Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #21   Report Post  
Old January 7th 07, 04:45 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,154
Default 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   Report Post  
Old January 7th 07, 05:26 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,154
Default 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   Report Post  
Old January 7th 07, 07:03 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 877
Default 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   Report Post  
Old January 7th 07, 07:08 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 877
Default 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   Report Post  
Old January 7th 07, 07:49 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jan 2007
Posts: 21
Default 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   Report Post  
Old January 7th 07, 07:53 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jan 2007
Posts: 21
Default 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   Report Post  
Old January 7th 07, 08:48 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 877
Default 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   Report Post  
Old January 7th 07, 09:19 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,614
Default 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   Report Post  
Old January 7th 07, 09:45 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 877
Default 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
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
So who won the "when does NoCode happen" pool? robert casey Policy 115 January 9th 07 01:28 PM
Why You Don't Like The ARRL Louis C. LeVine Policy 803 January 23rd 04 02:12 AM
Why You Don't Like The ARRL Louis C. LeVine Shortwave 185 January 6th 04 07:05 PM
Some comments on the NCVEC petition D. Stussy Policy 13 August 5th 03 04:23 AM
NCVEC NPRM for elimination of horse and buggy morse code requirement. Keith Policy 1 July 31st 03 03:46 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:45 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 RadioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Radio"

 

Copyright © 2017