|
|
|
|
On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 10:48:21 -0600, JJ
wrote: John, you have to realize that Larry and his huge ego are just waiting for the above scenario to happen so he can "save the world" with his CW skills. He is in complete denial that when this big disaster happens, he and his CW skills will mean nothing. Actually, Larry could be quite correct. Nonetheless, code testing as a licensing requirement appears on the verge of going the way of the auk, the Edsel, and point-to-point wiring in commercial radio gear. One of the other regulars in this NG likes to comment that the plug is about to be pulled on the government life support system, or words to that effect, which is that person's way of saying that those who have a genuine interest in the use of the mode had better start thinking about finding another way to get people interested in learning the code if they want the use of Morse to continue to be a part of the hobby. Telling people they are lazy if they've chosen not to learn it is not going to do the trick. I can just see him waving his code key shouting "I can save the day with my CW" at the officials who will laugh their ass off at him. One could be waving state-of-the-art voice communications gear and get the same reaction. That's why it's important for ham radio emergency communications groups to establish a good relationship with the emergency management officials in the areas they serve *before* disaster strikes. Once the proverbial merde hits the proverbial ventillateur, the folks running the served agencies will be too busy to listen to explanations. I'm sure most of us know how it goes, or can at least imagine - when you are up to your keister in alligators, it's easy to forget that the initial objective was to drain the swamp. I have been a ham for over forty years, have participated in many disaster situations, and I have never seen conditions where CW was the only means of communication that would get through, even at the bottom of the solar cycles. Guys like Larry live in a "I am superior to you because of my CW skills" dream world. Despite that, I've no doubt that it's possible for such conditions to exist. The point that I think Larry and numerous others in the hobby seem to be missing is that this is a diversified hobby with a lot of different and equally interesting facets, of which CW is just one. I'm not about to ridicule anyone because they enjoy communicating with CW. However, I also don't think it's right to ridicule people who do not. 73 DE John, KC2HMZ |
Radio Amateur KC2HMZ wrote: On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 01:20:17 GMT, Dick Carroll wrote: No, I certainly do not. If someone wants to only operate cw, only ssb, only 2 meter FM, then fine, and they are just as much a ham as someone who operates multiple modes. So a ham who operates all modes except that he cannot operate radiotlegraphy because he doewn't know Morse code, is just as well qualified as a ham who operates all those and also can operate radiotelegraphy. Surely you can understand the fallacy of your own argument, all other considerations aside. The question becomes, qualified to do what? Do you really need to ask? *To Communicate by Amateur Radio*, of course. CW ops have a mode available that no coders don't, and seems most never will. |
"Radio Amateur KC2HMZ" wrote in message ... On Wed, 9 Jul 2003 23:19:38 -0400, "Bill Sohl" wrote: In a way, I do -- because their lack of desire to operate CW is usually based on a lack of willingness to break their inertia and get down to learning it. It's called laziness. Yup, that's right -- the "L" word. L-A-Z-I-N-E-S-S. Hams who don't care or "don't want" to learn Morse code are just plain old LAZY. Period. End of Story. Consider yourself to have been grabbed by the collar and beaten with a club called The Truth!!! Yes sir, guess my lack of desire to play golf can best be attributed to a lack of willingness to break my inertia and get down to learing it. Just my basic laziness I guess...nothing at all involving there's any personal choice, like or dislike involved. Same ole Larry :-) No, Bill - it's the fact that you couldn't find that club called The Truth in your golf bag...even though you left it right there between the three wood and the sand wedge. ;-) John, are you saying I am lying? If so, based on what? Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
In article , Dick Carroll writes:
No, I certainly do not. If someone wants to only operate cw, only ssb, only 2 meter FM, then fine, and they are just as much a ham as someone who operates multiple modes. So a ham who operates all modes except that he cannot operate radiotlegraphy because he doewn't know Morse code, is just as well qualified as a ham who operates all those and also can operate radiotelegraphy. Surely you can understand the fallacy of your own argument, all other considerations aside. Dick: An even greater fallacy is the notion that "hams" who operate only 2-meters FM (which probably defines at least 80 percent of "hams" licensed since 1991) is "qualified" as an amateur radio operator! At the risk of sounding Kim-like, ROTFLMAO!!! Were it not for the occasional usefulness of the 2-meter band to "real" ham radio operators like you and me, I'd suggest that it be separated from the licensing structure and just be given away to anyone who can afford a transceiver. Of course, we've already gone most of the way to doing just that, and we still don't see any real growth in the numbers of licensed amateurs. 73 de Larry, K3LT |
Arnie Macy wrote: This EMA Director won't. I have already incorporated CW in my Emergency Management Plans. It's a great tool to have (in conjunction with the other available communications modes). I actually feel sorry for those in EMA, and Amateur Radio, that discount it. We put it to great use during Hurricane Floyd in 1999, and I'm sure we'll use it again in the future. 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. Your 40 years as a Ham apparently haven't taught you very much. It's always better to leave Emergency Management Planning to the professionals. You just proved it. 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 known 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. |
Dick Carroll wrote: you just like to slam CW. And you just like to slam anyone who dosen't feel about the use of CW as you do. |
In article , "Kim W5TIT"
writes: So, it's your blatant disregard for the possibility that "future hams" will be quite interested in CW and will learn the mode just because they *WANTED* to and not because it was required? You didn't learn CW because you wanted to but because you had to. So, what're you gonna say to those who will obviously be a better ham than you because they learned CW out of wanting to, not needing to? Kim W5TIT Well, Kim, if any show up, I'll be the first to congratulate them! However, I hope you'll forgive me for not holding my breath in the meantime! You see, I've become somewhat accustomed to the occasional whiff of oxygen! 73 de Larry, K3LT |
In article , "Bill Sohl"
writes: Bill: Nice try, but not quite the same thing. A prospective ham not wanting to learn and/or use the Morse code is like a prospective golfer not wanting to learn how to putt, because all he wants to do is drive golf balls for distance. Well, even I can drive a bucket balls at the range to kill an afternoon, but I'd never call myself a "golfer." Morse/CW is an essential communications skill for anyone who is going to consider him/herself to be an effective amateur radio operator. So you will claim tillhell freezes over I assume. Only problem is, your claim failed at the only place that counts...the FCC. Bill: Of course it did. The FCC is a government bureaucracy that serves mainly commercial interests. Amateur Radio just isn't important enough to them to be bothered to expend the resources necessary to maintain high licensing standards as the had in the past. No mystery there. This is the one skill which gives them the ability to keep on communicating under adverse conditions that put an end to communication using less robust or more equipment and electrical capacity-dependent modes. It gives us the ultimate in emergency backup communications capability, which is ever-so important and politically-correct for hams these days. 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. 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. 73 de Larry, K3LT |
In article , Radio Amateur KC2HMZ
writes: The only reason I learned code was that it was required to upgrade beyond Technician class. Passing the code test would have made me a Tech Plus and earned me some phone privileges on 10m and CW on several other bands...except that I took the General class written at the same VE session, and passed it, walking out with General class privileges. At that point, I could communicate using CW at 5 WPM. At the same point, I could also communicate using phone at a significantly faster rate than 5 WPM since I can speak a lot faster than that. I could also communicate using PSK31 at a significantly faster rate than 5 WPM since I can type a lot faster than that. Thus, for me the use of another mode is more efficient for me than to use CW. I would actually be a less capable communicator if I used CW than I am using another mode. My facing the code testing requirement did not affect my ability to speak or to type. 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! Well, everyone's estimate of their "enjoyment" of ham radio is a subjective thing. However, in this age where we're trying to justify our hold on literally billions of dollars worth of commercially viable spectrum, we place a great emphasis on our capabilities as "emergency" communicators. Unfortunately, the least reliable modes we employ are those that depend on voice communication -- and these modes are the first to "go South" when atmospheric conditions and man-made interference do not operate in our favor. These days, the vast majority of emergency communications is done on a local basis, primarily on 2m using FM repeaters and simplex. 70cm is probably the next most widely used band for this purpose. Neither is subject to the propagation difficulties often encountered on HF. True -- when the "emergency" is confined to a small locality and the VHF/ UHF repeater infrastructure remains intact. However, what if there is a widespread disaster -- such as the "Big One" striking the San Andreas fault line in California? That will not be a "local" disaster -- it will affect the entire country. Vast regions hundreds of miles in radius will be affected, and the commercial communications and existing Amateur Radio infrastructures and the power grids they depend on will be disrupted for God only knows how long. At that point, we could be talking about areas with populations of hundreds of thousands of people being out of communication with the area "outside" the disaster zone. Communications nets spanning many times the normal operational range of terresterial VHF/UHF systems will be necessary -- and don't look now, but we're coming to the downside of the solar cycle -- meaning poor propagation. I guarantee you that there will be lots of opportunities for No-Code HF Ham Heroes to help out, but when conditions dictate the use of CW, in order to be able to communicate when voice and data modes fail due to lack of available electrical power or poor atmospherics, that capability will not be available because it will not have been learned. That's when some guy like me will enter the picture, and say, "Step aside, Sonny, and take your toy microphone with you." Then he'll plug in his key and re-establish contact with the outside world. Of course, you will never be convinced that that could happen -- so you'll just have to hope it doesn't. In the meantime, I'll be ready! In my own estimation, the biggest problem with emergency communications in the ARS right now isn't the people who don't know CW, it's the people who think their 5-watt (or 2-watt, or 150 mkilliwatt) HT and its 650mAh battery pack is all they need to function as an emergency communicator when the proverbial merde hits the proverbial ventillateur. Well, unfortunately, there are lots of new Ham Heroes who believe precisely that, and they belive that their possession of the HT and 650 mAh battery pack makes them a "real" ham radio operator! Morse/CW allows us to overcome the majority of those obstacles, but only those who know how to effectively employ this mode are qualified to make that judgment. Actually, it's the agencies served by our ARES and RACES and other emergency communications groups who are best qualified to judge the effectiveness of our contributions. The ones I've worked with so far have expressed high praise for the efforts of our team of hams, and we have yet to use CW during an activation. That is the usual case. However, I did impress the begeebers out of one certain county EOC Director by using CW during a practice exercise. Then he asked me, "Why can all the other hams do that? I can see where Morse code could be very effective. You were copying that other guy (who was in Indiana -- I was in Delaware) perfectly even though I could hardly hear him!" Therefore, your argument about "enjoyment" is, as are most NCTA arguments, self-serving at best. Apples and oranges, perhaps. Only the most masochistic among us would claim to actually enjoy pulling a 12- or 14-hour shift in a chilly EOC or standing in a street in the middle of an ice storm. Emergency communications isn't done for enjoyment. DX'ing, contesting, and casual ragchewing are done for enjoyment, and if one enjoys using CW for such activities, there's nothing stopping anyone from doing so. For those who do not enjoy using CW, the same activities can also be enjoyed using other modes. 73 DE John, KC2HMZ I don't think anyone's going to confuse emergency communications with anything enjoyable. However, in order to have total communications capability, leaving out Morse/CW capability just doesn't make sense to me. We're going the wrong way on that, and the only reason for it is because people these days are just too damn LAZY to learn a useful communications skill. End of story. 73 de Larry, K3LT |
In article , Alun Palmer
writes: What about me? I passed 20wpm and choose not to use it atall? No doubt I will be told I'm missing out, but I'm doing exactly what I want to. Alun: Feel free to do as you please, but you're right -- you're missing out on a lot of fun if you don't use CW on-the-air! 73 de Larry, K3LT |
"JJ" wrote in part ...
John, you have to realize that Larry and his huge ego are just waiting for the above scenario to happen so he can "save the world" with his CW skills. He is in complete denial that when this big disaster happens, he and his CW skills will mean nothing. I can just see him waving his code key shouting "I can save the day with my CW" at the officials who will laugh their ass off at him. __________________________________________________ ______________________ This EMA Director won't. I have already incorporated CW in my Emergency Management Plans. It's a great tool to have (in conjunction with the other available communications modes). I actually feel sorry for those in EMA, and Amateur Radio, that discount it. We put it to great use during Hurricane Floyd in 1999, and I'm sure we'll use it again in the future. Your 40 years as a Ham apparently haven't taught you very much. It's always better to leave Emergency Management Planning to the professionals. You just proved it. Arnie - KT4ST |
Carl R. Stevenson wrote: I never said I was "the original expert" ... but 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 (not that anyone else in the ARES or RACES teams would have suggested it either ...) 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. |
"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 |
"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. Arnie - KT4ST |
"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. Carl - wk3c |
"Dick Carroll" wrote in message ... Larry, when you trim all the BS off the no-code position, all that's left is that they refuse to even acknowledge that the first existing, most basic mode of radiocommunications is even a viable mode of radiocommunications! Dick, That's simply not true ... 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). It's just that it's been bypassed by more modern, more efficient means that that vast majority of people prefer. Read again the "What we believe" on the NCI webpage ... nowhere does it say that "Morse is not longer a viable mode." ... and it certainly doesn't say that we oppose its use. Carl - wk3c |
"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. |
"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 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:30 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com