Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
One way to promote learning of code ...
Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
... Have fun with Morse and promote it in a kind and polite way if you wish, but please lose the attitude that Morse somehow is the measure of a "REAL ham." 73, Carl - wk3c 73 es KC de Jim, N2EY Carl: Right on!!! Geesh, every one knows it is the size of his key which defines the measure of a REAL HAM! chuckle Regards, JS |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
One way to promote learning of code ...
Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
... 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. 73, Carl - wk3c I often sit here and wonder just how much is real, and how much is memorex? Man has always pressed machines into service, to do his work. I hardly see where it will be any different here. No human can send/read cw as fast as a computer. No human can dig out the low level signals, both rf and af, as computer software can. I am sure many contests will ban cw reading software in the future ... I am in agreement that CW will be with us for a bit longer, however, it will be done via keyboard with ever and ever increasing statistics and importance. The "new guys" (the old farts needing to catch up too) will need some of this software/hardware to decode/key cw, it will be an "equalizer." The OT's will have ever increasing difficulty in differing between what is real (hand keyed) and what is computer keyed. Here are some links for those behind, I picked these because there are very basic utilities and hardware "kludges" to get one going quickly--there is much better software available these days ... I suggest an opto-isolator circuit used between sound card out and xmitter to key. http://www.qsl.net/wm2u/cw.html http://www.polar-electric.com/Morse/MRP40-EN/ http://www.qsl.net/wm2u/interface.html http://www.kwarc.org/tech/psk31.htm Regards, JS |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
One way to promote learning of code ...
Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
wrote in message ups.com... Carl R. Stevenson wrote: Here's an interesting, but short-term, lmited lifetime idea for you folks who want to promote code learning. The Lehigh Valley Amateur Radio Club has ammassed $100.00 to present as an award to the last *club member* to pass Element 1 for an upgrade at a *club-sponsored* ARRL VE session before the new rules come into effect and the Element 1 test moves out of the rule book and into the history books. How will it be decided who is the last one? Presumably by the club's VE team. (By the way I may not have made it clear, but the "offer" only counts for folks who take Element 1 *after* the release of the order and (oviously) prior to its effective date.) OK - they probably have figured out how to decide it. (Actually, it was announced last week at this month's club meeting that "several benefactors" had contributed a total of $70.00 to the cause and I just *had* to immediately kick in an additional $30.00 on behalf of NCI to make it an even hundred :-) omigawd that's hilarious, Carl! I wish W3RV and I coulda been there when you did that.... I really didn't do it to be funny I know - that makes it even funnier! ;-) Besides, it woulda been worth the trip just to see 'RVs reaction and hear the growled commentary..... ... but it would have been good to see you guys. Would have been good to see you too. Too bad you couldn't make it down here the time W1RFI in town, that was a really good time. As I said, this is a short-term (limited lifetime) opportunity. If you want to *continue* to promote code learning, great, but you'll have to come up with a new idea ... Here are 10 ways to promote Morse Code. (The "you" in the following is aimed at the person who wants to promote the mode): 1) Use Morse Code on the air. For ragchewing, DXing, contesting, traffic handling, QRP, QRO, QRS, QRQ, whatever floats yer boat. If your favorite band is crowded, try another and/or get a sharper filter. If you contest, even a little, send in your logs, photos, soapbox comments, etc. Our presence on the air is essential - one of the reasons FCC took away so much of 80 is that they were convinced it wasn't being used. Our presence on the air is more important than ever. 2) Work on your Morse Code skills. Got a CP certificate? But not just speed alone. Can you send and receive a message in standard form? Can you do it faster than someone on 'phone? Can you do both "head copy" and write it down? How about copying on a mill? Ragchewing? Contesting? Being able to have a QSO at slow as well as fast speeds? 3) Find a local club that does Field Day and go out with them. Particularly if they have little or no Morse Code activity on FD now. Help with their Morse Code efforts however you can - operating, logging, setting up, tearing down, etc. FD is one way to actively demonstrate 21st Century Morse Code *use*. Talking to people about Morse isn't nearly so effective as showing them. 4) Set up a Morse Code demo at a local hamfest/club meeting/air show/town fair/middle school etc. Not as some sort of nostalgia thing but as a demonstration that Morse Code is alive and in use today. 5) Conduct training classes - on the air, in person, over the 'net, whatever. Help anybody who wants to learn. Could be as simple as giving them some code tapes or CDs, or as involved as a formal course at a local community center. 6) Elmer anybody who wants help - even if they're not interested in Morse Code at all. Your help and example may inspire them. 7) Write articles for QST/CQ/Worldradio/K9YA Telegraph/Electric Radio/your local hamclub newsletter etc. Not about the code *test* nor about Morse Code history, the past, etc., but about how to use Morse Code *today*. For example, how about an article on what rigs are best for Morse Code use, and why? Or about the differences between a bug, single-lever keyer, iambic A and iambic B? Your FD experiences with Morse Code? (QST, June, 1994) Yes, you may be turned down by the first mag you submit it to - but keep submitting. 8) Get involved in NTS, QMN, ARES, whatever, and use Morse Code there. The main reason so much emergency/public service stuff is done on voice is because they don't have the people - skilled operators - to use any other mode. 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. Probably a combination of factors when all is said and done. Point is, without operators it's not going to happen. 9) Join FISTS & SKCC and any other group that supports Morse. Give out numbers to those who ask for them even if you're not a contester/award collector. 10) Forget about "the test". It will be gone soon and FCC won't bring it back. Yes, a lot of us think they made a bad decision, but that's nothing new, just look at BPL or their rulings on the sale of broadcast radio stations. Please don't compare this with BPL ... Let me clarify: The BPL comparison is made simply to point out that just because FCC decides something doesn't make it "right" or the best thing. That's the only point I was trying to make. Perhaps there's a better analogy for when govt. decides something that a sizable part of the population doesn't want. I support the ARRL's actions against BPL and encourage all hams to do so. Same here! I contributed $1k to the Spectrum Defense Fund - earmarked to fund their BPL efforts and I encourage everyone to make as generous a donation as they can afford. You've done a lot more than that in the BPL situation, Carl. You not only contributed money. You went to at least one operating BPL site (you may have done more than one, I'm not sure) and made observations and documented them. You used both your professional and amateur expetise/experience to present those documented observations in comments to FCC about the reality of harmful interference from BPL. Very good stuff all around. FCC won't preserve our standards and values - we have to do it. And our attitude is a key part of that (pun intended). If we're seen as a bunch of old grumpy gus types, not many will want to join us. But if we present ourselves as a fun-loving, welcoming, young-at-heart-and-mind, helpful group with useful skills, similar people will want to join us. 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 :-) Of course. Some people find Morse Code to be fun, others not. Some find the technology end of ham radio to be fun, others 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. I've never written that someone isn't "a real ham" without Morse Code skill. Nor have I implied it - ever. Of course some might infer what wasn't implied...;-) What makes a person "a real ham" is much more complex than any single skill or knowledge set. My whole point in the above is that if someone considers Morse Code skill - or any other skill or knowledge - to be part of the standards or values of Amateur Radio, then it's up to *them* to promote said standards and values, by example, rather than expecting FCC to do it in the form of regulations, tests, etc. And that's all I was trying to say. 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. It would turn out to be the ultimate irony in the whole debate if Morse Code test elimination wound up making the mode even *more* popular than it is today! 73 es HNY de Jim, N2EY |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
One way to promote learning of code ...
Cecil Moore wrote:
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. A fascinating piece of gear! IIRC, it does a bunch of other modes, too. Of course it needs to be hooked to a computer, too. Not too many years ago having a shack computer would have been a big investment, but now the SCS unit probably costs more than the computer it's hooked up to. How much are current PACTOR2 capable boxes going for, anyway? As for hearing signals you can't - that's really a matter of having more filtering and a better detector. As for speed - well, consider this: You could almost certainly win the Tour de France and set world-record times for each leg - if they'd let you ride your Harley to do it....;-) 73 de Jim, N2EY |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
One way to promote learning of code ...
wrote in message ups.com... Carl R. Stevenson wrote: wrote in message ups.com... [snip] 8) Get involved in NTS, QMN, ARES, whatever, and use Morse Code there. The main reason so much emergency/public service stuff is done on voice is because they don't have the people - skilled operators - to use any other mode. 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. Probably a combination of factors when all is said and done. Point is, without operators it's not going to happen. I guess my point is that there doesn't appear to be a NEED for it to happen (the served agencies need different things. [snip] 10) Forget about "the test". It will be gone soon and FCC won't bring it back. Yes, a lot of us think they made a bad decision, but that's nothing new, just look at BPL or their rulings on the sale of broadcast radio stations. Please don't compare this with BPL ... Let me clarify: The BPL comparison is made simply to point out that just because FCC decides something doesn't make it "right" or the best thing. That's the only point I was trying to make. Perhaps there's a better analogy for when govt. decides something that a sizable part of the population doesn't want. I support the ARRL's actions against BPL and encourage all hams to do so. Same here! OK ... clarification understood and accepted. I contributed $1k to the Spectrum Defense Fund - earmarked to fund their BPL efforts and I encourage everyone to make as generous a donation as they can afford. You've done a lot more than that in the BPL situation, Carl. You not only contributed money. You went to at least one operating BPL site (you may have done more than one, I'm not sure) and made observations and documented them. You used both your professional and amateur expetise/experience to present those documented observations in comments to FCC about the reality of harmful interference from BPL. Very good stuff all around. Thanks for the kind words ... I wasn't looking for "kudos" ... just trying to encourage others to help ARRL protect HF from BPL. 73, Carl - wk3c |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
One way to promote learning of code ...
wrote in message ups.com... Cecil Moore wrote: 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. A fascinating piece of gear! IIRC, it does a bunch of other modes, too. Of course it needs to be hooked to a computer, too. Not too many years ago having a shack computer would have been a big investment, but now the SCS unit probably costs more than the computer it's hooked up to. That's a problem ... the fact that those boxes are proprietary means that the manufacturer can charge more than they ought to cost ... How much are current PACTOR2 capable boxes going for, anyway? As for hearing signals you can't - that's really a matter of having more filtering and a better detector. I think that Cecil's point was that there is no detector that can be used to detect Morse by ear that can compete with a near optimum system that uses digital modulations, FEC, etc. As for speed - well, consider this: You could almost certainly win the Tour de France and set world-record times for each leg - if they'd let you ride your Harley to do it....;-) And he'd certainly lose hands down if he entered a race against motorcycles using a bicycle ... your point is? :-) 73, Carl - wk3c |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
One way to promote learning of code ...
Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
wrote in message ups.com... Cecil Moore wrote: 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. A fascinating piece of gear! IIRC, it does a bunch of other modes, too. Of course it needs to be hooked to a computer, too. Not too many years ago having a shack computer would have been a big investment, but now the SCS unit probably costs more than the computer it's hooked up to. That's a problem ... the fact that those boxes are proprietary means that the manufacturer can charge more than they ought to cost ... Agreed - but there's another issue, which I'd like to read your comments on. If I understand the meaning of Part 97 rules on amateur use of digital modes, we're allowed to use almost anything we can come up with as long as the FCC specified bandwidth/shift/rate criteria aren't exceeded, and the mode is "documented". The "specified bandwidth/shift/rate criteria" in PArt 97 needs work, IMHO, but that's not the issue I'm after right now. What I wonder about is the "documentation" part. If a ham wanted to start from scratch and design/build/operate a "modem" (hardware, software, or some combination) for Baudot RTTY, PSK31, Morse Code, AX.25 packet, or many other modes, the first step would be to get a copy of how the encoding is done. For the modes I mentioned, and many others, that encoding is easily available. Any ham who wants to can design/build/operate such a device, as long as they have the know-how and are willing to make the investment of time and money. I remember seeing the first amateur non-mechanical RTTY keyboard in ham magazines almost 40 years ago - they were designed from the specification for 60 wpm Baudot RTTY. But where is the specification for PACTOR2 easily available? Doesn't the proprietary nature of the modems violate Part 97? How much are current PACTOR2 capable boxes going for, anyway? Last time I looked - $600 As for hearing signals you can't - that's really a matter of having more filtering and a better detector. I think that Cecil's point was that there is no detector that can be used to detect Morse by ear that can compete with a near optimum system that uses digital modulations, FEC, etc. That all depends on the definitions. There are conditions where Morse Code is perfectly usable but some digital modes are rendered useless by things like phase distortion. If you use a receiving system that is not optimized for the mode, such as using an SSB filter when listening to Morse Code, SNR suffers. The SCS modem is optimized for the mode, while Cecil's rx may not be optimized for Morse Code. As for speed - well, consider this: You could almost certainly win the Tour de France and set world-record times for each leg - if they'd let you ride your Harley to do it....;-) And he'd certainly lose hands down if he entered a race against motorcycles using a bicycle Well, Cecil might. It depends on the race, the riders - and the motorcycles. Replace the Harley with a lesser motorcycle and the bicyclists could certainly win! ... your point is? :-) Simply that inventions don't necessarily replace people, skills, or earlier inventions. And that the journey can be as important as the destination. Otherwise there would be very few motorcycles. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
One way to promote learning of code ...
Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
That's a problem ... the fact that those boxes are proprietary means that the manufacturer can charge more than they ought to cost ... People like me are willing to pay the price for the performance. That's Capitalism at work. People who are not willing to pay the price are left buried in the sands of time. I think that Cecil's point was that there is no detector that can be used to detect Morse by ear that can compete with a near optimum system that uses digital modulations, FEC, etc. Especially given my 68 year old ears with holes in my hearing from too many Colt .45 blasts. CW has always required some assistance from the electronics, the encoding of switch closures into RF pulses and the decoding of RF pulses into audio bursts. What does it matter if a few more pieces of electronics are used for encoding and decoding? How is the electronic detector that changes RF to audio characters all that different from a device that changes RF to visible characters on a display? What is the real difference from a human brain translating an audio dit-dah onto the letter 'A' and simply seeing the letter 'A' displayed on a screen? It is only a matter of time until CW receptions can be translated into voice simulations just as ASCII files can be translated today. In fact, I could easily accomplish that feat in my spare time. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
One way to promote learning of code ...
Cecil Moore wrote:
Carl R. Stevenson wrote: That's a problem ... the fact that those boxes are proprietary means that the manufacturer can charge more than they ought to cost ... People like me are willing to pay the price for the performance. That's Capitalism at work. People who are not willing to pay the price are left buried in the sands of time. Maybe. Or maybe just the opposite happens. Perhaps someone finds a way to reduce the price without reducing the performance. With capitalism at work, that person sells a lot more devices, because many of those not willing to pay the price for an SCS box are willing to pay a lower price for something similar. And it may be those who were willing to pay the SCS box price who are buried in the sands of time. I think that Cecil's point was that there is no detector that can be used to detect Morse by ear that can compete with a near optimum system that uses digital modulations, FEC, etc. Especially given my 68 year old ears with holes in my hearing from too many Colt .45 blasts. CW has always required some assistance from the electronics, the encoding of switch closures into RF pulses and the decoding of RF pulses into audio bursts. What does it matter if a few more pieces of electronics are used for encoding and decoding? How is the electronic detector that changes RF to audio characters all that different from a device that changes RF to visible characters on a display? What is the real difference from a human brain translating an audio dit-dah onto the letter 'A' and simply seeing the letter 'A' displayed on a screen? It is only a matter of time until CW receptions can be translated into voice simulations just as ASCII files can be translated today. In fact, I could easily accomplish that feat in my spare time. What is the real difference between a motorcycle and a small automobile? Both require an engine, transmission, wheels, tires, and various mechanical components. Both are simply powered roadway vehicles. Automobiles tend to be safer, more reliable, less weather-dependent, and to require less skill. Autos are also more comfortable and offer far more features. Why should anyone think that riding a Harley is better - or that much different - than driving a Honda? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
So who won the "when does NoCode happen" pool? | Policy | |||
Why You Don't Like The ARRL | Policy | |||
Why You Don't Like The ARRL | Shortwave | |||
Some comments on the NCVEC petition | Policy | |||
NCVEC NPRM for elimination of horse and buggy morse code requirement. | Policy |