In article m, "Dee D. Flint"
writes:

Actually the fact that other services don't use it very much is a strong
argument to require hams to learn it. This is the place to preserve the
skill in case of need and to prevent this capability from becoming a lost
art. Plus of course the fact that quite a few hams do use it.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


Dee D.:

Very interesting point. And, of course, 100% true. I would add that the one
thing that gets prospective hams to learn the Morse code is the requirement
to be tested for Morse proficiency in order to achieve upgraded HF privileges.
How many New Age No-Code Extras do you think you can "sell" on the
concept of learning the Morse code, just on the basis of it's operational
characteristics or the fact that it's "fun" to do? Keep in mind, they can
yakk on HF phone on any band and frequency they want, and with
maximum allowable power. They will have legitimate, full-privilege General-
or Extra-class licenses, without no requirement for code testing at any
speed. So, how many do you think you can convince to try code and
get them up to 20 WPM and become regular CW operators?

I know that for 14 years, nobody could "sell" it to me at any price. I'm
just glad that one fine day I was able to be convinced that being a ham
was worth enough to me to make the efford to learn and gain useful
proficiency in this particular communications skill.

I predict that in a future ARS with no code testing, getting new hams to
become CW operators will be a daunting, if not impossible, task.

73 de Larry, K3LT

In article , ospam
(Larry Roll K3LT) writes:

I think I'm pretty safe in saying that it was the code testing requirement
that caused hams to learn the code -- not any innate love or appreciation
for the mode.

NO! Say it isn't so, mighty morseman!

"Morse code gets through when everything else does." - B.B.

LHA

In article , ospam
(Larry Roll K3LT) writes:

So, what do you think will be holding up the ARS in the future?

Walkers, wheelchairs, and gurneys? :-)

LHA

In article , "Arnie Macy"
writes:

You make the presumption that we don't ever use phone, conduct QSO's, or
belong to nets. Of course we do -- and many of us are just as good at those
aspects of Ham radio as well.

You are a Morseman, strong, resolute, able to leap tall pileups in a
single CQ. There is nothing you cannot do as an amateur.

There, did I pat you on your aspect as you wanted? :-)

LHA

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
...
"Kim W5TIT" wrote:

(snip)


Kim, I don't know what is going on with your newsgroup messages. Many of
your messages are listed as no longer on my server very shortly after you
post them (sometimes just one or two hours later). The messages are listed
in my message list of this newsgroup, but I get an error ("message no
longer
on server") when I try to read them. For everyone else, I can read
messages
they posted many days ago.

Anyway, just wanted to let you know what is happening in case you post a
reply to one of my messages and don't get a response. It's not that I'm
trying to ignore you - I just can't read or reply to your quickly
disappearing messages (I caught and replied to this one before it
disappeared)


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/


I had my witches coven put a curse on her.

Dan/W4NTI

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
In article , Dick Carroll
writes:

Th[e] hobby is in sad shape and is being held up like Atlas holding the
world
by
hams who have taken a code test. When all you have left is the Loyd
Davies,
well I
doubt that statement even needs finishing.

Dick:

In any case, it will be quite interesting to watch the developments of the
next few years in the life of the ARS. All of the technical advancement
that was promised throughout the code testing debate will either suddenly
come into being, or will be notable by it's absence. There may, indeed,
be a handful of new hams with professional technical qualifications who
would finally obtain a license -- but what of all the others who simply
have
the desire to matriculate from the 11-meter band and be legally able to
use higher power and spin a VFO knob? Are their contributions going
to save our spectrum from re-allocation to commercial interests? Will
they expand emergency communications capability to an extent which
will cause federal, state, and local bureaucracies to eliminate any and
all regulatory restrictions on the operation of an amateur radio station?
Or will they just cause a lot of QRM for a while, become discouraged,
and revert to inactivity? Oh well, as that ancient Chinese curse goes,
"May you live in interesting times." Those times are just about to begin.

73 de Larry, K3LT


All of which will go away immediatly. Just as soon as the BPL is turned on
in your neighborhood. Bye by ham radio.

That is what we should be bitching and moaning about. Not code vs no code.
Get a grip people. If BPL is fired up you have no HF SPECTRUM.

Now back to the biggest and most useless debate ever.

Dan/W4NTI

"Radio Amateur KC2HMZ" wrote in message
...
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?

No doubt about it, the band conditions were the determining factor.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Ryan, KC8PMX" wrote in message
...

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...

Now that it seems as though code testing will finally be abolished in
the
ARS, let's amuse ourselves with a bit of speculation as to what this
will
mean in terms of future growth in the numbers of licensed amateur radio
operators in the United States. What do you think will happen? How
much growth do you think will occur, and how fast?

We may have an initial inrush of some newbies in the onset, but it will
flatten back out to where it is about right now is my prediction. Its
from
a "marketing" standpoint. The hobby just is not promoted like it should
or
could be. Once us existing licensee's hit up our friends and family, that
is usually it. (kinda sounds a bit like Amway!)

Actually the biggest problem is lack of activity by the current hams. If we
take the figure of 600,000+ hams and calculate the number of QSOs per day if
each one had one QSO per YEAR (assume it takes two hams for a qso), thats
300,000 exchanges per year or nearly 1000 per day. That would keep the
bands pretty busy. But instead we hear the same people over and over on the
VHF and HF frequencies. We have 150 members or so in our club and I only
hear about a dozen on the repeater regularly. It's the same dozen that do
VHF simplex and SSB. We need to get those already licensed more involved.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...
"N2EY" wrote in message
m...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...
"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.

Maybe. But the way you write about the mode makes me wonder. For
example, when you call those who use the mode "beepers" and other
disparaging names, a different image is projected by you.

Just pointing
out the fact that there are better modulation/coding techniques than
OOK
Morse ...

Ah, see, there you go. "Better modulation/coding techniques than OOK
Morse", with no qualifiers as to how they are "better".

OK ... "Better" in terms of weak signal performance, data throughput,
and reliability (robustness in the face of channel impariments and lack
of operator error in decoding).

Does that satisfy you?

Actually no it doesn't as each mode has conditions under which it excels.
You need to more precisely define the conditions and specify which mode you
are talking about.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE