|
One way to promote learning of code ...
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. (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 :-) 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 ... 73, Carl - wk3c |
One way to promote learning of code ...
Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
... 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 ... 73, Carl - wk3c If only the CW'ers had the zealot-ism of the mooselums! chuckle JS |
One way to promote learning of code ...
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. (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 :-) 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 ... 73, Carl - wk3c That might be a problem. The Gulag system is all they know... |
One way to promote learning of code ...
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? (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.... 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. 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. 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. IMHO 73 es KC de Jim, N2EY |
One way to promote learning of code ...
|
One way to promote learning of code ...
|
One way to promote learning of code ...
John Smith I wrote: wrote: ... 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. IMHO 73 es KC de Jim, N2EY Ahhh yes, the old "Wolf In Sheeps Clothing" ploy!!! Well, sad thing, but I don't think anyone expected 'ya to come up with anything original ... heck, maybe on the umpteenth try it'll work! What Miccolis came up with is NOT original. :-( It's a standard boilerplate kind of "enthusiasm" which is spouted by all olde-tymers in response to changes in any organization. He seems to think that everyone "coming in" to amateur radio knows exactly nothing about the REAL attitude of the olde-tymers. Seldom true. "Similar people" will turn out to be xerocopies of themselves, replete with eyeshades, sleeve garters, and "thousand yard stare" as they concentrate on incoming beeps. Those trying morsemanship will generally put aside the novelty of it rather quickly, finding out that the "fun" wasn't really fun after all. What is unfortunate (for pro-coders) is there smug arrogance of the past and all they've said about those who don't love, honor, and obey morsemanship. PEOPLE remember what these "light-hearted, fun-loving, welcoming" pro-coders were like in the very recent past. [Google provides, BTW] What will be interesting to watch is the "new" attitude of the ARRL, the national organization of the Archaic Radiotelegraphy Society (ARS). :-) LA |
One way to promote learning of code ...
wrote in message ups.com... 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. Actually, without skill in morse, you simply will not be able to participate in QSO's with a large subset of the stations you listed. A lot of good DX (and QRP etc.) is only available in Morse (sometimes only in the extra class sections). I don't think the financial incentive Carl mentions is very relevant (or humorous for that matter). If you learn morse, you will be empowered to communicate with more people. If you don't know Morse, well, trying to find good DX will be similar to visitng Miami and not be able to speak Spanish...you can get by but will miss a lot. Too bad, Audios es 73 |
One way to promote learning of code ...
Stefan Wolfe wrote:
wrote in message ups.com... 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. Actually, without skill in morse, you simply will not be able to participate in QSO's with a large subset of the stations you listed. A lot of good DX (and QRP etc.) is only available in Morse (sometimes only in the extra class sections). I don't think the financial incentive Carl mentions is very relevant (or humorous for that matter). If you learn morse, you will be empowered to communicate with more people. If you don't know Morse, well, trying to find good DX will be similar to visitng Miami and not be able to speak Spanish...you can get by but will miss a lot. Too bad, Audios es 73 Keep it up!!! All you lose is your credibility, but then, you guys are already used to using that up, aren't you ... Take a good look behind you, all you see is about to disappear. Regards, JS |
One way to promote learning of code ...
"John Smith I" wrote in message ... Take a good look behind you, all you see is about to disappear. Why would you say that? Did the FCC make morse illegal? |
One way to promote learning of code ...
Stefan Wolfe wrote:
"John Smith I" wrote in message ... Take a good look behind you, all you see is about to disappear. Why would you say that? Did the FCC make morse illegal? No, the new generation of hams will make it obsolete and history! JS |
One way to promote learning of code ...
Stefan Wolfe wrote: wrote in message ups.com... 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. Actually, without skill in morse, you simply will not be able to participate in QSO's with a large subset of the stations you listed. A lot of good DX (and QRP etc.) is only available in Morse (sometimes only in the extra class sections). Agreed, but the point is that will only be true if skilled amateurs continue to actually *use* Morse Code. I don't think the financial incentive Carl mentions is very relevant (or humorous for that matter). WK3C and I go way back. We disagree on some things but agree on many more things. That he completed the financial backing is very funny to me. If you learn morse, you will be empowered to communicate with more people. Yup - but only if radio amateurs continue to use the mode. If you don't know Morse, well, trying to find good DX will be similar to visitng Miami and not be able to speak Spanish...you can get by but will miss a lot. Some folks aren't interested in DX. But the same principle applies: those who don't use Morse Code will be missing a lot. Too bad, Audios es 73 "Audios" - now that's funny! 73 es KC de Jim, N2EY |
One way to promote learning of code ...
|
One way to promote learning of code ...
John Smith I wrote:
No, the new generation of hams will make it obsolete and history! Like AM? -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
One way to promote learning of code ...
Cecil Moore wrote:
John Smith I wrote: No, the new generation of hams will make it obsolete and history! Like AM? Cecil: While I will miss all the hiss, fading, noise and other products of AM and SSB--yep, as obsolete as those. Digital is where it is at! I am awaiting my first ogg-vorbis packets now ... Regards, JS |
One way to promote learning of code ...
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. -- Except for a few people who learned Morse Code elsewhere, most would-be hams don't have any prior Morse Code skill. The code test acts as a sort of Great Equalizer, because almost everyone starts out as a clueless newbie with the mode. Morse Code cannot be learned by simply reading a book, visiting some websites or picking up a little bit here and there. A newcomer cannot cut-and-paste his/her way to a new skill, or rely on past achievements or claims to get around it. It's a skill that is easily measured and cannot be faked. And it puts a Final Authority wannabe on the same footing as a Young Squirt. It may be precisely this equalizing effect that makes some folks want to get rid of it. 73 es KC de Jim, N2EY |
One way to promote learning of code ...
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. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
One way to promote learning of code ...
|
One way to promote learning of code ...
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.) (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 ... but it would have been good to see you guys. 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. 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 ... I support the ARRL's actions against BPL and encourage all hams to do so. 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. 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 :-) Presenting it as a "standard" or "value" (implying that without CW you're as Larry and others used to say "not a REAL ham" is not the way. Those who like CW should take comfort ... by all reports, in most of the other countries that have eliminated the CW requirement, MORE people are learning it now that before - folks may choose to do something if it's presented right and their choice, but tend not to like having things forced upon them. 73, Carl - wk3c |
One way to promote learning of code ...
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) 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 ... ALL that a code test does is indicate that you can copy Morse at some specified speed. Nothing more, nothing less. because almost everyone starts out as a clueless newbie with the mode. True ... Morse Code cannot be learned by simply reading a book, visiting some websites or picking up a little bit here and there. A newcomer cannot cut-and-paste his/her way to a new skill, or rely on past achievements or claims to get around it. It's a skill that is easily measured and cannot be faked. And it puts a Final Authority wannabe on the same footing as a Young Squirt. It may be precisely this equalizing effect that makes some folks want to get rid of it. The implication above that everything about ham radio except Morse is "cut-and-paste" is also absurd. 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 think it's time to stop trying to attribute mythical powers to the soon to be history Morse test. To continue only perpetuates the falsehood that Morse skill is essential to being a good ham, capable of contributing, etc. 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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
One way to promote learning of code ...
On Sun, 7 Jan 2007 10:14:17 -0500, "Carl R. Stevenson"
wrote: wrote in message oups.com... snip The code test acts as a sort of Great Equalizer, Absurd ... ALL that a code test does is indicate that you can copy Morse at some specified speed. Nothing more, nothing less. IIRC, the Great Equalizer was created by Samuel Colt, not Samuel Morse! :) snip 73, Carl - wk3c 73 es KC de Jim, N2EY 73, Leo |
One way to promote learning of code ...
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. 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. 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. Note that FCC *eliminated* the multiple-choice Morse Code test option, leaving only the one-minute-solid-copy and fill-in-the-blanks options. because almost everyone starts out as a clueless newbie with the mode. True ... Morse Code cannot be learned by simply reading a book, visiting some websites or picking up a little bit here and there. A newcomer cannot cut-and-paste his/her way to a new skill, or rely on past achievements or claims to get around it. It's a skill that is easily measured and cannot be faked. And it puts a Final Authority wannabe on the same footing as a Young Squirt. It may be precisely this equalizing effect that makes some folks want to get rid of it. The implication above that everything about ham radio except Morse is "cut-and-paste" is also absurd. I intended no such implication - because it would be absurd. 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. The written exams, particularly Element 2, do not begin to cover "everything about ham radio except Morse". Nor do they cover any subject in much depth, IMHO. In my experience, most people can accumulate a lot of "book learning" type knowledge by "here and there" methods. Skills like Morse Code usually cannot be learned that way. Whether that's good or bad is a matter of opinion. 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. Comparing the "Now You're Talking" book to the Novice study guide in old LMs is comparing apples and oranges. Here's why: 1) The LM study guide mentioned was for the old 1year nonrenewable Novice license. Today's Now You're Talking (NYT) is for the Technician, which conveys many more privileges. 2) The LM study guide wasn't complete - one also had to study the regulations, which were in the back of the book. 3) The LM study guides were in the form of essay questions and answers. The NYT book gives the exact Q&A used in the exams. 4) Just *one* of the old LM questions could generate a whole raft of possible multiple choice exam questions. NYT gives the exact Q&A. 5) The old LMs weren't meant to be a stand-alone introduction to amateur radio. They were simply intended as a guide to what was on the exams, and the procedures to get a license. In truth they weren't even complete, because they did not cover how to learn Morse Code. (ARRL sold another fifty-cent book for that). NYT is meant as a complete introduction. It would be fairer to compare NYT with a set of the old ARRL intro books (the LM, "How To Become A Radio Amateur", "Learning the RadioTelegraph Code" and possibly "Understanding Amateur Radio). 6) The old Novice was a one-year one-time nonrenewable license. The Technician isn't. Try comparing the *content* of some of the questions - and not just for the old Novice. Nobody really knows how "hard" the old exams really were, because they're not available for comparison. I will repost some study questions from the old License Manual - they're the best we've got. I think it's time to stop trying to attribute mythical powers to the soon to be history Morse test. To continue only perpetuates the falsehood that Morse skill is essential to being a good ham, capable of contributing, etc. It's one tool in the toolbox. That's all. A very useful tool, though. 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." Please point out where I have ever written that one must have Morse Code skill to be "a real ham". 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. IMHO 73 es KC de Jim, N2EY |
One way to promote learning of code ...
|
Some Sample Study Questions From The Old License Manuals
From the 1976 ARRL License Manual:
Study Question #31: Draw a schematic diagram of a circuit having the following components: (a) battery with internal resistance, (b) resistive load, (c) voltmeter, (d) ammeter. Study Question #32: From the values indicated by the meters in the above circuit, how can the value of the resistive load be determined? How can the power consumed by the load be determined? Study Question #33: In the above circuit, what must the value of the resistive load be in order for the maximum power to be delivered from the battery? Study Question #34: Draw the schematic diagram of an RF power amplifier circuit having the following components: (a) triode vacuum tube, (b) pi-network output tank, (c) high voltage source, (d) plate-current meter, (e) plate-voltage meter, (f) rf chokes, (g) bypass capacitors, coupling capacitor. Study Question #35: What is the proper tune-up procedure for the above circuit? These are just a sample. They're not the exact questions that were on the old exams. The actual exam was multiple choice, and would show a schematic of the amplifier circuit - close, but not exactly like the one shown inthe license manual - and had 5 of the components labelled "a" thru "e". The question would be something like, "which is the coupling capacitor?" "which is an rf chokes?" "what is the function of the capacitor labelled ''d' in the circuit above?" How they compare to the current exams is a matter of opinion. IMHO the old exams covered fewer subjects but covered them in much more detail. These weren't study questions for the Extra written test. Nor were they study questions for the Advanced written test. Nor were they study questions for the Technician/General written test. They were for the 1976 *Novice* written exam. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
One way to promote learning of code ...
From: "Carl R. Stevenson" on Sun, Jan 7 2007 10:14 am
wrote in message 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. However, in the wider view of ALL world radio, manual morse code radiotelegraphy HAS become obsolete. The ONLY radio service using it for (alleged) communications is the ARS (Archaic Radiotelegraphy Society). 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) Soon-to-be-legal R&O 06-178 is about the *TEST*, Carl. :-) [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] Is there any earth-shaking regulation changes about morse code USE in FCC 06-178? I don't think so... Except for a few people who learned Morse Code elsewhere, most would-be hams don't have any prior Morse Code skill. True ... That exchange is rather worthless. Miccolis phrased his statement to imply that would-be hams "must" have morsemanship skill. Miccolis is good at such...:-) If anyone wants to bother checking the numbers of NEW radio amateur licensees - other than via the AH0A pro- morse-uber-alles website - they would find that NEW ham licensees were coming via the no-code-test Tech class. By a ratio of five to one (give or take). The code test acts as a sort of Great Equalizer, Absurd ... ALL that a code test does is indicate that you can copy Morse at some specified speed. Nothing more, nothing less. I have to call Miccolis' statement something different. "Absurd" is too understated. It is *bull***** fresh from the bovine enclave. because almost everyone starts out as a clueless newbie with the mode. True ... Not quite, Carl. Miccolis' implication is once again that morsemanship is the "true" measure of "ham." The use of the label "clueless newbie" is the sneering look-down-the-nose from the arrogance of superiority. Morse Code cannot be learned by simply reading a book, visiting some websites or picking up a little bit here and there. A newcomer cannot cut-and-paste his/her way to a new skill, or rely on past achievements or claims to get around it. There's that wonderful implication again...all 'true' hams will want to learn morsemanship, that it MUST be learned. :-) It's a skill that is easily measured and cannot be faked. And it puts a Final Authority wannabe on the same footing as a Young Squirt. It may be precisely this equalizing effect that makes some folks want to get rid of it. The implication above that everything about ham radio except Morse is "cut-and-paste" is also absurd. Just more *bull***** from the "master", Carl. :-) The signs are there (almost in neon brightness) of his being 'wounded' in the great word war in here. [note his choice of labels...:-) ] 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. "Dumbed down" = Lack of morse code skill. That's been how it has been used by the morseodists in here. They equate intelligence with morsemanship. Please don't expect them to use such "intelligence" in figuring out reality... :-( I think it's time to stop trying to attribute mythical powers to the soon to be history Morse test. To continue only perpetuates the falsehood that Morse skill is essential to being a good ham, capable of contributing, etc. WHOA! *HERESY* alert! [thou defilest thy maker!] Say 50 Hail Hirams, go thee and sin no more! 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." Only the Food and Drug Administration determines which are "real hams" and which are not... :-) Tsk, to reiterate, FCC 07-178 is about morse code TESTING, not its use. To Morseodists this newsgrope is all about their LOSING their ability to "lead" amateur radio...as they've become accustomed (with all the superiority of royalty). Their fantasy world of "control" is about to collapse. Poor things. snif snif Not to worry, Marie A. is sending them some cake... :-) |
Some Sample Study Questions From The Old License Manuals
|
One way to promote learning of code ...
wrote:
Why should anyone think that riding a Harley is better - or that much different - than driving a Honda? The point is that it is that both different from crawling on one's all-fours. Most of us homo sapiens started by crawling, then learned to walk and then learned to run. Most of us hams started with Morse code and then learned to talk and then to use PACTOR2. :-) -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
One way to promote learning of code ...
From: "Carl R. Stevenson" on Sun, Jan 7 2007 10:14 am
wrote in message 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. However, in the wider view of ALL world radio, manual morse code radiotelegraphy HAS become obsolete. The ONLY radio service using it for (alleged) communications is the ARS (Archaic Radiotelegraphy Society). 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) Soon-to-be-legal R&O 06-178 is about the *TEST*, Carl. :-) [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] Is there any earth-shaking regulation changes about morse code USE in FCC 06-178? I don't think so... Except for a few people who learned Morse Code elsewhere, most would-be hams don't have any prior Morse Code skill. True ... That exchange is rather worthless. Miccolis phrased his statement to imply that would-be hams "must" have morsemanship skill. Miccolis is good at such...:-) If anyone wants to bother checking the numbers of NEW radio amateur licensees - other than via the AH0A pro- morse-uber-alles website - they would find that NEW ham licensees were coming via the no-code-test Tech class. By a ratio of five to one (give or take). The code test acts as a sort of Great Equalizer, Absurd ... ALL that a code test does is indicate that you can copy Morse at some specified speed. Nothing more, nothing less. I have to call Miccolis' statement something different. "Absurd" is too understated. It is *bull***** fresh from the bovine enclave. because almost everyone starts out as a clueless newbie with the mode. True ... Not quite, Carl. Miccolis' implication is once again that morsemanship is the "true" measure of "ham." The use of the label "clueless newbie" is the sneering look-down-the-nose from the arrogance of superiority. Morse Code cannot be learned by simply reading a book, visiting some websites or picking up a little bit here and there. A newcomer cannot cut-and-paste his/her way to a new skill, or rely on past achievements or claims to get around it. There's that wonderful implication again...all 'true' hams will want to learn morsemanship, that it MUST be learned. :-) It's a skill that is easily measured and cannot be faked. And it puts a Final Authority wannabe on the same footing as a Young Squirt. It may be precisely this equalizing effect that makes some folks want to get rid of it. The implication above that everything about ham radio except Morse is "cut-and-paste" is also absurd. Just more *bull***** from the "master", Carl. :-) The signs are there (almost in neon brightness) of his being 'wounded' in the great word war in here. [note his choice of labels...:-) ] 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. "Dumbed down" = Lack of morse code skill. That's been how it has been used by the morseodists in here. They equate intelligence with morsemanship. Please don't expect them to use such "intelligence" in figuring out reality... :-( I think it's time to stop trying to attribute mythical powers to the soon to be history Morse test. To continue only perpetuates the falsehood that Morse skill is essential to being a good ham, capable of contributing, etc. WHOA! *HERESY* alert! [thou defilest thy maker!] Say 50 Hail Hirams, go thee and sin no more! 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." Only the Food and Drug Administration determines which are "real hams" and which are not... :-) Tsk, to reiterate, FCC 06-178 is about morse code TESTING, not its use. To Morseodists this newsgrope is all about their LOSING their ability to "lead" amateur radio...as they've become accustomed (with all the superiority of royalty). Their fantasy world of "control" is about to collapse. Poor things. snif snif Not to worry, Marie A. is sending them some cake... :-) |
One way to promote learning of code ...
|
One way to promote learning of code ...
Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote: Nobody really knows how "hard" the old exams really were, because they're not available for comparison. But the ARRL License Manuals are still around, e.g. The unit of resistance is the ______. A. Volt B. Amp C. Watt D. Ohm .... and how did I memorize that resistance color code, Every Good Boy Does Violet? No, let me see ... chuckle JS |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:49 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com