|
Don't know about our local group but I heard something like around a 100
morse code contacts (all bands being used) and around 70-80 voice mode contacts. Myself and about 1/3 to 1/2 of our local club pretty much boycotted Field Day this year..... (issues with local club) -- Ryan, KC8PMX FF1-FF2-MFR-(pending NREMT-B!) --. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-. ... --. .... - . .-. ... How did others fare? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Latest News - Morse Code Test May Not "Die" at ITU Conference.
(Len Over 21)erroneously wrote in message ...
In article , (N2EY), writes: In article , (Len Over 21) writes: In article , (N2EY) writes: Visual blending depends on the individual, but is around 20 flashes (dits) per second. The correct term is "persistence of vision." :-) A term which is actually a misnomer: Oh goodie, an "optical expert" you are now? :-) I don't claim to be an expert at motiuon picture projection, Len. But I do know some facts on the subject that you don't know. Apparently that bothers you a great deal. When were you ever an "expert" in optics in addition to doing your "electrical engineering" thing? One does not have to be an expert to know more than you do, Len ;-) Just curious since I was directly involved in a rather large DoD contract at Rockwell on an interferometer. Did the interferometer project motion pictures? Had to work with lots of high-level optical physicist types. So? That doesn't correct your error. Methinks you have a terrible "persistence of righteousness" about your output in here. :-) No, it's your "persistence of error" that causes you to insult the messenger. http://www.grand-illusions.com/percept.htm There's the facts. But there are none so blind as those who will not bother to look. The actual persistence threshold varies with individuals and can go down to 15 "flashes" per second. That seems to be a combined function of the retinal cells and cerebral visual cortex. Motion picture speed is 24 frames per second, but to eliminate flicker ecah frame is flashed on the screen twice by means of a rotating shutter. Not quite. How "not quite"? Modern standard sound motion pictures run at 24 frames per second. But each frame is flashed on the screen twice, so there are 48 images per second on the screen. A two-bladed rotary shutter is usually used in the projector. Back when I actually RAN a projector in a cinema, the film rate was 24 frames per second. That's what I wrote, at least twice, above. 24 frames per second is the rate film goes through the projector. But it is not the rate at which images are flashed on the screen. Back when I was actually running a 16mm projector, the film rate was 24 frames per second. That's what I wrote, at least twice, above. 24 frames per second is the rate film goes through the projector. But it is not the rate at which images are flashed on the screen. Once, when I rented an 8mm projector to see some home movies of family, the film rate was 24 frames per second. That's what I wrote, at least twice, above. 24 frames per second is the rate film goes through the projector. But it is not the rate at which images are flashed on the screen. While I never got a Masters in Optics, I don't think you have an accredited degree in anything, Len ;-) I can't ever recall any projectors that flashed on an image twice or any other multiples. Forgetful, huh? Here's a hint: Except for some museum pieces, they all do it. T All the mechanisms I've seen had the simple pawl and shutter arrangement to blank the projected image during the frame pull-down time. Then you haven't seen any projectors newer than the 1920s or so. The eye sees 24 frames per second and the eye-brain combination perceives motion on a frame-to-frame basis. 24 frames per second. 48 images per second. Each frame is projected twice. At 24 images per second, many people see objectionable flicker. Which is where the term "flicks" came from. It doesn't make any difference if the SAME frame is flashed on twice, thrice, or quadruple times. Yes, it does. See the references. What you and everyone else sees is those 24 frames per second. 24 frames per second. 48 images per second. Each frame is projected twice. At 24 images per second, many people see objectionable flicker. The rate doesn't vary more than allowed by the internal projector rate controls. Feel free to post your American Cinematographer's association card membership number. Don't need one. Anybody who knows how projectors work knows I'm right and you're wrong. In the early silent film era, a speed of 16 frames per second was common, and a three-bladed shutter was usually used in the projector. Again, 48 images per second. The last time I saw any "silent films" was at the Rosenwald Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago some time around 1950. So? The shutter is there to blank the "pull-down" time when the geneva mechanism and pawl yank down the next frame. That's not the only thing the shutter does. It also blanks the screen halfway between pulldown intervals so that each frame is flashed on the screen twice. ...and you can send morse code in between the dits and dahs of your solid-state break-in T/R switch. Nope. I never claimed that. You are mistaken. Of course you can. You SAY so therefore you are absolutely correct. Nope. I never claimed that. You are mistaken. What I CAN do when operating QSK/break-in CW/Morse is HEAR the receive frequency between dits and dahs. Which is one of the big advantages of CW/Morse over other modes. The first setup I used with that feature was a homebrew station I designed and built about 1973. It used a highspeed keying relay and a vacuum-tube TR switch. Like it or not, I know far more about the subject of QSK/break-in Morse/CW than you do, Len. The intermittent movement requires a free loop of film before and after the shutter mechanism so that the supply and take-up reels can move at an approximate constant rate. Note: A geneva wheel may not be used in cheaper projectors but was standard in cinema projectors for decades; there are other, simpler pull-downs. Irrelevant to the discussion. So is the subject of motion picture projection and your "48 per second" frame rate. 24 frames per second. 48 images per second. Each frame is projected twice. At 24 images per second, many people see objectionable flicker. Motion picture frame rate standards are still 24 per second and that is what nearly everyone sees. That's a comporomise between the maintenance of persistence of vision and length of film needed for a given time. 48 images per second. See: http://www.bbctv-ap.freeserve.co.uk/supfr3.htm or any reliable reference on motion picture projection. Go for it...DEMAND to be recognized now also as an optical expert. I don't demand a thing, Len old boy. As far as I'm concerned, the acquaintences I have in the motion picture industry don't agree with you. You don't understand how projectors work, Len. For nearly all film projectors and editors, it is still 24 per second. Incorrect. :-) Check with the motion picture standards folks. Since before WW2 the motion picture frame rate has been 24 images per second. 24 frames per second. 48 images per second. Each frame is projected twice. At 24 images per second, many people see objectionable flicker. The frame rate and the image rate are not the same. You're simply wrong on this, Len. 24 frames per second, 48 images per second. Be a big boy and admit it. What is a "big boy?" Somebody mature enough to admit a mistake and learn something new. Which leaves you out, Len. |
"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
... In article , "Kim W5TIT" writes: The time I spent learning the Morse code and increasing my skill in order to upgrade to 20-WPM Extra-class status was in investment that paid off in what has become, so far, over 20 years of enjoyable HF CW operation. I'm certainly glad I didn't decide to devote that time to "something else" -- especially if that may have been hours of yakking into a microphone! 73 de Larry, K3LT So. You're thinking that people would have actually made a conscious decision to stay "verbally engaged" with you for hours, huh? Kim W5TIT Kim: I'm not so sure about that. In any case, I never allowed it to happen! Back in the days when I did regularly use HF phone, about 10 minutes of listening to the same boring old bowel and bladder reports was all I could stand! 73 de Larry, K3LT I have no doubt you found those frequencies quite entertaining, albeit shortlived. You should have tried some constructive listening... Kim W5TIT |
On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 20:37:38 -0500, Kim W5TIT wrote:
For instance, I happen to absolutely know I would not enjoy jumping out of an airplane to parachute. I've never tried it, no. But I don't intend to because "it's just not me." Funny that you should say that, because just this evening at dinner my wife was relating that one of her co-workers is an ex-paratrooper who absolutely gets the shakes and white knuckles when he has to fly as a passenger in a commercial airliner and land on a runway sitting in his seat - he has no problems when it's just him and 10,000 feet of thin air between him and the ground. Me, I had problems falling off a ladder at 8 feet above ground, twisting my knee - after 30 years the knee started bothering me again. To each his own. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
In article , "Dee D. Flint"
writes: "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , "Dee D. Flint" writes: This weekend's Field Day was a prime example of the benefits of CW. Bands were very poor most of the weekend and the voice stations struggled to find contacts late in the event. Our CW stations far outstripped the voice stations in total number of contacts. Worst conditions in a long time. FD 2003 at N2EY (1B-1 Battery, EPA): Setup: K2 #2084 at 5 W outout with KAT2, KAF2, powered by external 7 AH gel cell. Homebrew coax-fed inverted V with traps, apex at 47 feet, ends at 25 feet, oriented north-south. About 14 hours on the air. Results: 80 CW: 89 QSOs 40 CW: 115 QSOs 20 CW: 15 QSOs Total QSOs: 219 QSOs (2190 QSO points) Bonuses: Emergency power, W1AW bulletin, message to SM (300 bonus points) Total raw sco 2490 points How did others fare? 73 de Jim, N2EY Well I don't have the club's totals (club call W8HP with our GOTA station on W8JXU) but our CW guys did well and I took a turn at both of our CW stations. I recall working W8HP on at least two bands. Also N8NN. Thanks for the points! We ran 5A at a nearby park that is used as a Scout camp at times (bunk beds to sleep in and a place to cook, Yay!). Good site selection. For 20m CW and phone, the count was near 300 each although the voice didn't really pick up until late this morning. 80 and 40 CW were good but voice was very modest. My OM picked up one CW contact on 15m this morning and one on 6m yesterday. 20 was the poorest I've seen it in a long time. 15 and 10 were useless here in EPA. There wasn't more than a couple dozen voice contacts on 15m, 10m, and VHF combined. It will be interesting to see how the totals work out contest-wide. There may have been more CW than voice contacts across the board this year. Pretty good for a mode that we are told is "obsolete", huh, Dee? However, there's always a silver lining. Most of us got a pretty good night's sleep since the bands were poor. I hung in till about 3 AM and was back at it soon after sunrise. Even got in a short run Sunday morning. Today, we knocked down most of the antennas and stations early and just kept our 20m ones running until time to quit. That left only a minimal teardown to do this afternoon. Teardown took me less than one hour: - disconnect the rig and battery - pull up ground rod - pack rig, battery, papers, bug, etc. into their respective boxes - fold up the special homebrew FD table - tear down tent and roll it up - untie three antenna ropes and drop antenna - roll up and pack antenna - load up car Probably the quickest getaway yet! 361 days till the next one. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
In article , Alun Palmer
writes: (N2EY) wrote in : In article , Alun Palmer writes: Largely because it comes too late. If this had happened in 1992, as it might well have if it had made the agenda and that particular conference had not been postponed by three years, then I think the effect would have been much bigger. Maybe. Or maybe S25.5 would have not been revised in 1992 if it was on the agenda, conference wasn't postponed, etc. Remember that back in '92 the maritime folks still had CW/Morse capability required on all ships over a certain size. I think the delay actually worked FOR the total elimination of code testing. Absolutely. It changed it from an odds on probability to a near certainty. Well, we'll have to agree to disagree about the probability back in 1992. But note this: Medical waivers for the 13 and 20 wpm code tests began in 1990. Anyone who could get a doctor's note needed only to pass 5 wpm. And there were/are lots of accomodations available. Then in 1991 the code test for all amateur privs above 30 MHz went away. Was there a sustained increase in amateur radio growth because of those changes? No - just compare the growth in the '80s vs. the '90s. There was an initial surge when the changes happened, that's all. It's been over three years since the restructuring and US license totals have increased by about 11,000. I thought we'd be over 700,000 by 2001. If/when FCC dumps Element 1, will we see lots of growth? I sincerely doubt it. Don't forget though that the maritime CW phasing out period began way back in 1987, although it wasn't completed until 2000 (and some would say, isn't complete now, despite no testing, distress watch, etc.). You left out a key word: "mandatory". Morse/CW is still used in some parts of the maritime services, it's just not mandatory anymore. Something else happened in the interim, an explosion in Internet use, which has changed the landscape. Which would have happened regardless of S25.5. To paraphrase and expand on a statement by W3RV, amateur radio will continue to exist because of things it offers that cannot be done with the internet, email, cell phones or inexpensive long distance telecommunications. Toss in GMRS/FRS, too. Example: most of the folks who got ham licenses for honeydew purposes in the '80s and '90s now have cellphones for that job. There's no point in running routine phone patches when you can direct dial for a few pennies a minute. Amateurs, by definition, have to build their facilities with discretionary money, time and other resources. And no hope of any financial return. Which means they have to really want to do it or it's just not gonna happen. Classic "bell the cat" situation. And removal or retention of various tests or other requirements will not change any of that. Cell phones, computers and 'net connection have become a practical necessity in most people's lives today. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Kim W5TIT wrote: Dee, no doubt CW has its benefits. Contrary to a lot of the "pro-CW" folks, the "anti-CW" folks recognize its capabilities. (It's silly to even put the groups in such diverse categories.) However, that does not negate the argument that, even though it may be quite beneficial, there are those of us who simply choose not to learn it well enough for practicability (eh?). You don't have to use it, just learn it. I don't like the stupid satellite questions on the test, but I had to learn them. (sorry satellite folks) Actually you didn't have to learn the satellite stuff to get a passing grade on the test. I have no problem adding a couple of questions to the question pool for any license that asks about CW as a mode. That is, however, a distinctly different situation than having an exclusive and separaelty graded test element as Morse code does today. If we threw out all the parts that some people did not want to learn, there would soon be no test whatsoever. Let's make the case: None of the cases below now have a separate pass fail test element so the "case" or analogy fails. Satellite stations - this is a very mode-specific section Strike Band edges - most hams I know have a ARRL band page by their rigs. Strike Theory - Many hams never plan to homebrew and some even have other people wire their stations for them. Strike Packet questions? Mode specific and most hams aren't interested in packet Strike Questions about SSTV Mode specific, and many hams never plan to use SSTV Strike Baudot code questions? Give me a break! Strike Test equipment questions? In this day of appliance operations, who needs those sort of questions? Strike I'll stop now, but for every type of question on the test, there is a person who thinks it doesn't belong there. - Mike KB3EIA - I repeat: None of the cases above now have a separate pass fail test element so the "case" or analogy or argument fails. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
Mike Coslo writes:
If they are interested in the ARS, but do not learn Morse because they don't like it, they are not as interested as someone who does make the effort. You're really describing the "hazing effect", AFAICS. I approve of CW testing precisely because of this effect; after being forced to run the gauntlet of CW practice and testing, many will decide they love CW--but more importantly, their attitude to the ARS in general will be affected by the fact of having spent effort (however minor) and jumped through hoops (however simple) to get into it. (For that purpose, almost any hoop will do, of course. The chief advantage of CW over the theory test is that it's much harder to "cram". I'd have been an extra 20 years ago without that one extra "hump", as would several people I know. And yes, the fact that we didn't, does indeed prove that we "didn't want to badly enough".) There's a chicken-and-egg question, of course. How many people got their license before the no-code tech, but weren't interested in CW at all? How many became interested in CW after the fact as a result of the "hazing effect"? How many support CW now because they feel the need to haze the newbies as they were hazed, even though they don't use the mode themselves? And if so, what's so terrible about that? Regards, Len. Disclaimer: I'm interested in CW for its own sake. Or is it because I'll fight the man that calls me a "nickel extra", let alone a "no-code extra"? Now I'm motivated to get my ticket before they eliminate CW entirely, which seems likely. |
Dick Carroll; wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote: Kim W5TIT wrote: Dan, I can understand your exasperation with people who choose not to learn CW or decide that they don't like it. However, that is as far as the understanding goes. It seems impossible to me that you can't understand that people know what they do, or don't, like. We all have to learn things that we may not like all that much. I had to sit and learn classes in school that I found boring to distraction. Betcha you decided that some of them that you thought you'd never like turned out to be interesting after all, too. Most folks mature into understanding that as a possibility, even a liklihood. SOME don't. I remember, as a high school freshman, hating history class - until we really got into it. I later minored in history. Absolutely! We just don't know what will interest us as we go through life. .....does that make people who automatically know that they don't like Morse and will never use it "know it all's" (sorry, couldn't help it) ;^) my bad! For instance, I happen to absolutely know I would not enjoy jumping out of an airplane to parachute. I've never tried it, no. But I don't intend to because "it's just not me." But if you wanted to parachute out of planes, you would indeed have to jump out of a plane. I know that sounds redundant or maybe redumbdant, but it helps prove my point. You aren't that interested in that sort of hobby, so you don't do it. It is strange that so many people have a problem with my basic premise: that people who aren't willing to learn the requirements are not all that interested in the ARS. In this case, the requirement is the Morse test. The best proof of that is in the millions of hams since the end of the 18th century who DID learn the code without hesitation or even giving it a passing thought as to how "unnecessary" it might be. Basics are never "unnecessary". I just thought of it as another part of the testing process. That I had my own difficulties with it, or whether or not it was applicable or not (IMO it is) was and is irrelevant. It's there, it's part of the test. Just do it. (all apologies to Nike) - Mike KB3EIA - |
Bill Sohl wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Kim W5TIT wrote: Dee, no doubt CW has its benefits. Contrary to a lot of the "pro-CW" folks, the "anti-CW" folks recognize its capabilities. (It's silly to even put the groups in such diverse categories.) However, that does not negate the argument that, even though it may be quite beneficial, there are those of us who simply choose not to learn it well enough for practicability (eh?). You don't have to use it, just learn it. I don't like the stupid satellite questions on the test, but I had to learn them. (sorry satellite folks) Actually you didn't have to learn the satellite stuff to get a passing grade on the test. I have no problem adding a couple of questions to the question pool for any license that asks about CW as a mode. That is, however, a distinctly different situation than having an exclusive and separaelty graded test element as Morse code does today. If we threw out all the parts that some people did not want to learn, there would soon be no test whatsoever. Let's make the case: None of the cases below now have a separate pass fail test element so the "case" or analogy fails. I wasn't making a pass/fail argument Bill, My argument is that you take a test based on what the test is. Another made the argument that they will never use Morse, so why should they have to take the test. In that context it is relevant. Satellite stations - this is a very mode-specific section Strike Band edges - most hams I know have a ARRL band page by their rigs. Strike Theory - Many hams never plan to homebrew and some even have other people wire their stations for them. Strike Packet questions? Mode specific and most hams aren't interested in packet Strike Questions about SSTV Mode specific, and many hams never plan to use SSTV Strike Baudot code questions? Give me a break! Strike Test equipment questions? In this day of appliance operations, who needs those sort of questions? Strike I'll stop now, but for every type of question on the test, there is a person who thinks it doesn't belong there. - Mike KB3EIA - I repeat: None of the cases above now have a separate pass fail test element so the "case" or analogy or argument fails. Okay, I'll repeat: I wasn't making a pass/fail argument Bill, My argument is that you take a test based on what the test is. Another made the argument that they will never use Morse, so why should they have to take the test. In that context it is relevant. Your's is a different argument. On that, there *is* a case to be made as to Morse code being an anachronism, and that it is one element in that a failure will cause you to fail the intire test - disregarding the certificate that you get for passing the test. But that's not the specific argument here - tho there isn't anything prohibiting taking it in that direcion, 'ceptin' some likely confusion! - Mike KB3EIA - |
No Phil its not meaningless. The next 'attack' by the 'cw deprived' will be
to abolish CW on the air. Watch and see. Dan/W4NTI "Phil Kane" wrote in message .net... On Tue, 1 Jul 2003 21:43:26 -0500, Kim W5TIT wrote: However, that does not negate the argument that, even though it may be quite beneficial, there are those of us who simply choose not to learn it well enough for practicability (eh?). The only issue is whether the FCC should require demonstration of ability to copy code as a part of the examination procedure - and we all agree (inwardly or outwardly) that that will be going away real soon. Any other argument is meaningless. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
Bill Sohl wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Kim W5TIT wrote: Dan, I can understand your exasperation with people who choose not to learn CW or decide that they don't like it. However, that is as far as the understanding goes. It seems impossible to me that you can't understand that people know what they do, or don't, like. We all have to learn things that we may not like all that much. I had to sit and learn classes in school that I found boring to distraction. The issue is that morse has lost the need for exclusive testing as a separate test element. Your analogy isn't equivalent to boring school classes because the goal of those classes is and was within the objectives of providing a complete education. FCC licensing is not, however, the means to mandate a specific skill capability for one mode. But that's a different argument Bill. When this thing got rolling, I was saying that anyone who does not get a General or above license at the present time because they don't want to learn Morse does not want the license badly enough to learn Morse code. All quite a different argument. For instance, I happen to absolutely know I would not enjoy jumping out of an airplane to parachute. I've never tried it, no. But I don't intend to because "it's just not me." But if you wanted to parachute out of planes, you would indeed have to jump out of a plane. I know that sounds redundant or maybe redumbdant, but it helps prove my point. You aren't that interested in that sort of hobby, so you don't do it. It is strange that so many people have a problem with my basic premise: that people who aren't willing to learn the requirements are not all that interested in the ARS. In this case, the requirement is the Morse test. Sorry, you are expanding a lack of interest in morse as a defining element as to one's overall interest in amateur radio. That is simply untrue. There are thousands of hams that have ZERO interest in morse, many have even passed the tests to advance, yet they are excellent hams. Bottom line: Knowledge of morse is neither a positive or negative indication of any individual's interest(s) in ham radio. It is if a person refuses to learn it, or waits until the requirement goes away. So, why is it so difficult for you to understand that people can and do make the decision that the CW part of this hobby is something they are not interested in? Are you saying that there is nothing you would not try to see if you liked it or not? You don't know yourself well enough? If a person does not want to take the Morse test, that is their right and privilege. They won't get the HF ticket however. That is absolutely true...for now. If they are interested in the ARS, but do not learn Morse because they don't like it, they are not as interested as someone who does make the effort. I can say the same thing about learning or not learning CPR. Are those that decide not to learn CW less interested in safety than those that do? The answer is NO, because there are many ways people can be far more safety conscience than someone else who may know CPR. No. If you want to give CPR, you had darn well better learn how, or else the Red Cross isn't going to stand behind you when you crack those ribs. Indeed, just aboutanyone interested enough in learning CPR is going to take the Red Cross classes, learn how, and be certified. Those who aren't interested will probably not. - Mike KB3EIA - |
|
Ryan, KC8PMX wrote: Don't know about our local group but I heard something like around a 100 morse code contacts (all bands being used) and around 70-80 voice mode contacts. Myself and about 1/3 to 1/2 of our local club pretty much boycotted Field Day this year..... (issues with local club) Ya should have splintered off and done your own FD! - Mike KB3EIA - |
Dan/W4NTI wrote:
I could have stopped at 5 and got my 'Technician ticket' and stayed there for decades until the FCC dropped the HF CW to 5. But I chose NOT TO DO THAT. I completely skipped the Technician. I went from Novice straight to General, then up. I did so because I knew if I would have gotten on two meter AM as a Novice, I would have gotten the Tech then stayed a Tech. I forced myself to learn CW. And one day I passed that 12 wpm block. And I KEPT pushing myself to get better. Thats my story. Perhaps that will explain why I think as I do. Thank you Dan! You made just about perfect illustration of what I was saying. You were interested enough, and definitely MORE interested thatn those who chose not to do what you did. - Mike KB3EIA - |
You hear it now, when people yak about how much spectrum the "beepers"
have. - Mike KB3EIA - Dan/W4NTI wrote: No Phil its not meaningless. The next 'attack' by the 'cw deprived' will be to abolish CW on the air. Watch and see. Dan/W4NTI "Phil Kane" wrote in message .net... On Tue, 1 Jul 2003 21:43:26 -0500, Kim W5TIT wrote: However, that does not negate the argument that, even though it may be quite beneficial, there are those of us who simply choose not to learn it well enough for practicability (eh?). The only issue is whether the FCC should require demonstration of ability to copy code as a part of the examination procedure - and we all agree (inwardly or outwardly) that that will be going away real soon. Any other argument is meaningless. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
Mike Coslo writes:
No, it's not a hazing effect I'm describing, its plain old *interest* in the ARS. I realize that--but of course plenty of people are interested in communication but not CW, and signify it by choosing to get a no-code Tech license. Defining that as disinterest in "ARS" involves a question-begging definition of ARS to be "amateur radio communication in various modes INCLUDING CW." Regards, Len. |
On Wed, 2 Jul 2003 12:14:44 -0500, Dan/W4NTI wrote:
No Phil its not meaningless. The next 'attack' by the 'cw deprived' will be to abolish CW on the air. Watch and see. If Morse wasn't prohibited in the maritime community after all the ocean-going large ships stopped carrying Morse-qualified radio officers and both the USCG and the public coast stations stopped offering Morse service, what makes you think that it would be abolished for the ham community when the requirement for Morse testing is deleted? The "CWDC" (CW Deprived Conspiracy) can try hard - it won't do any good. Watch and see. ggg -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane Amateur Extra Class the old-fashioned way. |
Because all the whinning folks out there and the politically correct FCC.
Argue that point Phil. Dan/W4NTI "Phil Kane" wrote in message .net... On Wed, 2 Jul 2003 12:14:44 -0500, Dan/W4NTI wrote: No Phil its not meaningless. The next 'attack' by the 'cw deprived' will be to abolish CW on the air. Watch and see. If Morse wasn't prohibited in the maritime community after all the ocean-going large ships stopped carrying Morse-qualified radio officers and both the USCG and the public coast stations stopped offering Morse service, what makes you think that it would be abolished for the ham community when the requirement for Morse testing is deleted? The "CWDC" (CW Deprived Conspiracy) can try hard - it won't do any good. Watch and see. ggg -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane Amateur Extra Class the old-fashioned way. |
In article , Alun Palmer
writes: (N2EY wrote): Well, we'll have to agree to disagree about the probability back in 1992. But note this: Medical waivers for the 13 and 20 wpm code tests began in 1990. Anyone who could get a doctor's note needed only to pass 5 wpm. And there were/are lots of accomodations available. Then in 1991 the code test for all amateur privs above 30 MHz went away. The ITU allowed no-code licensing above 420 MHz in 1947 and above 30 MHz in 1967, I think. I think if you check, it was 1000 MHz in 1947 and 144 MHz in 1967. But the principle is the same. The first no-code licences were actually issued in Australia in 1952, and the UK followed in 1963. Japan in 1952, as well. Of course, this time I don't think it will be another 50 years before element 1 will be dropped! Not even 50 weeks, probably. The reason is that the ARRL did a 180 degree turn on code testing, which is what led to the no-code Tech. The FCC would have allowed no-code above 220 in the 70s. They proposed it and the league talked them out of it! The ARRL would have us beleive otherwise, but it's all on record. WHOA! Hold on a second there! First off, The earliest "serious" proposal for a nocodetest license in the USA was in 1975. FCC wanted to create a "dual ladder" license system, with no less than seven classes of license! This was only a few years after the Incentive Licensing mess of the '60s. (If you think people are ticked off about the code test issue, you shoulda been around back then.) As part of this seven-class system, there would have been a "Communicator" license with extremely limited VHF/UHF privs and no code test. The response in the amateur community (not just ARRL leadership) back then was a resounding NO! FCC scrapped the idea. Then in 1983, FCC started making noises about a nocodetest license, and again the response from the amateur community was a resounding NO!. But in 1989-1990, FCC tried yet a third time and this time made it clear they really wanted a nocodetest amateur license. At the same time, they were proposing to reallocate 220 to other services. The response from the amateur community was no longer a resounding NO - it was more like "well, if the license has limited VHF-UHF privileges, maybe it would be OK". Specifically, feedback to the question "would you support or oppose a limited-privileges VHF/UHF only license with no code test?" was divided 50-50 yes-no. So the ARRL BoD proposed a compromise: Create a new class of license that would focus on 220, increasing its usage. (The ARRL proposal did not include 2 meter privs for the new license). FCC saw through the plan and simply dropped the code test from the Tech. They compromised by only reallocating 220-222, not the whole band. The recent turn-about in ARRL BoD policy was partly the result of a meeting of Region 3 IARU societies back about 2000. At that meeting, ARRL found itself to be the lone member supporting retention of S25.5. It became clear that "resistance was useless" and so the policy was quietly changed at the next BoD meeting from "support" to "no opinion". None of this is secret or denied by the ARRL. It's all been in the pages of QST and on the website. Was there a sustained increase in amateur radio growth because of those changes? No - just compare the growth in the '80s vs. the '90s. There was an initial surge when the changes happened, that's all. It made less difference than it would have in, say, the 70s, and no-code HF now will make less difference now than it would have in 90s, much less the 70s. MAybe - we'll never know for sure. I'm not saying our hobby is dying, but interest seems to be declining. I mean no disrespect, Alun, but in the 35+ years I've been a ham, I've heard that and similar reports. None of them ever came true. What HAS changed is that some of the reasons people used to become hams have disappeared. If all someone wants is electronic communication, there are lots of other options, most of which either didn't exist or were prohibitively expensive only a few decades ago. Example: In 1972 I knew a girl whose father wrote for one of the big local papers as TV critic. He had a Model 19 teletype machine in the dining room, complete with paper tape setup and telephone line interface. He'd write his columns, then punch a tape and send it to the office. He only went into the office once a week or so. Today all he'd need is a laptop and a phone line, costing a tiny fraction of what the Model 19 cost. It's been over three years since the restructuring and US license totals have increased by about 11,000. I thought we'd be over 700,000 by 2001. If/when FCC dumps Element 1, will we see lots of growth? I sincerely doubt it. I agree. There will just be a surge in interest for a while. Which disproves the idea that the code test is some sort of "barrier" to a license. Don't forget though that the maritime CW phasing out period began way back in 1987, although it wasn't completed until 2000 (and some would say, isn't complete now, despite no testing, distress watch, etc.). You left out a key word: "mandatory". Morse/CW is still used in some parts of the maritime services, it's just not mandatory anymore. Something else happened in the interim, an explosion in Internet use, which has changed the landscape. Which would have happened regardless of S25.5. To paraphrase and expand on a statement by W3RV, amateur radio will continue to exist because of things it offers that cannot be done with the internet, email, cell phones or inexpensive long distance telecommunications. Toss in GMRS/FRS, too. Example: most of the folks who got ham licenses for honeydew purposes in the '80s and '90s now have cellphones for that job. There's no point in running routine phone patches when you can direct dial for a few pennies a minute. Amateurs, by definition, have to build their facilities with discretionary money, time and other resources. And no hope of any financial return. Which means they have to really want to do it or it's just not gonna happen. Classic "bell the cat" situation. And removal or retention of various tests or other requirements will not change any of that. Cell phones, computers and 'net connection have become a practical necessity in most people's lives today. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
... Kim W5TIT wrote: Dee, no doubt CW has its benefits. Contrary to a lot of the "pro-CW" folks, the "anti-CW" folks recognize its capabilities. (It's silly to even put the groups in such diverse categories.) However, that does not negate the argument that, even though it may be quite beneficial, there are those of us who simply choose not to learn it well enough for practicability (eh?). You don't have to use it, just learn it. I don't like the stupid satellite questions on the test, but I had to learn them. (sorry satellite folks) If we threw out all the parts that some people did not want to learn, there would soon be no test whatsoever. You are speaking of the written exam, and I think it should be made tougher and harder to pass. But, I don't think there is a necessity to "test" knowledge of a mode. Let's make the case: Satellite stations - this is a very mode-specific section Strike Well, OK, but replace it with lots more tought stuff. Band edges - most hams I know have a ARRL band page by their rigs. Strike DITTO Theory - Many hams never plan to homebrew and some even have other people wire their stations for them. Strike DITTO Packet questions? Mode specific and most hams aren't interested in packet Strike Questions about SSTV Mode specific, and many hams never plan to use SSTV Strike Baudot code questions? Give me a break! Strike Test equipment questions? In this day of appliance operations, who needs those sort of questions? Strike I'll stop now, but for every type of question on the test, there is a person who thinks it doesn't belong there. - Mike KB3EIA - Ditto, ditto, etc. I think the written part of the exam should have regulatory questions, and a lot of them. I also think the written part of the exam should include more than just Part 97 of the R&R...what about the 1934 Act? Lots more on that. The written exam should include a great deal of questions on the safety issues related the operating of amateur equipment and antennas, etc. Much tougher written and wish there was a way not to have it published. But, that's me. YMMV Kim W5TIT |
"Kim W5TIT" wrote in
: "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Kim W5TIT wrote: Dee, no doubt CW has its benefits. Contrary to a lot of the "pro-CW" folks, the "anti-CW" folks recognize its capabilities. (It's silly to even put the groups in such diverse categories.) However, that does not negate the argument that, even though it may be quite beneficial, there are those of us who simply choose not to learn it well enough for practicability (eh?). You don't have to use it, just learn it. I don't like the stupid satellite questions on the test, but I had to learn them. (sorry satellite folks) If we threw out all the parts that some people did not want to learn, there would soon be no test whatsoever. I'd be happy to have as many _questions_ on the _written_exams_ about Morse as about each other mode. A ham should _know_about_ all the modes. What offends a lot of us is a _practical_ test in only _one_ mode. To take your example, if you had to track a satellite pass and work someone via satellite to get a licence, and that was the only practical test, that wouldn't be right either, as it would be an unbalanced requirement relative to all the other things you can do in the hobby. If you want to have a practical test, how about soldering? At least it's not mode- specific. You are speaking of the written exam, and I think it should be made tougher and harder to pass. But, I don't think there is a necessity to "test" knowledge of a mode. Let's make the case: Satellite stations - this is a very mode-specific section Strike Well, OK, but replace it with lots more tought stuff. Band edges - most hams I know have a ARRL band page by their rigs. Strike DITTO Theory - Many hams never plan to homebrew and some even have other people wire their stations for them. Strike DITTO Packet questions? Mode specific and most hams aren't interested in packet Strike Questions about SSTV Mode specific, and many hams never plan to use SSTV Strike Baudot code questions? Give me a break! Strike Test equipment questions? In this day of appliance operations, who needs those sort of questions? Strike I'll stop now, but for every type of question on the test, there is a person who thinks it doesn't belong there. - Mike KB3EIA - Ditto, ditto, etc. I think the written part of the exam should have regulatory questions, and a lot of them. I also think the written part of the exam should include more than just Part 97 of the R&R...what about the 1934 Act? Lots more on that. The written exam should include a great deal of questions on the safety issues related the operating of amateur equipment and antennas, etc. Much tougher written and wish there was a way not to have it published. But, that's me. YMMV Kim W5TIT |
Bill Sohl wrote: "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Kim W5TIT wrote: Dan, I can understand your exasperation with people who choose not to learn CW or decide that they don't like it. However, that is as far as the understanding goes. It seems impossible to me that you can't understand that people know what they do, or don't, like. We all have to learn things that we may not like all that much. I had to sit and learn classes in school that I found boring to distraction. The issue is that morse has lost the need for exclusive testing as a separate test element. Your analogy isn't equivalent to boring school classes because the goal of those classes is and was within the objectives of providing a complete education. I might beg to differ. I took many classes that were just about irrelevant to just about anything. They were mandated to be taken though. And that to me sounds just about like the arguments aginst Morse code testing. FCC licensing is not, however, the means to mandate a specific skill capability for one mode. For instance, I happen to absolutely know I would not enjoy jumping out of an airplane to parachute. I've never tried it, no. But I don't intend to because "it's just not me." But if you wanted to parachute out of planes, you would indeed have to jump out of a plane. I know that sounds redundant or maybe redumbdant, but it helps prove my point. You aren't that interested in that sort of hobby, so you don't do it. It is strange that so many people have a problem with my basic premise: that people who aren't willing to learn the requirements are not all that interested in the ARS. In this case, the requirement is the Morse test. Sorry, you are expanding a lack of interest in morse as a defining element as to one's overall interest in amateur radio. That is simply untrue. There are thousands of hams that have ZERO interest in morse, many have even passed the tests to advance, yet they are excellent hams. No I am not! I'm saying that if you don't learn the prescribed items, you are not all that interested. Let's take the hot button Morse code away from the topic for a second, and use the example posted by some other person here recently. In his post, he mentioned that some Service buddies who already know Morse code would take the ARS tests as a way of getting off base and for a change of pace for a day. They did well on the Morse part of the test, but with one apparent exception, failed the written exam. Learning the written portions of the exam was not all that important to them. After all, they were just doing this for a lark. They were not really all that interested in getting thier ticket. People who took the time to study and learn for the *written* portion of the test had more interest in being a ham than those who did notwant to take the time to study for the written portion of the test. It is exactly the same thing. I've been careful to point out that my argument is completely separate from whether Morse should be tested at all. Bottom line: Knowledge of morse is neither a positive or negative indication of any individual's interest(s) in ham radio. It is if you have to pass a test for it before access. - Mike KB3EIA - |
"Kim" wrote in message ...
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Kim wrote: Dan, I can understand your exasperation with people who choose not to learn CW or decide that they don't like it. However, that is as far as the understanding goes. It seems impossible to me that you can't understand that people know what they do, or don't, like. Kim, Have you *ever* had the experience of "having to" try something you thought you wouldn't like, and finding out you really enjoyed it? Do you know anyone who has had such an experience? We all have to learn things that we may not like all that much. I had to sit and learn classes in school that I found boring to distraction. I think there's a difference between what we "must" learn in school for a real degree vs. what we must know to operate as a licensed amateur. I don't need an amateur license to "get by" in life. I do need my High School Diploma, or better, to get by. That reasoning works to support Mike's argument. If a high school diploma is a practical necessity, why should it require ANY non-essentials? Those nonessentials could be considered arbitrary, capricious, irrelevant, discriminatory, hazing, etc. OTOH, since a ham license is not a necessity, it can require all sorts of stuff that some would say is nonessential. For instance, I happen to absolutely know I would not enjoy jumping out of an airplane to parachute. I've never tried it, no. But I don't intend to because "it's just not me." But if you wanted to parachute out of planes, you would indeed have to jump out of a plane. I know that sounds redundant or maybe redumbdant, but it helps prove my point. You aren't that interested in that sort of hobby, so you don't do it. It is strange that so many people have a problem with my basic premise: that people who aren't willing to learn the requirements are not all that interested in the ARS. In this case, the requirement is the Morse test. Not really a good analogy, because in order to parachute you have to jump out of, or off of, something. I don't have a problem with the CW requirement for an amateur ticket on its face. However, if its primary purpose is that of "filtering" people from the hobby, as many attitudes seem to demonstrate, then I am all about getting the requirement outta here. I think what really bothers some folks about the code test is the fact that it acts as a "Great Equalizer". Very few prospective hams already know the code, which means that, when starting out to get a license, the Ph.D. in EE is placed on the same playing field as the elementary school kid. It can't be learned (by most people) by reading a book or watching a video, or picked up in bits and pieces here and there. Guessing doesn't help you pass it. Also, once you learn it, the code is extremely useful in amateur radio. Particularly HF/MF amateur radio. I do not believe that a knowledge of CW makes one any better a ham than any other. I think it does. Maybe not the test itself alone, but the USE of the mode. It's a useful skill for hams to have. That doesn't mean it MUST be tested, however. I also don't believe, as you mention later in this post, that one's interest level is important to this hobby. So, why is it so difficult for you to understand that people can and do make the decision that the CW part of this hobby is something they are not interested in? Are you saying that there is nothing you would not try to see if you liked it or not? You don't know yourself well enough? If a person does not want to take the Morse test, that is their right and privilege. They won't get the HF ticket however. At least not right now, eh? You got a date in The Pool yet? (see the thread by that name) If they are interested in the ARS, but do not learn Morse because they don't like it, they are not as interested as someone who does make the effort. But, who dictates that "interest" is a necessity for this hobby/avocation? The FCC, among others. If someone is interested in the ARS, but does not bother to get a license because they don't like taking (written) tests or studying for same, then they are not as interested as someone who does make the effort. I don't care about someone's interest level. There are, what Jim/N2EY(?), 650,000+ amateurs in this country alone. 686,802 as of yesterday. ;-) But how many of them are active? Of them, there are numbers of every kind of thinking and interest level, right? I don't care about someone's "interest." I care that once they are a licensed amateur they conduct themselves within the parameters of the FCC's R&R. OK, fine - now how do we assure that? Look at the enforcement actions by FCC - hams of all license classes being cited for doing dumb things. Each and every one of them had to pass a written test - in most cases, several written tests. Yet they break the rules, and in most cases the violations are not technical things like a misadjusted or broken rig. Instead, most of the violations I read about today are "operating" violations - jamming, cussing, failure to ID, operation outside of one's license privileges, etc. Really basic stuff that was covered at the Novice level. Yet almost all of that stuff happens using voice modes, rather than CW or data modes. There must be reasons for the enormous disparity in behavior. That is all that is required. So how do we get it? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
On 03 Jul 2003 12:23:14 GMT, N2EY wrote:
4) Some of us don't quickly forget statements like: "no setasides for legacy modes!" and "those in the minority should learn to take 'no' for an answer and get on with life" (those are just a small sample) More reason not to ban Morse. Illigitimati non carburundum. 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane Amateur Extra Class the old-fashioned way. If the code test isn't meaningful, why sign your post that way? It was meaningful "in those days". The meaning was "if you want the privileges, you gotta' pass the test." Do not confuse my attitude about the test with the use/allowance of the mode. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
"N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , "Phil Kane" writes: On Wed, 2 Jul 2003 12:14:44 -0500, Dan/W4NTI wrote: No Phil its not meaningless. The next 'attack' by the 'cw deprived' will be to abolish CW on the air. Watch and see. If Morse wasn't prohibited in the maritime community after all the ocean-going large ships stopped carrying Morse-qualified radio officers and both the USCG and the public coast stations stopped offering Morse service, what makes you think that it would be abolished for the ham community when the requirement for Morse testing is deleted? Several things: 1) The number of ships is far less than the number of hams, and they're much more spread out. 2) For the most part, the systems that replaced Morse in the maritime services don't use the same frequencies as Morse did. 3) The driving force behind the maritime service changes is/was saving $$. Ham radio is different. 4) Some of us don't quickly forget statements like: "no setasides for legacy modes!" and "those in the minority should learn to take 'no' for an answer and get on with life" (those are just a small sample) The "CWDC" (CW Deprived Conspiracy) can try hard - it won't do any good. Rather than an outright ban, we may see a form of "crowding out". There will be pressure to widen the 'phone/image bands still more. If proponents of CW make full usage of the bands, then there won't be a valid argument to widen phone segments. Remember too that the non-phone segments also support data. It is interesting to note how many folks really think that the non-phone/image parts of the HF bands are "CW-only" and are completely ignorant of the fact that data modes are authorized on all of them. Exactly why I wrote the comment above. There are only two CW only segments and all hams have access to them now... they are 50.0-50.1 and 144.0 to 144.1. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ... "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Kim W5TIT wrote: Dan, I can understand your exasperation with people who choose not to learn CW or decide that they don't like it. However, that is as far as the understanding goes. It seems impossible to me that you can't understand that people know what they do, or don't, like. We all have to learn things that we may not like all that much. I had to sit and learn classes in school that I found boring to distraction. I think there's a difference between what we "must" learn in school for a real degree vs. what we must know to operate as a licensed amateur. I don't need an amateur license to "get by" in life. I do need my High School Diploma, or better, to get by. Yes you need the high school diploma to get by in life but you don't "need" a lot of the subjects that you are required to learn. How often do you use history in daily life unless you are a teacher or politician? Who needs to have knowledge of Shakespeare and other classic literature to get by in daily life? Yet to get that high school diploma (which you need), you have to take subjects that are "unneeded". However, they are considered part of a well rounded basic education so you have to take them and pass them to get that diploma. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"Alun Palmer" wrote in message ... "Kim W5TIT" wrote in : "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Kim W5TIT wrote: Dee, no doubt CW has its benefits. Contrary to a lot of the "pro-CW" folks, the "anti-CW" folks recognize its capabilities. (It's silly to even put the groups in such diverse categories.) However, that does not negate the argument that, even though it may be quite beneficial, there are those of us who simply choose not to learn it well enough for practicability (eh?). You don't have to use it, just learn it. I don't like the stupid satellite questions on the test, but I had to learn them. (sorry satellite folks) If we threw out all the parts that some people did not want to learn, there would soon be no test whatsoever. I'd be happy to have as many _questions_ on the _written_exams_ about Morse as about each other mode. A ham should _know_about_ all the modes. What offends a lot of us is a _practical_ test in only _one_ mode. To take your example, if you had to track a satellite pass and work someone via satellite to get a licence, and that was the only practical test, that wouldn't be right either, as it would be an unbalanced requirement relative to all the other things you can do in the hobby. If you want to have a practical test, how about soldering? At least it's not mode- specific. Actually I agree with having a soldering test. I consider it a basic skill that all hams should have at least to the extent of soldering a PL259 connector to coax and demonstrating that they have achieved continuity and no shorts. The difference between CW and satellite is that CW is commonly used (about 50% of hams use CW some to all of the time) and it is cheap to use. Satellite is uncommon and expensive. In addition, it takes actually having a basic, minimal skill level at CW to judge whether one wishes to pursue it to a useful level thus the prospective ham should be required to learn a basic minimum. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
... Dan/W4NTI wrote: I could have stopped at 5 and got my 'Technician ticket' and stayed there for decades until the FCC dropped the HF CW to 5. But I chose NOT TO DO THAT. I completely skipped the Technician. I went from Novice straight to General, then up. I did so because I knew if I would have gotten on two meter AM as a Novice, I would have gotten the Tech then stayed a Tech. I forced myself to learn CW. And one day I passed that 12 wpm block. And I KEPT pushing myself to get better. Thats my story. Perhaps that will explain why I think as I do. Thank you Dan! You made just about perfect illustration of what I was saying. You were interested enough, and definitely MORE interested thatn those who chose not to do what you did. - Mike KB3EIA - You really think that just because someone learns CW, they have "more" interest in ham radio? You really do, Mike? Oh well... Kim W5TIT |
As an international treaty requirement Morse knowledge
has died as of 7/5/03: The IARU web site has release it final report on WRC 2003. You can read the full report at: http://www.iaru.org/rel030703.html The final version of S25.5 & S25.6 a 25.5 §3 1) Administrations shall determine whether or not a person seeking a licence to operate an amateur station shall demonstrate the ability to send and receive texts in Morse code signals. 25.6 2) Administrations shall verify the operational and technical qualifications of any person wishing to operate an amateur station. Guidance for standards of competence may be found in the most recent version of Recommendation ITU-RM.1544. They say the effective date is July 5, 2003. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
"N2EY" wrote in message
om... "Kim" wrote in message ... "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Kim wrote: Dan, I can understand your exasperation with people who choose not to learn CW or decide that they don't like it. However, that is as far as the understanding goes. It seems impossible to me that you can't understand that people know what they do, or don't, like. Kim, Have you *ever* had the experience of "having to" try something you thought you wouldn't like, and finding out you really enjoyed it? I'll truly have to get back to you on that! Just sitting here thinking about it, I can come up with more examples of things that I knew I would not like that have come true: 1. Moving to Texas. Yes, I have "become accustomed" to being down here. But I'd much rather really be right back up in my hometown with the Battenkill River, Goose Egg Mountain, the Vermont border in eye's sight, etc. 2. Working in downtown Dallas. Again yes, I have "become accustomed" to it, but I knew I would not like it and I really don't. It's just that the darned money is so good, 'spose I am willing to sacrifice a little to have the money... 3. Having kids. Seriously. All the time I was growing up and as a teen-ager, I knew I would not like having kids. Well, I tried a couple out. I love both of them dearly and my granddaughter is divine--but I'd never go through having kids again if I could go back and knew then what I know now Do you know anyone who has had such an experience? I'd have to check. I don't know. We all have to learn things that we may not like all that much. I had to sit and learn classes in school that I found boring to distraction. I think there's a difference between what we "must" learn in school for a real degree vs. what we must know to operate as a licensed amateur. I don't need an amateur license to "get by" in life. I do need my High School Diploma, or better, to get by. That reasoning works to support Mike's argument. If a high school diploma is a practical necessity, why should it require ANY non-essentials? Oh, well. I don't think it should. I think things such as Sports and Band, etc, (the so-called extra-curicular activities) should be in there--as I think they help form skills that will be needed in the world. But, in the regular K-12 school years, I think things such as elective courses really need to be "rethunk." I took Greek Mythology, Philosophy, Psychology, etc., in my years of High School, but I really don't think they should have been available and don't think they should be today: EXCEPT, perhaps, in magnet schools (down here, the term magnet school, defines schooling set aside for "gifted" children). Those nonessentials could be considered arbitrary, capricious, irrelevant, discriminatory, hazing, etc. Exactly, and I think they are to some extent, at least on a regular campus. Those of who were involved in classes such as Latin and, well, the "renaissance" courses(?) were considered quite the nerds--and we considered anyone outside our circle as squares. There was nothing to teach us that people have different interests and that all are OK. Well, at least nothing taught more strongly than teen-age hormones raged! LOL OTOH, since a ham license is not a necessity, it can require all sorts of stuff that some would say is nonessential. And, does. And, again, I think the non-essential stuff should be removed. I'd rather see a majority of hams define what is non-essential, though; and I'd like to see those decisions being made without ego or prejudice. For instance, I happen to absolutely know I would not enjoy jumping out of an airplane to parachute. I've never tried it, no. But I don't intend to because "it's just not me." But if you wanted to parachute out of planes, you would indeed have to jump out of a plane. I know that sounds redundant or maybe redumbdant, but it helps prove my point. You aren't that interested in that sort of hobby, so you don't do it. It is strange that so many people have a problem with my basic premise: that people who aren't willing to learn the requirements are not all that interested in the ARS. In this case, the requirement is the Morse test. Not really a good analogy, because in order to parachute you have to jump out of, or off of, something. I don't have a problem with the CW requirement for an amateur ticket on its face. However, if its primary purpose is that of "filtering" people from the hobby, as many attitudes seem to demonstrate, then I am all about getting the requirement outta here. I think what really bothers some folks about the code test is the fact that it acts as a "Great Equalizer". Very few prospective hams already know the code, which means that, when starting out to get a license, the Ph.D. in EE is placed on the same playing field as the elementary school kid. It can't be learned (by most people) by reading a book or watching a video, or picked up in bits and pieces here and there. Guessing doesn't help you pass it. Many of us do have such a problem with being on an "even playing field," don't we? Pity. Also, once you learn it, the code is extremely useful in amateur radio. Particularly HF/MF amateur radio. I do not believe that a knowledge of CW makes one any better a ham than any other. I think it does. Maybe not the test itself alone, but the USE of the mode. It's a useful skill for hams to have. That doesn't mean it MUST be tested, however. Ah, but would there be alternatives you would consider as a good replacement, since CW--after all--is such an issue among hams? I also don't believe, as you mention later in this post, that one's interest level is important to this hobby. So, why is it so difficult for you to understand that people can and do make the decision that the CW part of this hobby is something they are not interested in? Are you saying that there is nothing you would not try to see if you liked it or not? You don't know yourself well enough? If a person does not want to take the Morse test, that is their right and privilege. They won't get the HF ticket however. At least not right now, eh? You got a date in The Pool yet? (see the thread by that name) No, haven't looked at that one. I'll check it out. If they are interested in the ARS, but do not learn Morse because they don't like it, they are not as interested as someone who does make the effort. But, who dictates that "interest" is a necessity for this hobby/avocation? The FCC, among others. If someone is interested in the ARS, but does not bother to get a license because they don't like taking (written) tests or studying for same, then they are not as interested as someone who does make the effort. To the extent that meeting requirements could be considered as indicating interest, I suppose you have a point. I was thinking more in terms of, if the requirements were reduced, would it mean there were "less interested" hams? Heck, for me, anyone who persists through the brickabrack that happens in this hobby is surely demonstrating an increble interest!! I have practically given up on ham radio. Between my husband and I, there is not one radio (of about 25) that is connected right now. It's just too damned much of a political hotbed for anyone who truly wants to be involved in ham radio (at least around here). I don't care about someone's interest level. There are, what Jim/N2EY(?), 650,000+ amateurs in this country alone. 686,802 as of yesterday. ;-) But how many of them are active? Heh heh. Two here aren't. Of them, there are numbers of every kind of thinking and interest level, right? I don't care about someone's "interest." I care that once they are a licensed amateur they conduct themselves within the parameters of the FCC's R&R. OK, fine - now how do we assure that? Look at the enforcement actions by FCC - hams of all license classes being cited for doing dumb things. Each and every one of them had to pass a written test - in most cases, several written tests. Yet they break the rules, and in most cases the violations are not technical things like a misadjusted or broken rig. Instead, most of the violations I read about today are "operating" violations - jamming, cussing, failure to ID, operation outside of one's license privileges, etc. Really basic stuff that was covered at the Novice level. Yet almost all of that stuff happens using voice modes, rather than CW or data modes. There must be reasons for the enormous disparity in behavior. That is all that is required. So how do we get it? 73 de Jim, N2EY Well, adhering to the FCC R&R is not a choice. At least it isn't if one gets caught. And, if more hams were willing to "snitch" on each other, there'd be a better chance of catching those who don't abide by regulation. Kim W5TIT |
On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 11:53:58 -0400, Scott Unit 69 wrote:
How about essay or fill-in-the-blank type questions instead of multiple-guess type questions? This presumes that the examiners are at the professional level and can properly grade an essay-type question. No sweat for me and I'm sure for several others here. I have a PE in several states and have taught electronics at the University level. What about all the other VEs out there? -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
Kim W5TIT wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Bill Sohl wrote: Bottom line: Knowledge of morse is neither a positive or negative indication of any individual's interest(s) in ham radio. It is if a person refuses to learn it, or waits until the requirement goes away. Mike, I think you'll be quite disappointed if you "trust" in someone's interest level based on their relationship (or lack of) with CW. Not the CW, Kim. It's any part of the testing regimen that a person "won't" take. If a person refuses to take the Extra test, they aren't that interested in being an Extra. Let's even take your own case. You're a Tech Plus, IIRC. Are you interested in taking the General test? If yes, you'll be studying for it. If not, then you aren't that interested in becoming a General. - Mike KB3EIA - |
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
... some folk are just not going to hear what I am saying no matter how many times I say it.. Bingo! -- 73 de Bert WA2SI |
Kim W5TIT wrote: "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Dan/W4NTI wrote: I could have stopped at 5 and got my 'Technician ticket' and stayed there for decades until the FCC dropped the HF CW to 5. But I chose NOT TO DO THAT. I completely skipped the Technician. I went from Novice straight to General, then up. I did so because I knew if I would have gotten on two meter AM as a Novice, I would have gotten the Tech then stayed a Tech. I forced myself to learn CW. And one day I passed that 12 wpm block. And I KEPT pushing myself to get better. Thats my story. Perhaps that will explain why I think as I do. Thank you Dan! You made just about perfect illustration of what I was saying. You were interested enough, and definitely MORE interested thatn those who chose not to do what you did. - Mike KB3EIA - You really think that just because someone learns CW, they have "more" interest in ham radio? You really do, Mike? Oh well... As long as it is one of the requirements, most certainly it is! I don't care if a person ever uses Morse code aftward, but as long as it is a test requirement..... Take my case. I'm a pretty smart guy, despite a person here who thinks I'm a hockey puck. But picking up Morse code was really difficult for me. But I really wanted that ticket, so I learned it. The Written parts were a breeze. Now let's say I figured I'd just wait till the Morse requirement went away before I went to the trouble of testing. That would have meant that I was interested, but not interested enough to study for and take the test - I was just as interested in waiting. - Mike KB3EIA - |
In article , "Phil Kane"
writes: On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 11:53:58 -0400, Scott Unit 69 wrote: How about essay or fill-in-the-blank type questions instead of multiple-guess type questions? This presumes that the examiners are at the professional level and can properly grade an essay-type question. No sweat for me and I'm sure for several others here. I have a PE in several states and have taught electronics at the University level. What about all the other VEs out there? I have BSEE and MSEE from University of Pa. and Drexel, respectively. Also can do 40 wpm Morse and build my own ham rigs. (It ain't braggin' if ya really done it...) The big problem with essay and fill-in-the-blank questions is that the answers are not 100% objective. There's always a measure of judgement involved. For example, take a simple question like "what is the length of a half-wave dipole cut for 7.1 MHz?" With multiple choice, the QPC says that one answer (say, 66 feet) is the correct one and all others are incorrect. But with essays and fill-in-the-blank, what tolerance do we put on the correct answer? Is 67 feet acceptable? 68 feet? 66 feet 3 inches? The person being tested could write a long dissertation on tapering elements, the effect of ground, wire/tubing sizes, etc., and come up with a whole raneg of arguably-correct answers. And that's just a simple question. When you start getting into explanations and diagrams, it gets really hairy. From what I have researched, FCC went to multiple-choice questions for all ham exams no later than 1961. At least 42 years ago, probably more. Try convincing them that they've been wrong all this time. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Kim W5TIT wrote: "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Bill Sohl wrote: Bottom line: Knowledge of morse is neither a positive or negative indication of any individual's interest(s) in ham radio. It is if a person refuses to learn it, or waits until the requirement goes away. Balogny... What this states is that all non-coded techs have insufficiient interest in "ham radio." Note the above does not specify any license level whereas below the poster changes to a specific referral to Extra. That is NOT how the original post started out. Mike, I think you'll be quite disappointed if you "trust" in someone's interest level based on their relationship (or lack of) with CW. Not the CW, Kim. It's any part of the testing regimen that a person "won't" take. If a person refuses to take the Extra test, they aren't that interested in being an Extra. So what. They may have less interest in Extra, but that does not equate to a broader lack of interest in "ham radio" (rather than just Extra) as the original post was first articulated. Let's even take your own case. You're a Tech Plus, IIRC. Are you interested in taking the General test? If yes, you'll be studying for it. If not, then you aren't that interested in becoming a General. - Mike KB3EIA - Fair enough on the specific application to General. BUT, would you state that Kim doesn't have a positive interest in "ham radio" just because she doesn't upgrade? Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
X-A-Notice: References line has been trimmed due to 512 byte limitationAbuse-Reports-To: abuse at airmail.net to report improper postings
NNTP-Proxy-Relay: library2.airnews.net NNTP-Posting-Time: Sat, 05 Jul 2003 10:37:08 -0500 (CDT) NNTP-Posting-Host: !Zq7b1k-YJ*ei?9+Z_b (Encoded at Airnews!) X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Bill Sohl wrote: "Dick Carroll;" wrote in message some snippage that is always pooh-poohed by the code/code test bashers. They just won't recognize it for what it is. Or maybe they *can't*. So a nocode tech has no interest in amateur radio because s/he didn't take a morse test then? Bunk. Same old, same old. Gee Bill, that ain't been said! Lets see if I can help out here.... I was a NoCode Tech once. I was interested, and took the test necessary to get that license. Then I was interested in getting my General ticket. Here, I needed to learn Morse code in addition to another written exam. But I was interested, and learned and passed the tests (flunked the MOrse first time around) I got the General ticket. Then I was interested in getting the extra frequency bandwidth and whatever else that the Extra ticket gives. So I studied for and passed the test. In each case, I was "interested" in something. I could have stopped anywhere along the line, and while exercising my right to not learn something, the only effect would have been to not get the license. Would you agree that a person who takes the Extra test is more interested in getting the Extra ticket than a person possessing a General license who does not want to because they won't get all that much in the way of privileges? What I find strange is that some who are distinctly anti-code test are having trouble with what I am saying here. It is either that I am having trouble expressing myself, or that some folk are just not going to hear what I am saying no matter how many times I say it.. Okay one more time. Two young ladies are thinking about getting their drivers licenses. Ida Know wants to get a drivers license, but she is terrified of three point turns, to the point that she says "Forget it, I'll just walk or take the bus". Her friend, Ella Fyno, is also concerned about the three point turn. But she decides that even if she hardly ever uses the three point turn, that she'll buckle down and learn how. She works on the three point turn, eventually passes her license test, and now is happily driving. WHO was MORE interested in getting that drivers license? It's not a comparison of the relationship of driving a car to an Amateur license, or silly names I come up with. It is a question of different people with different levels of interest in something. - Mike KB3EIA - BUT, Mike, it sounded (and still does just a little bit) that you weren't comparing license level interest to license level interest. It sounded more, to me, like you were comparing Novice in ham radio is less interested that General in ham radio. I would say to you, if you in any way think like that, that I know many higher class licensed individuals who have a long way to catch up in the drive and ambition I had (had=past tense) to promote amateur radio. I was *very* interested in ham radio--probably more than any other ham I personally know. The drive to "get more" doesn't equal a level of interest in amateur radio. In my opinion. Your drive to become an Extra sounds more like an ambition to thumb your nose at those who did not. Kim W5TIT |
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
... Kim W5TIT wrote: "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Bill Sohl wrote: Bottom line: Knowledge of morse is neither a positive or negative indication of any individual's interest(s) in ham radio. It is if a person refuses to learn it, or waits until the requirement goes away. Mike, I think you'll be quite disappointed if you "trust" in someone's interest level based on their relationship (or lack of) with CW. Not the CW, Kim. It's any part of the testing regimen that a person "won't" take. If a person refuses to take the Extra test, they aren't that interested in being an Extra. Let's even take your own case. You're a Tech Plus, IIRC. Are you interested in taking the General test? If yes, you'll be studying for it. If not, then you aren't that interested in becoming a General. - Mike KB3EIA - Mike, you keep bouncing back and forth between whehter your issue is that someone who doesn't take a General exam is less interested in being a General, or someone who doesn't take a General exam is less interested in *ham radio*. Thus, I give up even trying to understand your issue. Kim W5TIT |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:57 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com