"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote:


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!

THAT'S RIGHT, genius. Better and faster and MORE ACCURATE than voice in
marginal conditions,
like it or not. It's clear you have zero experience in this area but that sure
doesn't stop you from claiming
to be the original expert!



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.

Yes you've been hawking that for years now. So where's the beef, as you like to
say?
Where's all that original designed hardware that will do it all without dragging
a computer
along for the overhead, and hopefully keeping it functioning within the system
as intended?
You and Cecil Moore were gonna come up with all sorts of goodies for ham radio
that would
take care of all these shortcomings, remember? So far all we've seen is BS
verbiage about how
you slew the old CW dragon at Geneva.

AND, don't forget that there is MUCH more to the story. Propagation conditions
have a LOT to
play in these new technologies, an important point which you are evidently
intent on ignoring.
For one example you can google up my posts of a few years ago about trying to
copy some very
weak Europeans working PSK31 on a near-dead 20 meter band when it wasn't
possible to
lock and print the PSK, but the CW ID came through loud and clear, on all of
them! The cause
was almost certainly polar phase shift, which corrupted the PSK but affected the
CW signal not a bit!




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 ...

I simply don't believe you, based on your past postings. You got a Tech license
at
an FCC district office, - San Diego, I believe you said , IIRC ,
when the ONLY way you could do that was to fail the 13wpm
code test when trying for General but copying enough to qualify for 5wpm,
because Tech in that time frame was a by-mail-order only license. You
wouldn't be allowed to walk into a FCC office then and ask to take a 5wpm code
test
and the Tech written, which was the same written as General. But if you were
taking the
General and failed the 13wpm test, copying enough to qualify you for 5wpm,
they'd allow
you to go ahead and finish out the exam by taking the General written, thus
qualifying
as a Tech. You could then return later and pass the 13wpm code test and upgrade
to
General.
You shoulda did it, Carl, would have saved you lot of grief over the years.

And no, that didn't happen to me, I read about in in QST back then. When I went
to the
FCC office to test, I took every ham test except the Novice which was all
the credit allowed for a Conditional General, and brought home my Extra.

Of course I could be wrong, but you could be obfuscating just to save face, too.

Alun Palmer wrote:


So you equate transcontinental horseback riding to the use of
radiotelegraphy. And you regard yourself as an engineer (even
nondegreed)? Just for your basic information, radiotelgraphy uses the
same radio propagation that any other mode uses,

Just as a horse might use the same road as a car - you seem to be arguing
against yourself here



And at the same speed of travel, right?

Sometimes you codefree engineers seem to be half brain dead. At least half.

Dick Carroll wrote:

JJ you really don't need to display yourself as a code illiterate, just because
you're
irritated that someone would actually advocate using it on the air. You don't have
to.
But you can't seem to help yourself. If you've never observed radio operators - REAL

radio operators, using code in a very efficient way, that's just your loss. No need
for you to
act so stupid over it.

Some people can, others "just don't want to". You can be one of those if you wish.

First, I am not code illiterate, I can operate code if I choose
to. Second, your statement of REAL radio operators is where I have
a problem with the likes of you and Larry. You have this huge ego
that unless every ham feels about code the way you do they are not
real hams. That if they choose not to use code then they are the
unwashed, the unclean. That is the problem I have with those like
you and your attitude toward other hams of your "I am superior
because I use CW" attitude.
Any ham who passes the test and obtains a license is just as much
of a REAL ham as you and Larry and like kind will ever be. Even
more so of a REAL ham if they reject the holier than thou attitude
you have.
I have nothing against the use of CW, just don't use it as some
kind of attempt to make yourself somehow appear superior because
you may prefer that mode and others may not. CW is a fine mode, no
need for you to act so stupid over it.

"Dick Carroll" wrote in message
...


Alun Palmer wrote:


So you equate transcontinental horseback riding to the use of
radiotelegraphy. And you regard yourself as an engineer (even
nondegreed)? Just for your basic information, radiotelgraphy uses the
same radio propagation that any other mode uses,

Just as a horse might use the same road as a car - you seem to be
arguing
against yourself here



And at the same speed of travel, right?

Sometimes you codefree engineers seem to be half brain dead. At least
half.

No, Dick not at the same speed of travel ... other modes are faster than
Morse.

You're the one who seems brain dead ...

Carl - wk3c

"JJ" wrote ...

And your response comes because you are a ham and support CW and you just
can't stand the thought that CW may not save the world someday. Go talk to
your local emergency officials about how you can save the world because you
can use CW and see how much importance they put on you views. So you put it
to use in 1999 during Hurricane Floyd. Why? Was it the only means of
communications that could get through? I seriously doubt it. I am not
arguing the fact you used CW, just don't tout it as the end all to
communications during the Hurricane. [40 years as a Ham] It has taught me
that I have never had to use CW as the only means of communication during
any emergency, and that includes disastrous tornados, hurricanes, floods,
and earthquakes. It has taught me that CW is an antiquated mode and I am not
silly enough to think it will be some ham nut like Dick, Larry or you that
will save the world from disaster with your little code key. I am not anti
CW, just anti those who claim that it will be the savior of the world and
anyone who doesn't use code isn't as good a ham as Larry, Dick, and others
(you too I guess). I have kown many hams that never operated CW after
upgrading from Novice, and they would put Larry and Dick to shame as far as
being "real" hams. Look into the future and you see Larry's skeleton
sitting at his rig, hand on the code key still waiting to say the world with
is CW skills. It isn't going to happen.
__________________________________________________ ______________________

If you had bothered to actually read my reply, you would have known that I
said it was used in conjunction with other modes, not exclusively. And yes,
we used it because we were having a very hard time getting through on SSB
(our primary mode), and phone lines were jammed or down. As to your
assertion that "local" EMAs think CW is not important -- As a Federal EMA, I
can tell you that you are dead wrong about that. When I talk to them, they
are thrilled to have the additional communication tool and are impressed
that we (ARS) have operators capable of it. Again, if you would have taken
the time to read my reply, and after 40 years as a Ham, you would have
already known this.

Arnie -

BTW, Are you and Leland related? You both use the anomalous term "code key"

"Kim W5TIT" wrote ...

Arnie, do you actually know people in EmCom who discredit CW??!! Anyone
who discredits any mode of operation: CB, ham radio in all its modes,,FRS,
shouting, mirror flashing, *ANYTHING*, in a moment of disaster is not
credible, in my opinion.
__________________________________________________ _________________________

Nope, JJ seems to be the only one around here that thinks CW is worthless in
EmCom. As an EMA Director, I will use *all* means at my disposal to
communicate. That includes all of the above, *and* signal fires if it comes
to that. :-))

Arnie -
KT4ST

In article , Radio Amateur KC2HMZ
writes:

Heckuva lot of growth in the number of no-code Techs, though.

Not really. See below.

So if
the total number of hams hasn't increased, the number of hams with the
other classes of license must have decreased accordingly in order to
keep up. Or are guys reverse-upgrading to Technician nowadays?

Three things:

- the number of US hams has increased by about 11,000 since May of 2000

- since April 15, 2000, the FCC has been renewing Tech Pluses as Techs, and not
issuing any new Tech Pluses. The number of Tech Pluses has dropped by over
61,000 since that happened.

- since April 15, 2000, the FCC has been granting Tech licenses (as opposed to
Tech Pluses) to Novices who pass Element 2 or produce the relevant CSCEs, and
not issuing any new Novices. The number of Novices has dropped by over 15,000
since that happened.

How many of those hams listed as Technicians in the database are not code
tested, vs. those who are? Almost impossible to say.

But look at these numbers:

Total Tech and Tech Plus as of May 14, 2000: 334,254

Total Tech and Tech Plus as of June 30, 2003: 324,004

Total Novice, Tech and Tech Plus as of May 14, 2000: 383,528

Total Novice, Tech and Tech Plus as of June 30, 2003: 363,800

For a bimonthly listing of the various totals, see the thread "ARS License
Numbers" and look for posts by me around the first and fifteenth of each month.
That thread goes back about two years, and compares present totals to those on
May 14, 2000 - one month after the restructuring changes. That date was chosen
as a benchmark for a number of reasons, such as the fact that the VECs,and FCC
were running a tremendous backlog in April 2000, so the numbers were far from
current back then.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote:

I have logged many hundreds

of
hours of emergency comms service in my over 25 years as a ham ... and never
had to use CW


Fortuitous it was, too, since you'd have been totally out of luck.......



(not that anyone else in the ARES or RACES teams would have
suggested it either ...)

Of course not, when you run with the likeminded......




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.

Yes you've been hawking that for years now. So where's the beef, as you
like to
say?

The numbers were presented years ago ... google them up if you want to
refresh your memory.


Yeah, right, numbers will get you a bet....ham radio takes some hardware, which
you
clearly aren't capable of hatching up in support of your "numbers", in spite of
your
longtime rants. All show and no go, that's out boy Carl.





Where's all that original designed hardware that will do it all without
dragging
a computer
along for the overhead, and hopefully keeping it functioning within the
system
as intended?

Ah, so you have a problem with computers .



Sure seems it's YOU that has a problem with computes, why else all the smoke and
mirrors
you play and still nothing more? Numbers indeed! A few of em on some green will
get you a cup
at Starbucks but here on rrap they'll get you shown up. Consider yourself
exposed for what
you are........and more accurately what you are NOT. Nothing but a numbers
runner.



.. better start walking ... the
average
modern vehicle has sosmething on the order of a couple of dozen or more
computer
chips in it ...

Yeah, there's where computer people actually do what they say they can. What
happened to you? Got a problem actually doing all that stuff you claim to be so
good at?




AND, don't forget that there is MUCH more to the story. Propagation
conditions
have a LOT to
play in these new technologies, an important point which you are evidently
intent on ignoring.

NO, some of them are more robust than CW by a bunch ...

Read it again for accuracy this time, Carl, and unstick yourself off the old
saw about what's robust. Just because you can't copy CW through noise
(nor any other way) doesn't mean no one else can.





For one example you can google up my posts of a few years ago about trying
to
copy some very
weak Europeans working PSK31 on a near-dead 20 meter band when it wasn't
possible to lock and print the PSK, but the CW ID came through loud and
clear,
on all of them! The cause was almost certainly polar phase shift, which
corrupted
the PSK but affected the CW signal not a bit!

Or more likely you don't know how to properly adjust soundcard levels and
tune the PSK-31 signal ...

Yep, right in character, you are. When you can't find any way to counter the
facts
just slam the messenger. I was working PSK31 long before you ever were
authorized
on the PSK frequencies, as though that matters. What I was doing this particular
day was
monitoring, and with Digipan tuning them in isn't much of a problem in any case,
but maybe
you've been too busy rachetjawing on 20 sideband to notice.
Even you should understand that on a phase shifted signal any atmospheric phase

shifting can easily corrupt the signal while enroute. Oh well.

But it was really remarkable- all that high tech digital communicating going on
and nothing was
coming across except ancient old CW. Really neat!




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 ...

I simply don't believe you, based on your past postings. You got a Tech
license
at
an FCC district office, - San Diego, I believe you said , IIRC ,

Actually, it was Long Beach ...

when the ONLY way you could do that was to fail the 13wpm
code test when trying for General but copying enough to qualify for 5wpm,
because Tech in that time frame was a by-mail-order only license.

Not true ... at the time, the only test that was given by volunteer
examiners was the Novice ...




Don't think so, but that's what you'd say in any case, so nothing has changed.

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote ...

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 ...
__________________________________________________ ________________________

So tell me, Carl -- if SSB is not obsolete (as you have so adequately
explained) then why do you think JJ thinks CW is? I mean it has all the
same attributes as your SSB explanation -- and with less bandwidth use and
lower power requirements. Seems pretty efficient to me.

Arnie -
KT4ST

In article , JJ
writes:

Since the beginning of the use of phone in ham radio, I would be
interested to know of any disaster where ham radio was used for
communications and CW was the only means of communications that
could get through. I don't mean CW was used just because someone
wanted to or because they only had CW capabilities, but because
it was the ONLY mode that could get through.

Well, that kinda slants the playing field, but here goes.

Back in '98 there were some pretty bad and widespread ice storms in the
Northeast, particularly upper central New York State. CW was used by hams for
communications because 'phone just wouldn't get through reliably.

The ice storms had hit a wide area, bringing down electric power and
communications wires and blocking roads with falen trees and tree limbs. And
antennas. The affected area was so large, and sustained so much damage, that
power was off in some areas for many days, stretching into weeks. Folks with
generators found themselves running short of fuel, and electric power was off
over such a wide area that finding an open gas station where you could buy more
was a real problem. If you had any money, that is, because the ATMs didn't
work, and most businesses were closed anyway.

End result was that a lot of stations were on the air with battery power and
QRP, using makeshift antennas. Even those with 100+ watts of SSB had a hard
time because the auroral distortion was often very bad. SSB was the preferred
mode that did a lot of the work, but there were times when stations had to
shift to CW in order to get through.

Data modes? Some stations had 'em, many didn't. Those who did often didn't have
power to run the computer. And in a net operation, everybody needs a common
mode.

VHF/UHF? The terrain and repeater density did not permit reliable coverage of
the entire affected area. And some of the repeaters were off the air due to
storm damage or power failure.

Solar power? Check out how many hours a day the sun shines in Syracuse during
January. Wind power? Great - if the mill survives the ice storm.

FEMA and other agencies? Sure, they moved in and did a lot, but they were
stretched thin due to the wide area of the emergency, the many blocked roads,
and the terrible weather conditions.

Now it can be argued that those involved should have been more prepared, by
having more supplies on hand, more people involved, more generating capacity,
data modes, etc. While true, there's always a limit to what can be stored, and
how much of each problem to expect.

Emergencies take all forms, and conditions that constitute a major emergency in
one area (say, a foot of snow and 10 degree F temperatures in Atlanta, GA) are
barely noticed by people somewhere else (same conditions in Rochester, NY). If
everyone is adequately prepared, it really isn't an emergency, is it?

All this brought up some interesting questions, llike: which data mode should
be the standard? Baudot RTTY? ASCII? PSK-31? Some might have worked through the
auroral conditions, while others would be useless due to the distortion.

And that's just one incident. Plenty of others since hams began using 'phone.

Does all of this somehow prove that EVERY ham MUST pass a code test because
someday they MIGHT be in an emergency situation where code skill is needed? Of
course not! Were that the case, we'd not only need code testing, but also
retesting, to be sure that all hams could still do it.

But to say that CW isn't used by hams in emergencies just isn't factual.

73 de Jim, N2EY