Dick Carroll wrote:

Bill Sohl wrote:


"Dick Carroll" wrote in message
...


Bill Sohl wrote:


You
are (IMHO) clearly not up to the task of recruiting new hams
by proactively advocating CW use.

Just as I would have skipped learning the code if it hadn't been a

licensing

requirement, too.

So much for your advocacy of morse to new hams.
You made my point.


Bill you have been quite consistant about missing the entire point. When there is no
code test
most hams won't learn Morse code. I know that taxes you not a bit, so that means that
you don't
care whether or not hams will be losing it as a viable mode. Which shows how
shortsighted you
are, right along with the rest of NCI. And yes, FCC too. Of course they have far
bigger fish to fry
than to worry about a trivial detail involving the ARS. The least time they must
spend on ARS issues the better for them, whatever the end result.


I don't think there is any point missed at all. I think that those who
oppose the test know very well that elimination of the test will
eventually eliminate use.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Larry Roll K3LT wrote:

In article , "Arnie Macy"
writes:

Speaking of obsolete, there's your buddy -- good old SSB -- a mode which
has been (borrowing your words) "supplanted, in virtually every service
except ham radio ... by more modern, efficient, reliable, and convenient
means of communications." and *I* (wink) think it should be retired as soon
as possible and we should stop using SSB for EMComm immediately -- I mean
after all, it is just about as ancient as it gets in communication terms,
right? Why use that ancient old SSB when I can hop on the Internet or bring
up VTC or digital and get through faster and farther.

Arnie -
KT4ST

Arnie:

Worry not, help is on the way! When the FCC finally acts on WRC-03 and
drops the code testing requirement, the ARS will suddenly be filled with
eager, computer-literate, technically-inclined young newcomers to ham
radio who will invent, develop, and deploy the amateur radio version of the
broadband infrastructure now available to anyone who owns a cell phone,
wireless PDA, or Wi-Fi equipped laptop. We will be communicating by
voice, data, and image, all with no need to purchase "minutes" of air time
or enter into expensive contracts with service providers. Once relieved of
the requirement to learn that obsolete old Morse code, we will see, as
promised for years, a technical revolution in amateur radio the likes of
which nobody could have imagined in the bad old days of being tested
for competence in "beeping."

I can hardly wait!

You'd better be able to wait! You'll sure have to!

Larry Roll K3LT wrote:

In article , Radio Amateur KC2HMZ
writes:

The only no-coders I bother to "ridicule" are those who offer the typically
inane arguments that code testing is somehow detrimental to the future
of the ARS -- usually by discouraging the involvement of computer-
literate, technically-involved young people. The truth about these
people is that they just want to get on HF phone and yak away -- and for
the most part, haven't a clue as to what's happening inside their off-the-
shelf ham radio appliance.

I'm sure that's true for some. I'm also sure it's not true for all.

The funny thing is, John, that the ones for which it isn't true are apparently
nowhere to be found among the typical newcomers to the ARS these days.

The average computer-literate, technically involved people tend to be
able to, for example, assemble a computer from its basic elements
(case, power supply, motherboard and perhaps some daughterboards),
connect the peripherals, install an OS and other software without a
dozen calls to a tech support hotline, and end up with a viable
working machine.

I could do all that, and I don't consider myself to be particularly "technical"
as far as computers are concerned. That's just simple assembly -- a mainly
mechanical skill.

Folks who can do this are technically involved in comparison to the
folks who don't even know which port the monitor plugs into. They
aren't technically involved in comparison to the guy who designed the
motherboard in the first place. However, even in the industry, very
few people do component level repairs on motherboards and
daughterboards any more. What of it? Who do you know that's designed
and built a multi-band HF rig lately? Some have, of course...most of
them work for Kenwood, Icom, Yaesu, Alinco, etc.

Component-level repairs aren't done these days mainly for economic
reasons. The labor cost involved in trouble-shooting a board at the
component level would exceed the value of the component probably
long before the fault was diagnosed.

Of those that are able to do component level repairs on computer
equipment, they probably have much of the knowledge needed to pass our
written exams, except they lack the specialized knowledge of RF.
Certainly, though, it would seem they have the capacity to learn it -
but when the first thing we do is hit them with something over a
hundred years old and tell them this is our lowest common denominator,
I have no doubt that it causes a lot of people to think, "@#$&%^*
that!" and find another hobby...perhaps they already have one.

Well, that reaction to having to learn Morse code would only indicate
that they're not at all serious about becoming fully capable as radio
amateurs. Nothing new there.

Those with genuine technical skills, who come into ham radio with
or without Morse code, are perfectly OK by me. My problem begins
when they go out of their way to whine about the code testing
requirement, and make all the usual inane NCTA arguments about
the code itself causing technical ignorance. If they simply go about
the business of pursuing ham radio to the extent that they desire, and
leave out the childish whining, I am more than willing to stand in awe
of the advanced technical skill they demonstrate -- when and where
it is, in fact, demonstrated.

You have to keep one thing in mind here, John -- I didn't start the
code testing debate. The anti-code test whiners did, with their
specious arguments and inane comparisons of Morse code proficiency
to everything antiquated and obsolete -- without having any first-
had knowledge or experience to give them a basis for their self-serving,
usually parroted commentary. If any of them had been willing to invest
a fraction of the time and effort in learning the code as they did in
railing against it, they may be singing a different tune, indeed.

73 de Larry, K3LT

JJ take note- this post is redirected to YOU

YAGI Berra Sed That

Depending on the FCC whims, cud be a while before you get that no-code HF
license.

Yogi also sed "When you come to a Tee in the coax -- Take it"

More Yogi at URL:
http://www.yogi-berra.com/

JJ wrote in :



Dick Carroll wrote:

Larry Roll K3LT wrote:


In article , Radio Amateur
KC2HMZ writes:


The only no-coders I bother to "ridicule" are those who offer the
typically inane arguments that code testing is somehow detrimental
to the future of the ARS -- usually by discouraging the involvement
of computer- literate, technically-involved young people. The truth
about these people is that they just want to get on HF phone and yak
away -- and for the most part, haven't a clue as to what's happening
inside their off-the- shelf ham radio appliance.

I'm sure that's true for some. I'm also sure it's not true for all.

The funny thing is, John, that the ones for which it isn't true are
apparently nowhere to be found among the typical newcomers to the ARS
these days.


The average computer-literate, technically involved people tend to be
able to, for example, assemble a computer from its basic elements
(case, power supply, motherboard and perhaps some daughterboards),
connect the peripherals, install an OS and other software without a
dozen calls to a tech support hotline, and end up with a viable
working machine.

I could do all that, and I don't consider myself to be particularly
"technical" as far as computers are concerned. That's just simple
assembly -- a mainly mechanical skill.


Folks who can do this are technically involved in comparison to the
folks who don't even know which port the monitor plugs into. They
aren't technically involved in comparison to the guy who designed the
motherboard in the first place. However, even in the industry, very
few people do component level repairs on motherboards and
daughterboards any more. What of it? Who do you know that's designed
and built a multi-band HF rig lately? Some have, of course...most of
them work for Kenwood, Icom, Yaesu, Alinco, etc.

Component-level repairs aren't done these days mainly for economic
reasons. The labor cost involved in trouble-shooting a board at the
component level would exceed the value of the component probably
long before the fault was diagnosed.


Of those that are able to do component level repairs on computer
equipment, they probably have much of the knowledge needed to pass
our written exams, except they lack the specialized knowledge of RF.
Certainly, though, it would seem they have the capacity to learn it -
but when the first thing we do is hit them with something over a
hundred years old and tell them this is our lowest common
denominator, I have no doubt that it causes a lot of people to think,
"@#$&%^* that!" and find another hobby...perhaps they already have
one.

Well, that reaction to having to learn Morse code would only indicate
that they're not at all serious about becoming fully capable as radio
amateurs. Nothing new there.

Those with genuine technical skills, who come into ham radio with
or without Morse code, are perfectly OK by me. My problem begins
when they go out of their way to whine about the code testing
requirement, and make all the usual inane NCTA arguments about
the code itself causing technical ignorance. If they simply go about
the business of pursuing ham radio to the extent that they desire, and
leave out the childish whining, I am more than willing to stand in awe
of the advanced technical skill they demonstrate -- when and where
it is, in fact, demonstrated.

You have to keep one thing in mind here, John -- I didn't start the
code testing debate. The anti-code test whiners did, with their
specious arguments and inane comparisons of Morse code proficiency
to everything antiquated and obsolete -- without having any first-
had knowledge or experience to give them a basis for their
self-serving, usually parroted commentary. If any of them had been
willing to invest a fraction of the time and effort in learning the
code as they did in railing against it, they may be singing a
different tune, indeed.

73 de Larry, K3LT


JJ take note- this post is redirected to YOU

So why is is redirected to me, I read it the first time Larry
posted it. So what?

I agree with Larry on one point, about those who whine about the
code testing requirement. When I taught Novice classes there would
for certain be at least one student who would complain about
having to learn the code and would always ask, "why do we have to
learn this code stuff, I don't ever plan to use it," My reply was,
"because it is one of the requirements to obtain a license, if you
want the license then learn the code, if you don't want to put
forth the effort ot learn the code then you don't want a ham
license, you would probably be happier on cb."


If that isn't hazing, then nothing is

But then again, some of the biggest complainers, eventually became
the best CW operators.

"Dick Carroll" wrote in message
...
Tha hobby is in sad shape and is being held up like Atlas holding the
world by
hams who have taken a code test.

Er, Dick ... you over-inflated, Morse-prowess-based ego REALLY shows
in the above comment.

First, I don't believe that "Tha hobby is in sad shape ..."

Second, if it *were* it would be largely because of the narrow-minded,
backward, egotistical sort of thinking that you express above.

Carl - wk3c

On 14 Jul 2003 07:33:27 GMT, ospam (Larry Roll K3LT)
wrote:

In article , Radio Amateur KC2HMZ
writes:

The average computer-literate, technically involved people tend to be
able to, for example, assemble a computer from its basic elements
(case, power supply, motherboard and perhaps some daughterboards),
connect the peripherals, install an OS and other software without a
dozen calls to a tech support hotline, and end up with a viable
working machine.

I could do all that, and I don't consider myself to be particularly "technical"
as far as computers are concerned. That's just simple assembly -- a mainly
mechanical skill.

There's more to assembling a computer than mechanical skill. For one
thing, you have to know what's compatible with what. When you choose
the motherboard you'd better make sure that, for example, the RAM
modules you buy to go along with it are compatible with that
particular mommyboard, or you can forget having a working machine when
you've bolted everything together. Many motherboards support a variety
of CPU chips and have jumpers which must be set to compensate for the
chosen chip - set the jumpers wrong and you wind up with a
paperweight, possibly one containing a grilled silicon sandwich.
There's a lot of mechanical assembly type bullwork involved, sure, but
there is specialized knowledged involved too. You might be able to
train a monkey to physically assemble it, but said monkey probably
wouldn't produce a machine that actually works - merely one that
*looks* like it *should* work because all the parts appear to be in
their proper locations.

Component-level repairs aren't done these days mainly for economic
reasons. The labor cost involved in trouble-shooting a board at the
component level would exceed the value of the component probably
long before the fault was diagnosed.

This factor is also largely responsible for a decline in homebrewing,
in my opinion. In this day and age, Americans work more hours than
ever - more than in any other country in the industrailized world, in
fact, according to material I've seen reported in the media recently -
and have less and less time to spend breathing solder smoke while
assembling a widget that can be purchased assembled, tested, and
working for less than it would cost to buy the parts and a roll of
solder. Even if you or I had the knowledge and skills to build a
Kenwood TS-2000 from a bag of parts, we'd never be able to buy the
parts for less than Kenwood can because we'd be buying in much smaller
quantities and paying a lot more than Kenwood buying in bulk. The time
spent building it...well, by the time *I* finished assembling mine it
would probably be obsolete.

This doesn't apply to certain other components of a ham station. One
can still often build his/her own antennas for much less than the cost
of buying a commercial offering of similar design. Thus it is no
surprise that antennas are one area in which there continues to be
much homebrewing activity in the ARS. I've built a few myself -
including a J-pole made of 450-ohm twinlead that I can Roll (pun
intended) up and put into a sandwich bag and drop into my emergency
comms jump kit (which is where it currently is located).

I also have a 5/8-wave 2m ground plane in my stash of emergency gear,
along with about 20 feet of masting and a couple of different mounting
options...but the rolled up J-pole can be hung practically anywhere,
its bandwidth is wider than the whole 2m band, and like the GP, it
beats a rubber duck hands down.

SNIP

Those with genuine technical skills, who come into ham radio with
or without Morse code, are perfectly OK by me. My problem begins
when they go out of their way to whine about the code testing
requirement, and make all the usual inane NCTA arguments about
the code itself causing technical ignorance. If they simply go about
the business of pursuing ham radio to the extent that they desire, and
leave out the childish whining, I am more than willing to stand in awe
of the advanced technical skill they demonstrate -- when and where
it is, in fact, demonstrated.

Once again, current testing requirements include a no-code license
(Technician). Thus, the code requirement does not keep people out of
ham radio, it merely keeps them off of the HF bands. This was not the
case prior to the creation of the no-code license, and apparently,
this will not be the case for very much longer, either...in some
countries, it already is no longer the case, in fact.

Of course, since Technician is an entry level license, it's not really
to be expected for a newly licensed Tech to posess advanced technical
skill, though there's no reason why some wouldn't. In the end, though,
I keep coming back to the same conclusion - it isn't the license class
that matters, it's what one does with the privileges the license
conveys. Rhetorical question: Who makes the more meaningful
contribution to the hobby, the BSEE with a 20 WPM Extra who hasn't
been on the air in years, or the no-code Tech who is active in the
local ham radio club, pays his ARRL dues regularly, shows up for Field
Day and works his tail off all weekend, and is halfway to VUCC on six
meters?

You have to keep one thing in mind here, John -- I didn't start the
code testing debate. The anti-code test whiners did, with their
specious arguments and inane comparisons of Morse code proficiency
to everything antiquated and obsolete -- without having any first-
had knowledge or experience to give them a basis for their self-serving,
usually parroted commentary. If any of them had been willing to invest
a fraction of the time and effort in learning the code as they did in
railing against it, they may be singing a different tune, indeed.

As far as I know, the code testing debate started in the mid-1970s
when FCC first proposed what was then known as a Communicator class
license. If I recall correctly, that license basically would have
conveyed privileges on 70cm sans a code test. The idea was shot down
in flames, primarily because of strong opposition from ARRL.

Well, times have certainly changed. We've had a no-code license for a
long time now, we're on the verge of having no code testing at all,
and even ARRL hasn't registered any strong opposition - that
opposition seems to come from primarily either (1) people who feel
that if I had to do it this way so should everybody else, and (2)
people who seem to feel that code proficiency somehow makes them more
qualified technically to operate a ham station than people who aren't
code proficient.

I happen to disagree on both counts. CW is a valid skill, and I'll be
one of the first to disagree with anyone who claims otherwise, but the
lack of Morse proficiency does not affect the ability of any ham to
operate in any of the other modes we're permitted under Part 97.
Furthermore, being a practical operating skill, it has no more bearing
on a ham's technical proficiency than knowing (or not knowing) how to
bust a pileup (for example)...you don't really need to know Morse
unless you're going to operate CW. You don't really need to know how
to bust a pileup unless you're going to try to do so - and not knowing
how to do so won't make it any harder for a ham to engage in casual
ragchewing.

I agree with you entirely on one point, though...every minute that we
spend arguing the point in this NG is a minute we could have spent on
ham radio. In the case of those who find it necessary to post hateful
comments about their fellow hams based on a lack of tolerance with
respect to others having interests in the hobby that differ from their
own, I'd say that's definitely a good thing - better to have their
drivel here on Usenet than on the airwaves.

73 DE John, KC2HMZ

On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 01:09:43 GMT, "Dee D. Flint"
wrote:


Studying the propagation before, during, and after the contest indicated
that the best results would occur on CW.

If the deck was thus stacked against the SSB stations from the
beginning, then the results should come as no surprise. Nevertheless,
the phone stations did, in fact, still manage to make contacts.

The experience of our club bore
that out. Our SSB stations tried both tactics, i.e. camping on a frequency
to run stations and hunting and pouncing. Productivity was quite low on
SSB. It picked up the second afternoon but was not good. Our CW stations
also used both tactics and produced a high number of QSOs both ways
throughout the event.

I operated both SSB and CW modes for our club. Despite the fact that I am
NOT an experienced CW contester and that my CW ability is rather weak, even
I made far more contacts on CW even though I spent much more time on SSB.

Do you attribute this to band conditions or to something else?

73 DE John, KC2HMZ

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
there is nothing "magical" about Morse
and the insistence on using "wetware" instead of software to do the
decoding is an anomaly of ham radio.

And you say you're not against the use of the mode, just the test, Carl?
;-)

That's correct ... I am NOT against the use of the mode. Just pointing
out the fact that there are better modulation/coding techniques than OOK
Morse ... that does NOT mean that I mind/care/object to others CHOOSING
to use OOK Morse ... only that I am disseminating some facts that the more
"hard-core" Morse enthusiasts don't like disseminated because they fly in
the face of the "Morse Myths" (like "Morse will get through were nothing
else will.")


This "do it the hard way, rather than the smart way" approach to things
that is held by so many hams leads to stagation, backwardness, etc.

And you say you're not against the use of the mode, just the test, Carl?
;-)

See above ...

For example, EME can be done, with proper modulation and coding
with much less power/antenna gain than with OOK Morse ...

Have you actually DONE it, Carl? Not just a paper design - an actual
station,
and actual QSOs?

No, I personally haven't ... yet ... I've been working on other things. But
the fact that *I* haven't personally done it yet doesn't mean it's not
factual.
(I am not so hung up on myself that "my way" and "what I've done" are the
ONLY ways that things can/should be done.)

Why does it bother you if some unnamed folks don't see things your way? If
you
can do "better", go ahead.

What "bothers me" is that some folks deny the fact that there ARE better
ways than OOK Morse (apparently in an attempt to bolster their "real ham"
and "everyone MUST know Morse" viewpoints)

Carl - wk3c

Radio Amateur KC2HMZ wrote:

Certainly, though, it would seem they have the capacity to learn it -
but when the first thing we do is hit them with something over a
hundred years old and tell them this is our lowest common denominator,
I have no doubt that it causes a lot of people to think, "@#$&%^*
that!" and find another hobby...perhaps they already have one.



Code did slow me down a few years (from 1970 to 76) and one summer in
college I
did the code thing. Well, 5 WPM anyway.... Had to take a receive
test and also
had to send code down at the FCC field office in NYC. Got my tech
(general written
and 5 WPM) in 76. I was suprized, I easily passed the code but nearly
failed the
written (I was a double E student then).