One way to promote learning of code ...
 

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...

wrote in message

It is unfortunate that the PACTOR 2 and 3 are proprietary and yet have an
established infrastructure that hams could use for e-mail (similar to/same
as sailmail). I don't understand why hams let that happen. I was looking for
a way to send email to family in the USA when I visit relatives on Siquijor
Island in the Philippines (recently they did open up 1 internet cafe on the
island about 12 Km from where I stay, operating at dial-up speeds, but I
would rather just use my radio if I could). I came across ALE as a possible
mode where I could just use a PC and a rigblaster but ALE is still very
experimental with none of the established infrastructure that PACTOR 2/3
have. I think ALE and PACTOR may be technically illegal in the amateur bands
due to their transmission protocols, not always listening for spectrum
occupation before transmitting, on their extremely wide bandwidths.

Anyhow, being largely a seafaring nation, and a poor nation largely unable
to afford modern rigs, code is still king in the Phils and you hear it all
the time on 40m and 80m. Even on their cell phones, (which curiously they
CAN afford), when they receive an SMS message, you hear the phones beeping
di-di-dit dah-dah di-di-dit ("SMS", for those of you from 6 land ;-)) when
they receive new messages. Due to cost, they use SMS much more often than
voice. Every school child in the Philippines knows basic morse since so many
of the kids end up going on to school for seafaring occupations. They did
not pay any attention to the USA FCC's elimination of code requirements for
navigation although I am sure that 50 years from now they will be up to our
current US standards.

As Carl and the other techies know, for computer transmissions in real time
QSO's, psk31 is an extremely simple and very narrow band mode that you can
use directly to your rig from the sound card of your PC (it is highly
recommend that you build a simple isolation circuit between PC and rig). In
my opinion, psk31 is superior to code and will overtake computer CW in about
25 years after every 3rd world ham has access to a PC for non-productive
hobby use (right now, many countries do not even have access to PC's in the
primary schools yet). Assuming you have a few toroids and tranistors
available at home or work, the cost is free. Interestingly, there is a small
movement among psk31ers trying to make PACTOR illegal due to its huge
bandwidth and what seems like malicious digital QRM when it wipes out every
station in its path when it transmits without checking for existing band
usage...if you have ever used psk31 and got smeared by PACTOR you would know
what I mean. ALE and PACTOR should not be illegal of course, but they should
have a dedicated portion of the AR spectrum limited for their usage where it
could be a "primary" occupant and other modes are "secondary". The
gentlemens' agreements in the band plans don't always help these days.

One way to promote learning of code (long)
 

John Smith I wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:
...


... and inductors of that size find, really, no use in amateur radio
these days, high voltage electrolytics are getting impossible to find,
nor are tubes used much, only us old-old timers for sentimental reasons.
And then, any tubes I have used recently have come from russia ...

I suspect there is good reasons they have changed the exams ...
of course there was it was part of the Nocder consprisracy to dumb down
the ARS :)

One way to promote learning of code (long)
 

Mike Coslo ) writes:

I don't feel like typing much more. Hopefully I've made my point.
And if anyone missed it, my point is that the tests given in the so
called "golden age" of Amateur radio were definitely NOT harder than the
tests administered today. Of course those rascals from Coleco could have
just been pulling our legs, making a booklet that was not relevent to
the tests as they really were at that time. Kinda doubt that though.

It is hard to judge these things.

I once posted about something, and mentioned passing the test when I
was 12, in 1972, and I got email from someone practically denouncing me,
saying he knew the test was really difficult back then, which means
I couldn't have passed at such an early age.

It never seemed difficult to me back then. The code was harder, I failed
the code reception test the first month and had to retake it the next month.
But the theory test required drawing a number of things, and I did okay.

Oddly, it's in retrospect that I realize didn't particularly know what I
was doing, I didn't memorize answers and I was reading as many technical
things as I could get my hands on, but later I did realize that I didn't
know much back then.

Yet, I would say the test here in Canada must have gotten simpler, if for
no other reason than that there was the restructuring in 1990 where the
entry level license took away things that I was allowed to do when I
passed the test, such as a full kilowatt and building anything I wanted.

Michael VE2BVW

One way to promote learning of code (long)
 

Michael Black wrote:
...

I was truly dumbfounded by the barrage of posts from old timers claiming
such difficult tests in past years.

Now, having had the benefit of time to giving in considerable thought,
that speaks more about the individuals posting than anything else, now
doesn't it?

Regards,
JS

One way to promote learning of code ...
 

"John Smith I" wrote in message
...
Stefan Wolfe wrote:
... Well, thank you. And Im glad to see you enjoy the new toys that Santa
Claus gave you.

Let me give you the complete picture, he left it under my tree about
1996 ...

I think you are serious...you think computer-generated/received CW is really
some advanced technology of the new millenium and you got your first taste
of it in 1996. Have you ever thought that that there were far more
"advanced" digital modes, superior to and more efficinet than CW, as long as
one decided to connect a PC to a radio? I personally ignore computer
CW....CW is not meant for a computer nor will it ever be...it is a human
mode that has a "body language" to it that computers are not good at
reading. For computers, PSK31 is a very simple, far superior machine mode to
computer CW in every way. If you said "PSK31, welcome to the new millenium"
I could go along with that. But computer generated CW? Sort of like
attaching a lawn mower engine to a bicycle and calling it a motorcycle,
isn't it? But far be it from me to criticize your toys. ;-)

One way to promote learning of code ...
 

One way to promote learning of code ...
 

Cecil Moore wrote in news:tL6oh.32477$Gr2.30874
@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net:

John Smith I wrote:
... technology, ain't it wonderful? Welcome to the new millennium!

My SCS PTC2e multimode controller will copy PACTOR2
DX signals from Europe that I cannot even hear and
don't even budge the S-meter. It also copies CW at
faster speeds than I can copy.

That's true insofar as it goes, but code that is sent badly by hand is hard
for any hardware or software to copy, other than the human brain, and code
is easy to send badly by hand!!! For this reason many even send by computer
and read by ear. I don't, I just don't use the mode atall, but those who
indicate that machine reading has problems have a good point.

One way to promote learning of code ...
 

John Kasupski wrote in
:

On 7 Jan 2007 12:45:29 -0800, wrote:

Why should anyone think that riding a Harley is better - or that much
different -
than driving a Honda?

The guy down the street from me has a 1957 Panhead. I don't know
anybody who has a 1957 Honda. That's because as I type this, I'm
drinking my Pepsi out of the '57 Honda.

John Kasupski, KC2HMZ



I just read a review of a 1957 Riuko that is still on the road. Granted,
that's a copy of a Harley, but it was made in Japan. I didn't think Honda
had entered the US market by 1957, but I'm sure there are still some '60s
Honda motorcycles out there somewhere.

Myself, I owned a Suzuki, a Kawasaki and a couple of Yamahas, but no
Hondas, Harleys or even Riukos.

One way to promote learning of code ...
 

Stefan Wolfe wrote:

I think you are serious...you think computer-generated/received CW is really
some advanced technology of the new millenium and you got your first taste
of it in 1996. Have you ever thought that that there were far more
"advanced" digital modes, superior to and more efficinet than CW, as long as
one decided to connect a PC to a radio? I personally ignore computer
CW....CW is not meant for a computer nor will it ever be...it is a human
mode that has a "body language" to it that computers are not good at
reading. For computers, PSK31 is a very simple, far superior machine mode to
computer CW in every way. If you said "PSK31, welcome to the new millenium"
I could go along with that. But computer generated CW? Sort of like
attaching a lawn mower engine to a bicycle and calling it a motorcycle,
isn't it? But far be it from me to criticize your toys. ;-)



PSK31 is obsolete ... and much too slow to be useful.

What software do you use to encode/decode and xfer mp3's and videos with
on the bands? What encryption method (algorithm) do you prefer? mp3?
ogg-vorbis? Do you use the same method for your speech packets? Do you
use variable bit encoding? Are you aware that ogg-vorbis is open source
and can be freely used?

You have missed the whole point, does the above help clarify it for you?

JS

One way to promote learning of code (long)
 

Mike Coslo wrote:
3. The third harmonic of 350 c.p.s. is:

a. 117 c.p.s.
b. 250 c.p.s.
c. 700 c.p.s.
d. 1050 c.p.s.

What's the second overtone? :-)

So what really happened? My guess is that they only *seemed* harder
to those who took them - at the time they took them.

I thought the Conditional exam seemed difficult in 1952
(except for the easy 13 wpm code) and flunked the Conditional
written once when I was 14. 48 years later I aced the Extra
with a grade of 100%. The extra written exam seemed very easy
after a EE degree and 40 years of engineering experience. :-)
But in 2000, 20 wpm seemed difficult. Go figure.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com