"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
In article , "Bill Sohl"
writes:

[snippage]

So how come the other services abondoned morse as such a
valuable back-up?

Again, follow the money and you'll learn the truth. The cost of hiring,
training, and providing pay and benefits to CW-proficient radio operators
is the key factor in play here. But you already knew that. Moreover,
these "other services" you're talking about use high-powered satellite-
based technology which is designed for their specific purposes.

Satellites have NOT totally supplanted the use of HF by other services.
Morse has simply been replaced by things like SITOR and other data
services using ALE techniques for faster throughput and better reliability.

If HF had been abandoned, we would have gotten more than 5 discrete
channels at 5 MHz.

But
you already knew that, as well. When you make apples-to-oranges
comparisons between the all-volunteer Amateur Radio Service and
publicly- or commercially-funded communications services, your argument
falls flat on it's face. And if you didn't already know that, you're just
as
deluded as any other NCTA.

Larry, it's you that's deluded, with your quasi-religious-faith belief that
"Morse makes the ham."

Carl - wk3c

"Arnie Macy" wrote in message
...
"JJ" wrote ...

BS, the services realized that with modern technology CW is an outdated,
antiquated mode, no longer useful to them. You are living in your ham
radio
dream world too stubborn to see the truth.
__________________________________________________ ____________________

Hey JJ -- did you forget that SSB is over 60 years old? By your logic,
it's
time to shut that antiquated puppy down as well. I mean, there are MUCH
more modern modes out there, right? Or are you too stubborn to see the
truth?

Arnie -
KT4ST

Arnie,

The technical fact of the matter is that SSB is just about as efficient as
it
gets for voice communications. The baseband (audio frequencies) are
translated to RF and back, with the result that the RF signal is no wider
than
required to convey the baseband bandwidth. (unless, of course you're
running things into clipping and causing all sorts of intermod products)

While digital voice has some advantages in some applications (particularly
if one wants to use mixed media, such as VOIP links), even the best
low-rate codecs require a bandwidth at least as wide as SSB and at those
coding rates don't provide the same fidelity (speaker recognition, tonal
quality, etc.) due to the coding involved.

Yes, SSB is at least 60 years old ... but Morse is what? About 3X as
old?

Its not simply a matter of age ...

Carl - wk3c

Arnie Macy wrote:

"Alun Palmer" wrote ...

What about me? I passed 20wpm and choose not to use it at all? No doubt I
will be told I'm missing out, but I'm doing exactly what I want to.
__________________________________________________ ______________________

I would probably be one of those that would say that. But, I also believe
that it's your choice to make once you have passed the test. However, once
learned (especially at 20wpm) you will never lose the ability to use it.
Rusty maybe, but it will always be there.

I seriously doubt that he actually learned it at 20wpm, tho I don't doubt he
did pass a 20wpm 'test'. At one period the code tests were made quite easy
and if you could copy at all often one could guess out 7 of 10 correct multiple
choice answers on the test.

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote:

"Dick Carroll" wrote in message
...


JJ wrote:

Larry Roll K3LT wrote:

Were it not for the occasional usefulness of the 2-meter band to
"real" ham radio operators like you and me,

With you and Dick holding yourselves up as "real" hams, I can see
why some turn their back on ham radio and stay on cb.

JJ, one does as one is. Even Forrest Gump knew that.
Look for excuses and there are always some to be found.



Dick,

If find your comparison of yourself (and Larry) to Forest Gump
to be most appropriate :-) "Stupid is as stupid does." was the
saying from the movie ... and while I don't actually think either
you or Larry actually ARE stupid, you both certainly ACT that
way.



Speak for yourself, Squig, you're the guy who's been whining and looking for
excuses for half a lifetime.

In article , "Arnie Macy"
writes:

Subject: Now That It's "Over"...
From: "Arnie Macy"
Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2003 02:27:12 -0400

"JJ" wrote ...

BS, the services realized that with modern technology CW is an outdated,
antiquated mode, no longer useful to them. You are living in your ham radio
dream world too stubborn to see the truth.
_________________________________________________ _____________________

Hey JJ -- did you forget that SSB is over 60 years old?

Actually, the use of SSB on radio is over 75 years old (AT&T transatlantic
telephone, 55 kHz LSB, in service 1927). SSB was first used by hams over 70
years ago (Ray Moore, W6DEI, and several others, early 1930s).

Widespread use by hams began in the late 1940s - almost 60 years ago - BEFORE
manufactured SSB equipment for hams was readily available.

By your logic, it's
time to shut that antiquated puppy down as well.

Old does not equal bad, or useless, or obsolete.

A question for JJ: Are you against the MODE, or just the TEST? Words like
"antiquated" and "obsolete", when applied to a mode, don't indicate support to
most people.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Dick Carroll" wrote in message
...


"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote:

OOK Morse is clearly still a viable mode of
communications ... (to use the much-used analogy, so is horseback
riding as a form of transcontinental transportation).



So you equate transcontinental horseback riding to the use of
radiotelegraphy.

Yes ... in the sense that they have both been supplanted by more modern and
efficient means.

And you regard yourself as an engineer (even nondegreed)?

Yup ... so do my peers (you don't fall into that category), including the
dozen
or so PhD's that I was responsible for bringing into my company.

Just for your basic information, radiotelgraphy uses the same radio
propagation
that any other mode uses,

Really? No fooling? :-)

and - when the operater is actually skilled in its use-
often does it better and faster, at lower power than most other common
modes,

ROTFLMAO!!! Better and faster, ha! At lower power, perhaps ... though
as has been pointed out before (though you continue to ignore the reality),
plain
old BFSK, at the same data rates as OOK Morse, has something on the order
of a 9 dB weak signal advantage over OOK Morse.

particularly than weak-signal voice modes which demand slowly pronounced
and
enunciated words and the use of phonetics.

See my previous paragraph above ...

And, as it happens, both travel at the same speed! Eureka!Carl has found
it!

You're delusional again ... take your meds or something.

But you already knew all that, you just like to slam CW.

It's not that I'm "slamming CW" ... as I've said, use it to your heart's
content.
But in the future when folks are not forced to learn it, you'll have to do
your
own "recruiting," rather than relying on a government life support system
for
it ...

You still remember failing that 13wpm test long ago, don't you?

Actually, Dick, I never failed a 13 wpm test because I never TOOK one.
I took my 5 wpm test, then improved my speed working 40 cw, then
during a period when I was moving and the HF station (a Heathkit CW
only rig) was in storage, I got involved in VHF/UHF repeaters, packet
radio (in the early days), etc. and by the time the stuff was out of storage
I'd discovered that there were a lot more interesting things to do in ham
radio than making beeps ...

Carl - wk3c

JJ wrote:

Larry Roll K3LT wrote:


Again, follow the money and you'll learn the truth. The cost of hiring,
training, and providing pay and benefits to CW-proficient radio operators
is the key factor in play here.

BS, the services realized that with modern technology CW is an
outdated, antiquated mode, no longer useful to them. You are
living in your ham radio dream world too stubborn to see the truth.

THAT is the BS and if you'd been paying attention you'd know it. Read Phil
Kane's
post on the subject from yesterday, for one.

Dick Carroll wrote in :



Arnie Macy wrote:

"Alun Palmer" wrote ...

What about me? I passed 20wpm and choose not to use it at all? No
doubt I
will be told I'm missing out, but I'm doing exactly what I want to.
__________________________________________________ _____________________
_

I would probably be one of those that would say that. But, I also
believe that it's your choice to make once you have passed the test.
However, once learned (especially at 20wpm) you will never lose the
ability to use it. Rusty maybe, but it will always be there.

I seriously doubt that he actually learned it at 20wpm, tho I don't
doubt he did pass a 20wpm 'test'. At one period the code tests were
made quite easy and if you could copy at all often one could guess out
7 of 10 correct multiple choice answers on the test.



The real point here is only learnt what I had to do to get the *phone*
privileges I wanted. I never actually wanted to use CW, and this is why I
don't think it should be tested for licensing purposes. I understand that
the ARRL gives out nice certificates for those who have the burning urge
to take a code test.

The way I learnt it, I can only really copy code if I write it down, i.e.
I can't copy by ear unless it is extremely slow, and I was only copying
about 70% to get 7/10 answers right. OTOH, I had to listen to code upto
25wpm to pass 20, but 30wpm just blurs together to my ear, to where I
can't really discern any characters atall.

I don't think for a minute that I would much enjoy a QSO if I could only
copy 70%, so I would probably have to slow to 10-15wpm for a real QSO. Of
course, this means that those who only passed 13wpm multiple guess would
have to slow down to something much slower than that, maybe 5-8 wpm. As
for the 5wpm test.... you get the picture.

Don't hold your breath, though. You aren't likely to hear me on CW anytime
soon.

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...

John:

I agree that Morse code proficiency has nothing to do with speaking or
typing -- but the ability to effectively employ the Morse/CW mode -- at
speeds greater than 5 WPM -- will keep you communicating when conditions
prevent you from communicating by voice or digital modes. You have done
nothing but provide personal, anecdotal proof that reducing code testing
requirements down to a mere 5 WPM maximum was NOT a good thing!


You know...the claim that CW "will keep you communicating when conditions
prevent you from communicating by voice or digital modes" has been made time
and time again. Time and time again there have been requests for proof of
this claim. None has been provided.

To state something does not make it so.

Kim W5TIT


---
Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net
Complaints to

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in
:

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...

John:

I agree that Morse code proficiency has nothing to do with speaking or
typing -- but the ability to effectively employ the Morse/CW mode --
at speeds greater than 5 WPM -- will keep you communicating when
conditions prevent you from communicating by voice or digital modes.
You have done nothing but provide personal, anecdotal proof that
reducing code testing requirements down to a mere 5 WPM maximum was
NOT a good thing!


You know...the claim that CW "will keep you communicating when
conditions prevent you from communicating by voice or digital modes"
has been made time and time again. Time and time again there have been
requests for proof of this claim. None has been provided.

To state something does not make it so.

Kim W5TIT


---
Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net
Complaints to


It isn't so, at least not for digital modes.