copy Morse at some specified speed. Nothing more, nothing less. IMHO, that's a rather shortsighted view. Consider this statement: ALL that a written test does is indicate that you can pick out at least the minimum required number of correct multiple-choice answers in a test where all of the questions and answers are freely available beforehand. Nothing more, nothing less. The focus on the nature of the test (multiple choice) and memorization is specious and contrived to depricate the test. I'm beginning study for a private pilot's license ... and the written test for that is multiple choice, too. In the aviation field there doesn't seem to be a group of old-timers who bemoan the nature of the current test and denigrate newbies - in fact, I see AOPA and everyone I've encountered doing their best to encourage newcomers because they recognize that the future of general aviation depends on it. In addition, as long as you don't cheat, FCC does not care how you get the right answers, nor which questions you get right or wrong. They don't care if you memorized, or if you guessed, or if you really understand the material. They also don't care if you have a Ph.D in EE, etc. - you get the same test. Yea ... what else did you expect. Minimum entry requirements are just that. Doesn't matter where you start from. As long as you can pass the minimum requirements you get in. Hopefully you continue to learn and grow. [snip to related material] The point I was making is that *passing the written tests* is/was a very different thing from passing the Morse Code tests, particularly if someone had some background in electricity or electronics. Which is much more likely today than someone having background in Morse Code. So??? That only goes to support the fact that Morse is essentially unimportant in today's real world. (not to say you can't still find it fun or that you shouldn't use it) I was talking night before last with Ed Hare - remember the 3 page study guide that he had for his novice test and compare that, as he does, to the 200+ pages of "Now You're Talking" - there has been NO "dumbing down" for entry into ham radio. How anyone could assert with honesty and a straight face that 200+ pages of material is "dumbed down" compared to 3 pages is something that simply is unfathomable. I have debunked W1RFI's "200 page" myth several times - including in person. I wish you'd been there for that one, Carl. Despite your assertions, I don't believe that Ed's assertions can be legitimately debunked. [more snip for brevity] The "equalizer" idea is simply to point out that almost all hams who try to learn it start at the same place. That's not true of the written exams. Again - SO??? Testing for licensure is not about "making folks work for it" or the liberal Democrat idea of "equalizing outcomes" (as opposed to equal OPPORTUNITY). The equal opportunity is the opportunity to take the prescribed test - no matter WHERE you started from - and, if you pass the test, get a license. Testing should not be some sort of "social enginneering" exercise, but should ONLY involve the required demonstration of meeting the established minimum requirements for licensure. 73, Carl - wk3c |
One way to promote learning of code (long)
Mike,
GREAT response - really illustrates the reality! Unfortunately, too many people fall into your 2nd explaination (just want to bitch - and keep newbies out of "their" bands) 73, Carl - wk3c "Mike Coslo" wrote in message 36... 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 ...
"Dave Heil" wrote in message ink.net... in a rerun, wrote: From: "Carl R. Stevenson" on Sun, Jan 7 2007 10:14 am [snip to the part I didn't see since Len's rantings go into my killfile] [in case you've forgotten...possibly since the NCI web site didn't appear to know it until after a week had passed after the FCC announcement...just a deduction] You often make poor deductions, Leonard. Yes ... he does. It wasn't a week after the Public Notice, but a couple of days, before it was posted to the NCI website (and a link to the Report and Order was posted within 24 hours of its release). I was on Maui for 10 days on a combination of business and vacation, but modern technology (my EVDO card) alllowed me to access the internet wirelessly from my notebook :-) 73, Carl - wk3c |
One way to promote learning of code ...
The falacy of this whole argument is that current written tests are "easier"
than the old written tests. It is only in the faded memory of old timers that the old written tests were "harder" .... as has been pointed out, they probably *seemed* hard to the (then newbie) old timers when they took them, but from all evidence presented it is simply inaccurate to conclude that they were, in fact, harder. 73, Carl - wk3c "Cecil Moore" wrote in message t... 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 ...
Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
The falacy of this whole argument is that current written tests are "easier" than the old written tests. My Conditional exam in 1952 was certainly harder for me than my Extra exam in 2000. :-) -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
One way to promote learning of code ...
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message ... Carl R. Stevenson wrote: The falacy of this whole argument is that current written tests are "easier" than the old written tests. My Conditional exam in 1952 was certainly harder for me than my Extra exam in 2000. :-) -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com Perhaps, Cecil, but you're omitting the fact that you got an EE degree between those two events :-) Don't feed the trolls :-) 73, Carl - wk3c |
One way to promote learning of code ...
AaronJ wrote: 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... Kind of like sending Morse Code so poorly that a Technician with a computer reader couldn't copy it. I think Cecil was making a point, not actually presenting a method of operation. Aaron J, keeper of the Morse Myths, welcome back. |
One way to promote learning of code ...
"AaronJ" wrote in message ... 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... Interesting logical leap. If one chooses not to use a certain technology (i.e. ignores computer CW), can he then be accused of radio prejudice for ignoring people who use the technology that he chooses not to use? If I ignore AM radio, does that mean that I am prejudiced against you because you like AM radio? |
One way to promote learning of code ...
Stefan Wolfe wrote:
If I ignore AM radio, does that mean that I am prejudiced against you because you like AM radio? What's wrong with being prejudiced? It saves me from making the same mistake over and over again. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
One way to promote learning of code ...
Stefan Wolfe wrote:
... Interesting logical leap. If one chooses not to use a certain technology (i.e. ignores computer CW), can he then be accused of radio prejudice for ... First you would have to convince me you are psychic; as, that is the ONLY way you can differentiate between computer-generated CW and non-computer-generated ... Minor, inconsequential and random errors are easily programmed into the computer generated model, but will give the morse that "unique signature" of the "imitated keyers style." JS |
One way to promote learning of code ...
John Smith I wrote:
First you would have to convince me you are psychic; as, that is the ONLY way you can differentiate between computer-generated CW and non-computer-generated ... Straight keys are relatively easy to recognize. Sometimes it is impossible to program a machine to be that bad on purpose. :-) I heard a guy on straight key night where his dits were 75% the length of his dahs - amazingly hard to copy. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
One way to promote learning of code ...
"Stefan Wolfe" wrote:
If one chooses not to use a certain technology (i.e. ignores computer CW), can he then be accused of radio prejudice for ignoring people who use the technology that he chooses not to use? I was simply referring to those who refuse to work someone on CW *only* because they are using a computer. I've even read posts here of hams that said if they suspect someone is copying CW by computer they switch to excessive weight and poor sending just to mess up the copy. Seems kind of snobbish to me. If I ignore AM radio, does that mean that I am prejudiced against you because you like AM radio? Well now I guess I'm guilty of that since I haven't used a mike in over 20 years... ;) |
One way to promote learning of code ...
Cecil Moore wrote:
That's the point I was trying to make. My apologies, I thought you were serious. |
One way to promote learning of code ...
Cecil Moore wrote:
Straight keys are relatively easy to recognize. Sometimes it is impossible to program a machine to be that bad on purpose. :-) I heard a guy on straight key night where his dits were 75% the length of his dahs - amazingly hard to copy. Cecil: You find me a hacker (i.e. "Professional Software Engineer") who says that would be even above childs play and I will give up my anonymity. On a complexity scale of 1-to-10 that does NOT even register ... Regards, JS |
One way to promote learning of code ...
|
One way to promote learning of code ...
John Smith I wrote:
Minor, inconsequential and random errors are easily programmed into the computer generated model, but will give the morse that "unique signature" of the "imitated keyers style." IMO the perfect fist sounds like computer generated CW. And it's the easiest to copy. All those so called 'unique fists' can be copied but it's like trying to understand someone from Brooklyn (or Texas)... ;) |
One way to promote learning of code ...
AaronJ wrote:
... they are using a computer. I've even read posts here of hams that said if they suspect someone is copying CW by computer they switch to excessive weight and poor sending just to mess up the copy. Seems kind of snobbish to me. ... AaronJ: They (those guys with the brass taps on, doing a tap dance here) truly show their ignorance if that is their claim. They get away with that chit because few have professional programming experience here, indeed, 2nd or 3rd year software engineering students would even be able to "pull their covers." If the ear can tell the difference between a di and a dah, the computer sure as heck will not be fooled! This would only require that polymorphic coding be used in the software (self-adapting to such changes which can be deduced and "programmed for") and adaptive timing (comparing lengths of key-ons (di to dah) and constantly adapting for changes--only caring for the fact that a di is consistently shorter than a dah.) While this might be an interesting enough project for a 2nd to 3rd year college student, most upper division students would be required to have skills capable of solving much more complex problems involving algorithms with magnitudes of greater complexity! Any software engineer who possesses a bachelors degree will support this, even if they know NOTHING about amateur radio and ONLY that there will ALWAYS be a difference in length between a di and a dah and these length differences are (or may be) of a constantly variable nature. If you doubt me, call up a college and ask to speak to a instructor in software engineering ... don't take my word for it. But, take this bunch of ancient key tappers as any type of software/algorithm experts? YOU HAVE TO BE KIDDING ME!!! JS |
One way to promote learning of code ...
AaronJ wrote:
John Smith I wrote: Minor, inconsequential and random errors are easily programmed into the computer generated model, but will give the morse that "unique signature" of the "imitated keyers style." IMO the perfect fist sounds like computer generated CW. And it's the easiest to copy. All those so called 'unique fists' can be copied but it's like trying to understand someone from Brooklyn (or Texas)... ;) Yanno, after reading enough of these posts, you are likely to come to the same conclusion I have; these guys think a ham ticket is the equivalent to a "Doctorate In Everything." Once you catch on, it is quite funny to watch, and indicative of what kind of educational level is predominate here. Regards, JS |
One way to promote learning of code ...
John Smith I wrote:
AaronJ wrote: they are using a computer. I've even read posts here of hams that said if they suspect someone is copying CW by computer they switch to excessive weight and poor sending just to mess up the copy. Seems kind of snobbish to me. They (those guys with the brass taps on, doing a tap dance here) truly show their ignorance if that is their claim. They get away with that chit because few have professional programming experience... The programming experience of most hams has little to do with their ability to work computer CW. Virtually everybody I work (who admits to) using a computer on CW is using either a *commercial* multimode decoding box or *commercial* computer software and an interface. If the ear can tell the difference between a di and a dah, the computer sure as heck will not be fooled! IMO the ear still beats computer copy in *real life*. I've played with a lot of multimodes and software over the years and none has ever come close to ear copy under poor signal conditions and/or someone with a poor fist. This would only require that polymorphic coding be used in the software... My computer screen might read NNTTA when the op was really sending CQ. The computer saw five letters when there were really two because the op had poor letter spacing. My ear picked up the CQ easily, but the computer read gibberish. When I contact him I will still be able to understand him while the computer continues to spit out gibberish. Your program is going to need to understand English grammar and Q signals along with timing to solve this type of problem... ;) Any software engineer who possesses a bachelors degree will support this, even if they know NOTHING about amateur radio and ONLY that there will ALWAYS be a difference in length between a di and a dah and these length differences are (or may be) of a constantly variable nature. It may be possible to write such a *perfect* CW program, but so far I haven't found one. Maybe someone else here has. So for our victim who is using currently available software it's certainly possible for the jerks to screw up his copy with poor sending. But lets hope they were just spouting off in the post. BTW Some advantages of computer CW: It's fun to have a 80 or 100+ WPM QSO. It's a great way to get your code speed up. Watch the screen while you listen to the code at just above your speed. After awhile turn the screen away and you will be copying in your head at the new speed. A disadvantage of using computer CW: During a QSO you can't turn up the speaker and leave the room to take a leak... ;) |
One way to promote learning of code ...
AaronJ wrote:
... I don't use commercial ware. I do have some open source code of others I have used and incorporated into C/C++ programs I have created myself. A search of the net will turn up many freeware and open source programs capable of fooling the best, I can hardly believe there is no commercial-ware which can't, perhaps it is in its use and configuration by the user. And trust me, long after your ear fails to copy solid, a good software utility can ... Regards, JS |
One way to promote learning of code ...
AaronJ wrote:
I was simply referring to those who refuse to work someone on CW *only* because they are using a computer. Anyone using an IC-756PRO for CW is using a computer. :-) -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
One way to promote learning of code ...
AaronJ wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote: That's the point I was trying to make. My apologies, I thought you were serious. Seriousness on r.r.a.p???? Shirley you jest. :-) -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
One way to promote learning of code ...
John Smith I wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote: Straight keys are relatively easy to recognize. Sometimes it is impossible to program a machine to be that bad on purpose. :-) I heard a guy on straight key night where his dits were 75% the length of his dahs - amazingly hard to copy. You find me a hacker (i.e. "Professional Software Engineer") who says that would be even above childs play and I will give up my anonymity. On a complexity scale of 1-to-10 that does NOT even register ... Methinks you misunderstood. My point is that a computer is absolutely necessary to be able to copy that guy's bad fist. I doubt that any human ears could do it. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
One way to promote learning of code ...
AaronJ wrote: John Smith I wrote: Minor, inconsequential and random errors are easily programmed into the computer generated model, but will give the morse that "unique signature" of the "imitated keyers style." IMO the perfect fist sounds like computer generated CW. And it's the easiest to copy. All those so called 'unique fists' can be copied but it's like trying to understand someone from Brooklyn (or Texas)... ;) Well, there was some debate about this a few years back. It centered around a couple of things; 1) being a lack of an actual definition of Morse Code in Title 47, and 2) the desire of several of the Pro-Code Test folks to claim that a method of TEACHING Morse Code should be used as a Morse Code Exam, i.e., the Farnsworth Code. Morse Code had previously been defined with specific dot, dash, and space interval ratios. Exams were then defined as Morse Code sent at rates of 20, 13, and 5 WPM. Today, they use the Teaching Method of Farnsworth Code, where the dot, dash, and interval can be anything desired, and character speeds of 13 to 15 WPM for a 5 WPM exam. That's fine for learning the code as Part 97 doesn't address any particular method, nor does it advocate any particular vendor such as W5YI or ARRL. Yet Part 97 still, even to this day, requires a Morse Code Exam (Farnsworth isn't mentioned) at a Morse Code Rate of 5 WPM. Lengthening the space interval isn't addressed as a way to get 13 to 15 WPM character speeds down to 5 WPM word rate. But hey, Part 97 is only a suggestion, right? And none of that matters now, anyway. Anyhow, the Pro-Code Exam folks were all over the notion that code was an individual thing and that each person's code sounded like "speech" to them because of all of the little and big imperfections, and sometimes the big imperfections were deliberate. I was chided for suggesting that manually sent code should be formed as precisely as one could make it, which sparked another debate. Apparently, humans trying to send perfect code shouldn't be a goal in amateur radio, even if unachievable. Which took us full circle to the humans emulating modems of the original invention of Sammy Morse, the code paper tape with dashes and longer dashes scribed on them. Oh, well, it was a nice walk in the park. The PCTA folks arguments were as imperfect as the code they send. |
One way to promote learning of code ...
John Smith I wrote:
I don't use commercial ware. I once wrote a homebrew CW receive program in Atari Basic that actually did pretty well on my old 800XL (if the conditions and sending fist were pretty good). I have used and incorporated into C/C++ programs I have created myself. But I think you will find that most hams are like me. They are not professionally in electronics or computers, and thus buy mostly commercial radios and software. A search of the net will turn up many freeware and open source programs capable of fooling the best, Do you mean a CW program that prints perfectly under all conditions found on the ham bands? I assure you that no such animal exists. I can hardly believe there is no commercial-ware which can't, I doubt that there's much of a market for CW software. The vast majority of CW ops are over 60 and dying off fast. Then the FCC won't force newcomers to learn the code anymore so that market is gone. (I sure wouldn't have learned it if they hadn't forced me to.) Since there's not much money to be made on a dying market there's not much incentive to invest a lot of time writing the perfect program. And I suspect most CW ops are like me and probably wouldn't buy it anyway cause we would prefer to do it the old fashioned way anyway... ;) And trust me, long after your ear fails to copy solid, a good software utility can ... We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. IMO the old computer between the ears still does the best all around job, especially under poor conditions. |
One way to promote learning of code ...
Cecil Moore wrote:
Anyone using an IC-756PRO for CW is using a computer. :-) And it can be handy. Sometimes when I'm playing with the computer CW program and it's printing well, I can have a short conversation with the XYL and then catch up on the QSO a minute later. Some oldtimers used to claim to be able to head copy on the radio and chat with a person in the room at the same time. But I could never do that... ;) |
One way to promote learning of code ...
|
One way to promote learning of code ...
wrote: wrote: On 10 Jan 2007 19:24:17 -0800, wrote: indeed BTW do check out the Moderation propaosal All I've read is this thread. I haven't followed any links. the whole thing is a farce all negitive coments about he proposal in the "officail" gruop are being rejected as "off Topic" and this is suposed to insprie trust Only the bashers and the ProCoders who are one and the same seem happy at the idea |
One way to promote learning of code ...
From: John Smith I - on Tues, Jan 9 2007 8:20 pm
AaronJ wrote: ... they are using a computer. I've even read posts here of hams that said if they suspect someone is copying CW by computer they switch to excessive weight and poor sending just to mess up the copy. Seems kind of snobbish to me. ... ...Those guys with the brass taps on, doing a tap dance here) truly show their ignorance if that is their claim. They get away with that chit because few have professional programming experience here, indeed, 2nd or 3rd year software engineering students would even be able to "pull their covers." If the ear can tell the difference between a di and a dah, the computer sure as heck will not be fooled! This would only require that polymorphic coding be used in the software (self-adapting to such changes which can be deduced and "programmed for") and adaptive timing (comparing lengths of key-ons (di to dah) and constantly adapting for changes--only caring for the fact that a di is consistently shorter than a dah.) While this might be an interesting enough project for a 2nd to 3rd year college student, most upper division students would be required to have skills capable of solving much more complex problems involving algorithms with magnitudes of greater complexity! Any software engineer who possesses a bachelors degree will support this, even if they know NOTHING about amateur radio and ONLY that there will ALWAYS be a difference in length between a di and a dah and these length differences are (or may be) of a constantly variable nature. John, some years ago IN HERE I described what a Pro Programmer did as an "intellectual exercise" for himself. Perhaps 15 years ago or more; I let this acquaintence borrow my then-new Icom R-70 receiver for an "on-air test" using a simple audio filter and detector and TTL interface (which I tossed together at home) for a then-very-speedy 40 MHz clock PC. :-) This acquaintence was intrigued by the problem of deciphering variable-length anything and was vaguely related to his day job in setting up human interfaces for computers. It DID use "adaptive timing" although I don't recall those exact buzzwords. It DID adapt to both word rate, character spacing, and changes in ratio of dits v. dahs. It DID work, even on the ham bands (even then the primary source of morse code). It was programmed in C, not the C++ common to today. Assembler subroutines were short and the "housekeeping" sort used in other programming tasks with an 80x86 processor. [the later derivatives culminating in the now-common 'Pentium' instruction set) weren't around yet] I am "not at home" with C and am stuck on Fortran (77 variety as used in MS FORTRN 5.1 which MS dropped some years ago...and will no longer work in Windows XP at the DOS level). I don't pretend to be a whiz at programming but am fairly proficient with Fortran as a high-level language. [hey, I'm after number-crunching, not "art" in programming...results quickly obtained without going into arguments over how to do it with whatever is the source code a la mode...:-)] As far as I know, he never tried to market the program, not even add the ruffles and flourishes of some fancy interface screen, just a common (DOS Level) instruction menu, nothing fancy. It worked and he satisfied himself. I saw the source code and wanted a copy (never got one) so that I could experiment with it, write it in Fortran or even convert it to the Apple ][+ that was used once in a while. There just isn't any market (one that makes lots of money) for it now, hardly one back then. If you doubt me, call up a college and ask to speak to a instructor in software engineering ... don't take my word for it. They will NOT do that, John. Trust me. Their 'arguments' center around some cheapie box from MFJ or whatever, the kind using old, classic, FREE routines adapted to a particular microprocessor. I have yet to see ONE argument that bothers to take on the GUTS of such a reader...the dynamic adaptation to dit v. dah ratios, word rate, and (sure has hell) what to do about transient impulses that make their way into the incoming storage register. But, take this bunch of ancient key tappers as any type of software/algorithm experts? YOU HAVE TO BE KIDDING ME!!! Tsk, John, the Morsemen will be mighty put-out by such words. Their ability in morse and subsequent "extra" status (as amateurs) make them Masters of Radio! They cannot be argued with, only admired for the Mighty Achievements (including much paper with certificates suitable for framing). Ned Lud would be proud of them and their fight on the side of deus ex machina. :-) LA |
One way to promote learning of code ...
From: on Wed, Jan 10 2007 7:24 pm
AaronJ wrote: John Smith I wrote: Minor, inconsequential and random errors are easily programmed into the computer generated model, but will give the morse that "unique signature" of the "imitated keyers style." IMO the perfect fist sounds like computer generated CW. And it's the easiest to copy. All those so called 'unique fists' can be copied but it's like trying to understand someone from Brooklyn (or Texas)... ;) Well, there was some debate about this a few years back. It centered around a couple of things; 1) being a lack of an actual definition of Morse Code in Title 47, and 2) the desire of several of the Pro-Code Test folks to claim that a method of TEACHING Morse Code should be used as a Morse Code Exam, i.e., the Farnsworth Code. "Bang on" as the Brits say, Brian. BTW, it took the FCC years to finally update Part 97 from its previously OBSOLETE CCITT document reference to the 'proper' ITU-T document. Even then the proper document, like the old CCITT one, describes a COMMERCIAL telegram protocol, not an amateur one. Morse Code had previously been defined with specific dot, dash, and space interval ratios. Exams were then defined as Morse Code sent at rates of 20, 13, and 5 WPM. Today, they use the Teaching Method of Farnsworth Code, where the dot, dash, and interval can be anything desired, and character speeds of 13 to 15 WPM for a 5 WPM exam. That's fine for learning the code as Part 97 doesn't address any particular method, nor does it advocate any particular vendor such as W5YI or ARRL. Yet Part 97 still, even to this day, requires a Morse Code Exam (Farnsworth isn't mentioned) at a Morse Code Rate of 5 WPM. Lengthening the space interval isn't addressed as a way to get 13 to 15 WPM character speeds down to 5 WPM word rate. But hey, Part 97 is only a suggestion, right? A DEFINITON of WORD RATE is NOT DIRECTLY STATED in Part 97! Perhaps two sentences could have been included to SET or FIX the word rate...but the FCC never included that. When that was 'discussed' in here by the morse mavens, they all pointed to Paris with an "everybody 'knows' that" kind of attitude. And none of that matters now, anyway. THANK GOD! Miracles can happen. :-) Anyhow, the Pro-Code Exam folks were all over the notion that code was an individual thing and that each person's code sounded like "speech" to them because of all of the little and big imperfections, and sometimes the big imperfections were deliberate. I was chided for suggesting that manually sent code should be formed as precisely as one could make it, which sparked another debate. Apparently, humans trying to send perfect code shouldn't be a goal in amateur radio, even if unachievable. Which took us full circle to the humans emulating modems of the original invention of Sammy Morse, the code paper tape with dashes and longer dashes scribed on them. Sam's original "code" was all NUMBERS. That's what was used in the first US telegram company (Washington DC to Baltimore MD, 1844). Five-number code groups representing "common" phrases of the 1800s. And, it was done with paper tape with an ink pen driven by an electromagnet. Sam's financial angel, Al Vail, came up with the first true telegraphic code to represent letters and punctuation as well as just numbers. Sam was running out of numbers in his "code dictionary" and didn't have enough (or maybe patience) and the original morse code was NOT speedy...although it really, really outpaced the common rider-horse courier system for "overnight delivery" of that time. :-) Oh, well, it was a nice walk in the park. The PCTA folks arguments were as imperfect as the code they send. Tsk, tsk, Brian. By their own admission, *all* PCTA send Perfect Code! Much, much faster than 'we' can realize. :-) But, in retrospect, all the PCTA had for "reasons" of retention of the code test amounted to mental conditioning (brainwashing) over years and years of League emphasis on that mode. They were subconsciously parroting all of it. PCTA will NEVER, ever admit to ANY mental conditioning. To them amateur radio was all about radiotelegraphy. Before the turn of the new millennium, every other radio service had DROPPED OOK CW or never considered it when that radio service was created. Morsemanship is alive (and on life support) ONLY in amateur radio today. I say "only" because a few olde-tymers in other radio services MIGHT be still using morsemanship but that is NOT what is the MAJOR MODE of communications. Miccolis will jump in here and say I am "wrong" or "mistaken" (as is his usual ranting) but it is TRUE. Except for the die-hard (Bruce Willis wannabes?) morsemen in ham radio, morse code is DYING if not dead. THEY are the zombies, the "walking dead" who strut around pretending to be "champion ops in radio." Yes, "champion" in the time-frame of the 1930s. This is 2007, not 70 years ago. |
One way to promote learning of code ...
From: "Carl R. Stevenson" on Tues, Jan 9 2007 9:58 am
"Dave Heil" wrote in message in a rerun, wrote: From: "Carl R. Stevenson" on Sun, Jan 7 2007 10:14 am [snip to the part I didn't see since Len's rantings go into my killfile] [in case you've forgotten...possibly since the NCI web site didn't appear to know it until after a week had passed after the FCC announcement...just a deduction] You often make poor deductions, Leonard. Yes ... he does. I made an OBSERVATION, Carl. Looking at www.nocode.org every day for a week after the 15 Dec 06 FCC announcement. It wasn't a week after the Public Notice, but a couple of days, before it was posted to the NCI website (and a link to the Report and Order was posted within 24 hours of its release). Then why didn't it appear that soon on the "NCI website?" One that us earthpeople could read? The ARRL was posting about it the same day! Let's face it. www.nocode.org has been QUIET on everything concerning the no-code-test NPRM. All that's been there for months has been a couple of notices about "officials" of NCI. Whoop-de-do. [it was like walking through a research library with nobody in it...] Suddenly, comes "word" from the "Chief" of NCI on "important news!" Allegedly "immediately" (more or less) "reported." I was on Maui for 10 days on a combination of business and vacation, but modern technology (my EVDO card) alllowed me to access the internet wirelessly from my notebook :-) Wow! High-tech! insert a Robesin hyena-guffaw here You should have remarked about a fancy hotel with Internet connections in every room or something. You don't have a direct satellite telephone? [Iridium is up and working, ain't it?] By golly, Carl, looks like you "joined the 'other side.'" What with the extra callsign and running (well, trying to) for office, and all the IEEE Standards committee work, you appear to be Greater than us ordinary earthpeople. It's rather obvious to most readers that Heil has had a deep personality conflict with me in here, by all indications a deep, antagonistic attitude wherein he keeps on finding "fault" with everything I say...and has been doing so for years. Now you are doing the same thing. Is that what Managers' Charm School taught you? Well, what I've been saying for years has come to pass. Give someone rank-status-privilege and they become "better" than ordinary folk. Gosh, maybe I should mention we were in Cabo for a shoot. [film, that is] Shoot, forgot all about it...:-) LA |
One way to promote learning of code ...
Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
wrote in message oups.com... Carl R. Stevenson wrote: wrote in message ups.com... Cecil Moore wrote: John Smith I wrote: No, the new generation of hams will make it obsolete and history! Like AM? -- The invention of the motorcycle did not make the bicycle obsolete. The invention of the car did not make walking obsolete. Power boats did not make all sailboats obsolete, although many sailboats were replaced by power boats. People still *run* marathons, even though they'd go a lot faster with a lot less effort if roller skates were used. AM did not become obsolete when SSB was invented. Morse Code did not become obsolete when voice and RTTY were invented. There will still be people who CHOOSE to use Morse if it's presented to them as fun and they're allowed to make the choice without intimidation (and without berating them) And if there's available spectrum and other Morse Code operators. And if there isn't it will be because not enough people are interested in using that mode. (I'm not trying to encourage its demise, just stating the evolutionary reality.) That's simply a restating of what I meant by "other Morse Code operators". But that's not the only thing needed. Regulations can be written that make it harder to use some well-established modes. For example, look what happened to plain old AM 'phone. Before the 1983-84 power rules change, hams could run up to 1000 watts input on AM. With a plate- or collector-modulated Class C legal-limit final, that meant up to 750 watts or so of carrier output. With advanced modes, even higher outputs could be obtained at 1000 watts input. But then the rules changed from 1000W DC input to 1500W peak output. Which effectively lowered the AM power limit by 50% or more. AM'ers asked that there be the option of using either system - 1000 W DC input *or* 1500 W peak output - but FCC said no. Except for a few people who learned Morse Code elsewhere, most would-be hams don't have any prior Morse Code skill. True ... The code test acts as a sort of Great Equalizer, Absurd ... Not at all. ALL that a code test does is indicate that you can copy Morse at some specified speed. Nothing more, nothing less. IMHO, that's a rather shortsighted view. Consider this statement: ALL that a written test does is indicate that you can pick out at least the minimum required number of correct multiple-choice answers in a test where all of the questions and answers are freely available beforehand. Nothing more, nothing less. The focus on the nature of the test (multiple choice) and memorization is specious and contrived to depricate the test. You're missing the point. The statement you made about the code test and the statement I made about the written tests are essentially identical. That's the point I was making. The US amateur written exams have been exclusively multiple-choice for over 40 years. That's not going to change. I'm beginning study for a private pilot's license ... and the written test for that is multiple choice, too. Does the FAA publish all of the questions and answers that can appear on the tests, complete with the correct answers pointed out? Can you take practice exams online for free? What score is needed to pass? Do you see experienced aviation folks saying the pilot's license exams are too technical, and need to be simplified? In the aviation field there doesn't seem to be a group of old-timers who bemoan the nature of the current test and denigrate newbies - in fact, I see AOPA and everyone I've encountered doing their best to encourage newcomers because they recognize that the future of general aviation depends on it. There is a big difference between pointing out deficiencies in license tests and methods and denigrating newcomers. I do the former, not the latter. Aviation is quite a bit different from amateur radio in many ways. For one thing, it's a lot more expensive, and potentially dangerous. A lot more judgement is needed for aviation, and what appears to be a minor error can turn into a disaster very easily. (Just look what happened to JFK Jr. because of an error in judgement). "There are old pilots, and there are bold pilots, but there are no old, bold pilots" In addition, as long as you don't cheat, FCC does not care how you get the right answers, nor which questions you get right or wrong. They don't care if you memorized, or if you guessed, or if you really understand the material. They also don't care if you have a Ph.D in EE, etc. - you get the same test. Yea ... what else did you expect. The point is that passing the written exams does not mean the person understands the material. Minimum entry requirements are just that. Doesn't matter where you start from. As long as you can pass the minimum requirements you get in. Hopefully you continue to learn and grow. Agreed - but what should those minimum requirements be? Does the current 35 question Technician written *really* test what a ham should know in order to operate 1500 watt output transmitters at (to use your excellent phrase) "meat cooking frequencies"? [snip to related material] The point I was making is that *passing the written tests* is/was a very different thing from passing the Morse Code tests, particularly if someone had some background in electricity or electronics. Which is much more likely today than someone having background in Morse Code. So??? That only goes to support the fact that Morse is essentially unimportant in today's real world. (not to say you can't still find it fun or that you shouldn't use it) Isn't amateur radio part of "today's real world"? Morse Code is part of amateur radio - a big part. I was talking night before last with Ed Hare - remember the 3 page study guide that he had for his novice test and compare that, as he does, to the 200+ pages of "Now You're Talking" - there has been NO "dumbing down" for entry into ham radio. How anyone could assert with honesty and a straight face that 200+ pages of material is "dumbed down" compared to 3 pages is something that simply is unfathomable. I have debunked W1RFI's "200 page" myth several times - including in person. I wish you'd been there for that one, Carl. Despite your assertions, I don't believe that Ed's assertions can be legitimately debunked. They can if someone has an open mind to look at the facts. [more snip for brevity] The "equalizer" idea is simply to point out that almost all hams who try to learn it start at the same place. That's not true of the written exams. Again - SO??? So some people don't like the idea of learning skills. And some people don't like the idea of learning something for amateur radio alone. Testing for licensure is not about "making folks work for it" or the liberal Democrat idea of "equalizing outcomes" (as opposed to equal OPPORTUNITY). There has always been equal opportunity to get a ham license. Show up, pass the tests, get the license. The equal opportunity is the opportunity to take the prescribed test - no matter WHERE you started from - and, if you pass the test, get a license. Testing should not be some sort of "social enginneering" exercise, but should ONLY involve the required demonstration of meeting the established minimum requirements for licensure. Any test is composed of at leasst two components: the material and the method. How well a test indicates the qualifications of the person tested depends on both. IMHO, the material of today's tests is roughly equivalent to that of the old tests, updated for changes in the rules and commonly-used technologies. But the *methods* used today are not comparable to the old methods. Which do you think is a better test of how well a person knows technical material: Method A: The general areas of the test are announced by means of typical problems, shown in a manner different from the actual test format. or Method B: The exact questions and answers that may appear on the test are shown in a manner identical to the actual test format. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
One way to promote learning of code ...
"John Smith I" wrote in message ... Stefan Wolfe wrote: ... Interesting logical leap. If one chooses not to use a certain technology (i.e. ignores computer CW), can he then be accused of radio prejudice for ... First you would have to convince me you are psychic; as, that is the ONLY way you can differentiate between computer-generated CW and non-computer-generated ... Minor, inconsequential and random errors are easily programmed into the computer generated model, but will give the morse that "unique signature" of the "imitated keyers style." When I say "ignore" computer CW, I mean that I ignore my own use of technology, not that I refuse to communicate with someone else who uses the technology. But why would someone use computer CW? What if everybody used computer CW instead of more suitable digital modes that the same computer can generate? What then would the world think of us :-) |
One way to promote learning of code ...
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message . net... AaronJ wrote: Cecil Moore wrote: That's the point I was trying to make. My apologies, I thought you were serious. Seriousness on r.r.a.p???? Shirley you jest. :-) Roger Roger, and stop calling me Shirley :-) |
One way to promote learning of code ...
wrote in message oups.com... From: on Wed, Jan 10 2007 7:24 pm AaronJ wrote: John Smith I wrote: Personally, I like Farnsworth better than Morse. I use Farnsworth all the time and it seems that people who only use Morse have no problem copying my Farnsworth. |
One way to promote learning of code ...
"AaronJ" wrote in message ... John Smith I wrote: I don't use commercial ware. I once wrote a homebrew CW receive program in Atari Basic that actually did pretty well on my old 800XL (if the conditions and sending fist were pretty good). I have used and incorporated into C/C++ programs I have created myself. Wouldn't it be easier and more convenient if you simply "learned" how to copy it be ear? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:24 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com