|
JJ wrote: N2EY wrote: 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. I am not against the mode, and not sure it is necessary to testing anymore. CW will continue for some time to come to be a ham radio tradition and will be in use on the bands probably long after most of us are gone, even if it is dropped from the requirements to obtain a license. The use of "antiquated" or "obsolete" does not automatically imply against. A Ford Model T is antiquated and obsolete as compared to modern day automobiles, but I certainly am not against those who restore and run Model T's, I really like seeing one go down the street. I restore old "antiquated" and "obsolete" radios, and play them every day. I am against those who think that they are far superior to others just because they use and support CW as opposed to those who chose not to use that mode. There are those on this group who constantly remind everyone how much superior they are and they are the "real" hams just because they like to use CW. They are no more superior or a "real" ham than the ham who chooses not to use that mode. It is all their inflated egos and nothing else. Their opinion of the importance of CW is just that, their opinion and nothing more. CW isn't going to save the world. 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. |
|
On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 03:38:46 GMT, Mike Coslo
wrote: Kim W5TIT wrote: To state something does not make it so. You never watched Star Trek TNG, eh? I believe what Captain Picard said was, "Wishing for a thing does not make it so." 73 DE John, KC2HMZ Very funny, Scotty...now beam down my pants! |
On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 14:14:23 GMT, Dick Carroll
wrote: Let's face facts Carl- You can'nt function as a proficient CW communicator. I can. That simply makes me better qualified as a ham radio operator than you, test or no test. It makes you better qualified to operate CW, period. Now, if the activity at hand is operating in the SSB portion of November Sweepstakes (or any other phone contest), or in the RTTY roundup, or on an SSTV net, then your CW proficiency, taken by itself, makes you no better qualified than my 10-year old daughter. 73 DE John, KC2HMZ Daddy, what's this red button fo#$%^&*(NO CARRIER |
On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 13:26:00 GMT, Dick Carroll
wrote: Just as I would have skipped learning the code if it hadn't been a licensing requirement, too. Is that a chink in Dick's armor? Quick, Jose, my soldering iron! 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 can't substantiate this statistically off the top of my head, but it wouldn't surprise me to learn that a majority of hams already aren't all that proficient with Morse to begin with. I was forced to learn it to upgrade from Tech to General, but I learned it only well enough to pass the test (by correctly copying the phrase "My QTH is Malibu, California." rather than by answering the multiple choice questions - since the comma and period count as two characters each, that gave me one minute of solid copy), and basically haven't used it since. I did try once...used the club station, went down in the lower portion of 15 where I frequently hear some slower CW ops...send "CQ CQ CQ DE" and my callsign twice, at about 5 WPM because I didn't want to send faster than I could copy...then realized that in the amount of time it took me to do that I could have already had a contact in the log on phone...and that I did not and do not have the patience for CW. I'd have a hard time believing there aren't a heck of a lot of 5 WPM Generals and Extras out there who've gone through the same thing. Add those to the no-code Techs and you might well be pretty close to half the entire ham population in the U.S. for all I know. 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. Now it is you who might be missing the point. The code test will be gone - as someone else in this NG likes to say, the government life support system will be turned off. That, in and of itself, does not guarantee that ham radio will lose CW as a viable mode, it only guarantees that if the ARS is to keep CW as a viable mode, it behooves those who want it to continue as such to find another way to get hams to learn the code. Now, to repeat the point I have been trying to make in this thread. On the one hand we have guys like Arnie who will respect a fellow ham as a fellow ham, regardless of whether that ham can do 50 WPM or zero...will encourage people to learn the code and use the mode, bend over backwards to help them do it, slow down his own sending so they can copy it at their own speed, and just generally being reasonable and friendly and giving people every encouragement. On the other hand, we have guys snarling like angry dogs at people for doing what you yourself would have done if you'd had the choice at the time...people calling guys lazy, good for nothing, saying they aren't "real" hams, and just generally being unreasonable, unfriendly, and in some cases hypocritical as well. Caught in the middle will be a whole generation of new hams who will decide for themselves if they want to learn the code or not, sitting there on the fence between the folks continuing the CW tradition in ham radio and the folks who want nothing to do with Morse. The folks on the no-code side will welcome them into the hobby regardless. The folks on the other side...well...it looks good over where Arnie is, but with all those snarling dogs over there, I dunno... What I guess I'm trying to say is, we need less snarling dogs and more people looking for a reasonable approach to the problem. 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. First of all, if it's so trivial, why is everybody getting their panties in a bunch about it? Secondly, I think the ARS itself has bigger fish to fry. To name just one, BPL used to mean Brass Pounders' League. Now it means the noise floor on your HF rig is about to go through the ceiling and put your S-meter into orbit. The least time they must spend on ARS issues the better for them, whatever the end result. Can't say as I really blame them. Everybody wants to be the fire department in a town with no fires. Aside from the political appointees, FCC is men and women who get up in the morning, go to work, then go home at the end of the day, same as I do. I do what I can to make my job easier, what makes them any different? So, FCC is not going to solve the problem for us. Care to hazard a WAG as to who's left to come up with a solution? 73 DE John, KC2HMZ |
On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 11:49:34 -0500, "Kim W5TIT"
wrote: "Dick Carroll" wrote in message ... Just as I would have skipped learning the code if it hadn't been a licensing requirement, too. So, the only effort you are willing to expend is one which is forced upon you? Then, having been duly forced - completely against his will - he actually began to like it...so the story goes. Next we'll be hearing that women secretly enjoy being raped. Seriously, though, he had an option. Unless somebody forced him to get a ham license..... 73 DE John, KC2HMZ |
|
|
On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 02:42:30 -0400, "Arnie Macy"
wrote: At this year's Field Day, our two little CW ops out performed (in contacts per hour) our SSB friends by ten to one on the same band during the exact same period of time. Now I realize that you were not talking about CW vs SSB, but the analogy is still interesting, huh? Why do you think that happened, Carl? (hint: I'm sure it had nothing to do with poor band conditions) There are other possible explanations for this other than mode selection. That could also happen because the CW guys were "running" QSOs while the phone guys were hunting and pouncing. It could also be because the CW ops were simply more experienced contesters and, for all we know, could have also outdone the SSB guys by ten to one on SSB as well. OTOH, you could be right.... :-) 73 DE John, KC2HMZ |
On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 02:51:42 -0400, "Arnie Macy"
wrote: "JJ" wrote ... 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. _________________________________________________ _________________________ We used it when Floyd hit in 1999. We were having a hard time getting through on SSB, so switched over to CW and continued ops until the band conditions improved. CW didn't "save the day", but it sure came in handy when needed. It is still an integral part of our EMA plan. Remember, in disaster planning, we try to use *all* of the tools available to us. Maybe one day, the light will come on for you and you'll understand that concept. Don't look now, but as I type this, Charlotte is approaching. We may get an object lesson here shortly after it makes landfall (not that I or anyone else is hoping for that, except perhaps Larry who is shining his straight key in anticipation). 73 DE John, KC2HMZ |
|
Kim - excellent post, I'm impressed. On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 11:16:22 -0500, "Kim W5TIT" wrote: 1. A good radio amateur emergency communication operator recognizes the limitations of skillet of volunteers in a local/regional/national net and *deals* with it. In a communication emergency/disaster, the first need is qualified individuals for service. The fact that one is an amateur radio operator is not enough. Being active in local/regional/national training and net participation is crucial to the proper training of individuals and allows for exposure of those individuals to local operating practices. Better yet is an emergency communications organization that recognizes the varied skills of its members and institutes systems that utilize those skills where they can do the most good. If a group of, say, forty operators has ten accomplished CW operators and thirty ops whose CW skills aren't up to snuff for emergency use, so be it. The thirty ops who lack CW skills can still train to participate in voice comms, conduct tactical comms on VHF, etc. If a person has a useful skill and is willing to volunteer, you find a way for them to contribute. You don't turn away volunteers, because when the time comes that you need your team members, some will be themselves be victims of the disaster, some will be unavailable because they're at work, some will need to take care of family members, and so forth. If those operating practices don't include the CW mode, it is up to participants in the operation/net to recognize that the best communication mode is one in which everyone, a) is willing to learn and perform, and b) is immediately familiar to all participants. Folks such as Dick and Larry--IMHO--fail to display the attributes that help others recognize their ability to size up current limitations and *deal* with it. In golf, this is known as playing the ball where it lies. In cards, it's called playing the hand you're dealt. In emergency management, the buzzword is interoperability - and it's one of the things we hams bring to the table that makes us valuable assets when the chips (or the local communications systems) are down. DIGRESSION MODE ON: if the failure of participants to know and use CW is an issue, it is certainly acceptable for those who desire CW to be used to make their wishes known and to try and effect change through POSITIVE action. In the meantime it behooves a good participant to fail to make enemies because things aren't as they wish. DIGRESSION MODE OFF. I don't think that's a digression at all. It's simply having good leadership skills, and keeping a positive attitude...and your point is well taken, in that there are some individuals whose attitude towards their fellow hams is anything but positive - unfortunately. 2. A good radio amateur operator, who is familiar with EmCom, is also familiar with the current trends in the service of emergency communication provision. Again, one may not "like" the current trend but, to criticize and be disgruntled about it hinders the efficacy of providing excellent communication service. There is nothing wrong with constructive criticism, so long as it is done in a positive manner. For example, what if the current trend in your area is for emergency management personnel to rely on cell phones as a backup to their radio systems? I don't "like" that trend and will certainly criticize it, immediately and as often as necessary to get the point across. I will not, however, refer to said emergency managers as "maroons" - especially not in a public forum! DIGRESSION MODE ON: A good example would be the very attitudes that we often see exhibited here in this newsgroup by folks such as Dick and Larry. Now, they'll tell you that [paraphrasing here] their actions in this newsgroup do not indicate anything about how they are in real life. Of course not. If they said to someone at a club meeting some of the things they've said to people in this NG, they'd probably earn themselves a punch in the nose. Now, I dunno about Dick, but Larry likes his nose. He sends CW with his nose on the key while his left hand is tuning and his right hand is writing in the logbook. :-) I say to anyone here, that the actions in this newsgroup are well known locally to your fellow amateurs. I cannot tell you how many fellow hams I have met who know me only by what they have seen here in this newsgroup--and first impression is everything. Most are "OK" with what they see here by my opinions and some are not. The point is that most of us here in this newsgroup are "offensive," in some way or another, to someone who simply reads posts. That's common sense, of course, because whatever side you take on an issue, you're going to be in disagreement with the folks on the other side. However, since common sense isn't really all that common, some will exacerbate the situation, going beyond simply stating their opinions and allow discussions to degenerate into name-calling, personal attacks on the messenger instead of debating the message, and other common fallacies that are as old as discussion boards on landline BBS systems. DIGRESSION MODE OFF. So, if someone exhibits offensive behavior because of current trends in the service, ....or for any other reason, for that matter... they will not be *received* by local/regional/national participants as effective radio amateur communicators. They may very well be, but if they are not received and accepted as such, their effectiveness is compromised by their degree of offensiveness to others. That would make people such as Dick and Larry pretty darned ineffective as radio amateur emergency communicators. Yep...nice package perhaps, but lousy presentation. 3. Going back to the "current trends" philosophy: if one cannot recognize shifts and changes in current trends, their ability to participate in effective radio amateur emergency communication is hindered--*IF* they refuse (for whatever reason) to "get on board" with current practices. Hindered? How about nonexistent? If the use of CW on emergency/disaster communication nets has diminished, it is paramount to a qualified radio amateur emergency communicator to learn and become familiar with whatever mode of operation is currently the "popular" trend. It's that simple. I was monitoring a MARS net a few years back, that was being conducted in some rather lousy band conditions. One station tried to check into this net using CW because the ops couldn't get through to the NCS using SSB. The NCS told them that CW was not a valid operating mode for checking into a MARS net. Draw your own conclusions. 4. I daresay anyone--not just radio amateur emergency communicators--who is familiar with emergency/disaster communication, knows that the best mode of operation is going to be one that most--preferably all--participants in the communication process are familiar with--*regardless* of how well the mode utilizes bandwidth or how well the mode can be implemented, etc. This goes back to what I said earlier about interoperability. This consideration became a major concern in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 and remains an important one in the mind of any savvy emergency communicator or emergency manager. FEMA has a publication for emergency managers dealing with amateur radio - I have a copy in my personal library - and interoperability is one of the things mentioned as a desirable asset that hams are able to provide. It goes without saying that anything which compromises interoperability is detrimental to the overall operation. To try to "force" the issue of CW onto radio amateurs may be admirable in some cases, it is fatal to a good emergency/disaster communication effort *UNLESS* all communication providers are "on board" with knowing and using CW effectively. Not necessarily. A CW net can be established for the purpose of moving health and welfare traffic in and out of the affected area on HF, while tactical communications for establishing shelters and doing damage assessment are done on VHF FM. Obviously, the folks working VHF FM don't need to know shinola about CW. They do, however, need to know how to behave in a directed net, among other things. In today's emergency/disaster communication "market" the CW skill is little recognized and certainly not used in many circumstances. Nevertheless, as both you and Arnie have already pointed out in this NG, one should not discount any available means of communication. I'm sure that if Arnie has a dozen CW ops around he's going to use them. If, at the same time, he has a dozen no-code Techs or 5 WPM Generals (like me for example) around he's going to use them too, but not as CW ops. I'm not too good with CW, but I am pretty good at tactical comms. DIGRESSION MODE ON: once the communication emergency/disaster operation is under way, of course, CW nets for passing HW traffic are critical to the implementation of effective transmission and delivery of messages to those who would otherwise be "clogging" the resources of responders. It is at *this* level that folks such as Dick and Larry should be recruiting individuals. DIGRESSION MODE OFF. OBSERVATION MODE ON: Unfortunately, Dick and Larry aren't recruiting anyone; quite the opposite, in fact. When I first became an ARES member, I was a Technician sans code. If I'd arrived at that ARES meeting and found Dick and Larry in charge, I'd have been back out the door so fast that the suction would have pulled half a dozen other guys right out the door along with me. License class bigotry and operating mode bigotry do no good for any facet of amateur radio, least of all our emergency and public service communications groups. OBSERVATION MODE OFF. 5. Current trends in the provision of emergency/disaster communication are utilizing many modes. The political arguments are beginning to erode and the stigma associated with utilizing all available radio services is beginning to fade. Having two skyscrapers collapsing around you while the police can't talk to the fire department, which can't talk to the EMS personnel, which can't talk to the Port Authority police, which can't talk to the Feds, which can't even talk to each other, tends to do that for ya... The recognition of this is limited to those above the level of folks such as Dick and Larry, who are "stuck" in the world of CW so obsessively that they cannot and will not accept what changes are taking place and will continue to take place. It's too bad that it took an incident resulting in the deaths of a few thousand people for this recognition to happen, but sometimes I do wonder if some people realize what they're saying. "CW is like learning another language" for example...okay, fine, but what happens if I get on the radio and tell the fire department that a pumper is needed and such-and-such location because the ice storm just caused a tree to collapse onto the roof of a school building, bringing down power lines along with it, and now the school's on fire and kids are trapped, and because I happen to like German and think everybody should learn it, I make this report in German. Great if the fire dispatcher speaks German. Not a good idea if she doesn't...oh, excuse me, I mean, if she's a no-good-for-nothing who's too lazy to learn German and is thus less qualified as a communicator than I am. As has often been implied by comments in this newsgroup: while "they" are stuck in their world, the rest of the world is moving on and providing a great service--as one of the tenets of amateur radio is realized. I dunno if I'd go so far as to suggest that accomplished CW ops are going to be left behind as the rest of the world moves on without them, because there's nothing stopping someone who's already developed good CW skills from learning additional skills useful in other operating modes. The question is whether or not an individual is prepared to put those skills to use when they're needed. Our EOC has HF, VHF, and UHF gear, packet, a couple of repeaters, emergency power from a diesel generator, and both a straight key and a bug for CW ops to use. There's more than one radio for each. There's a scanner. We also have SSTV capability, so that a ham in the field with a digital camera and a laptop computer in his car can take pictures of a disaster scene and transmit them back to the EOC over the air so that officials there can see for themselves what's going on, rather than having to haul everybody down to the scene for a first-hand look. Of course, that means the ham in the field needs the digital camera and needs to be able to power the laptop in the car (or once the battery in the laptop runs down, goodbye to that capability). That means adding an inverter to your jump kit if your laptop doesn't run on 13.8 VDC. Some guys make me wonder if there is anything in their jump kits other than a key, a QRP CW rig and a battery. I hope there is, but the way some folks tell it there's only one operating mode and CW is it. There's more to ham radio than that - if there wasn't, I for one wouldn't be here - and there's a lot more to emergency and public service communications than that. CW is a useful skill, but it isn't the only useful skill. There's loads of other not-so-ham-radio-related items that could be brought up about how folks such as Dick and Larry have missed out; those that deal with the leadership, recruitment, education, organizational, motivation, and process of emergency communication. But you good emergency/disaster communication folks already know them. ;) Yes we do, and I just mentioned a few of them. Thanks for recognizing this fact, though. 73 DE John, KC2HMZ |
|
On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 03:38:46 GMT, Mike Coslo
wrote: Kim W5TIT wrote: To state something does not make it so. You never watched Star Trek TNG, eh? I believe what Captain Picard said was, "Wishing for a thing does not make it so." 73 DE John, KC2HMZ Very funny, Scotty...now beam down my pants! |
On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 11:49:34 -0500, "Kim W5TIT"
wrote: "Dick Carroll" wrote in message ... Just as I would have skipped learning the code if it hadn't been a licensing requirement, too. So, the only effort you are willing to expend is one which is forced upon you? Then, having been duly forced - completely against his will - he actually began to like it...so the story goes. Next we'll be hearing that women secretly enjoy being raped. Seriously, though, he had an option. Unless somebody forced him to get a ham license..... 73 DE John, KC2HMZ |
|
On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 11:58:29 -0500, "Kim W5TIT"
wrote: "Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message ... Kim, Dear, what kind of "proof" of this would you accept? Dear? I knew it! You ARE in love with her, Larry! You are not a CW operator, so you are not even qualified to judge any "proof" offered. You are not a cow, Larry, therefore you are not even qualified to judge whether McDonald's or Wendy's makes better cheeseburgers. Those of us who are proficient CW operators with adequate on-the-air experience have certainly had this fact proven to them to their satisfaction, Hitler had the collective guilt of Jews, Jehovah's Witnesses, and homosexuals proven to his satisfaction, too. but a no-coder will always claim that it isn't proven simply because they have no way of discerning and analyzing the evidence, and they have an agenda which would cause them to deny the outcome. Actually, all that's really required is a receiver. If there are a few dozen CW QSOs going on at the bottom of the band, but nobody in the phone portion of the band...well, why would you think that would happen, unless there's a CW contest going on? So please don't go demanding "proof" unless you're willing to place yourself in a position Yeah, you'd like that, wouldn't you, ya dirty old man ya... :-) to be an objective, competent arbiter of any evidence offered. 73 de Larry, K3LT And as for you, Kim... Lip service, Larry. Ahem....I'm trying to keep my mind out of the gutter here. You're not helping much. You couldn't even offer the contribution that N2EY made. An excellent example, I might add. And, apparently you have no proof--only your rhetorical blathering idiocy, as usual. Larry gets rather emotional over the topic, whereas Jim looks at things a bit more objectively. But then, I think you noticed that. When you get as good as N2EY at knowing CW and examples of its tremendous cabability, get back to us, won't you? Knowing them and being able to articulate them in this forum are two different things. 73 DE John, KC2HMZ |
|
"JJ" wrote in message ... Carl R. Stevenson wrote: 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 ... Are you forgetting about the Conditional (same as the General)? I may be wrong, but I *think* the FCC stopped issuing Conditionals before 1975. Carl - wk3c |
"Arnie Macy" wrote in message ... "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 I'm not saying that CW is totally obsolete ... and I won't presume to speak for JJ ... I just know that there are much better digital modes available and that CW's main purpose these days is as a recreational activity for those who like it. I like kyaking, but I don't believe that everyone should be a proficent kyaker to go into the water. Carl - wk3c |
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote:
I like kyaking, but I don't believe that everyone should be a proficent kyaker to go into the water. You'd think that one who likes "kyaking" could spell "kayak", Squiggy. Looks like you've chosen a poor analogy. Your view would more properly expressed by stating that with modern power boat technology, no individual should be forced to jump through the swimming hoop. Dave K8MN |
Alun Palmer wrote:
some snippage 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. No one sez you have to use it. I'm not forced to do those silly satellite ops either. But I gotta test for them. - Mike KB3EIA - |
Dick Carroll wrote:
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. I'm much too busy to look for excuses...... ;^) - Mike KB3EIA - |
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote ...
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. __________________________________________________ _________________________ And when did you become the expert on who and who is not intelligent, Carl? Arnie - KT4ST "What a fine thing it is to have an intellect, and room enough in the seat of your breeches to hold it." -Mark Twain |
Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
"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? SSB - established mathematically in 1914, First patent in 1923, first transatlantic transmission in 1923, transatlanti public use in 1927, first amateur use around 1933. Didn't catch on for around 15 years. - Mike KB3EIA - |
N2EY wrote:
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. Direct hit, Jim! Despite all claiims to the contrary, the NCTA's word's usually expose them as NCUA's. Just imagine all that yummy bandwidth there for the taking! 8^) - Mike KB3EIA - |
"Dick Carroll" wrote in message ... Larry Roll K3LT wrote: 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. 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! Much less that it is the simplest, easiest to implement and one of the very most efficient modes! If it weren't so downright silly it'd be funny. But that's what ham radio had degenerated into. In what way have we ever not acknowledged that CW was the first mode, or that it is simple, or that it can be used by hams today (i.e. viable). Bottom line is so what...that does NOT justify any need for a code test. That's what is so downright silly. YOU want every new ham to have to learn CW on the hope that some percentage will like CW enough to become a user. You are (IMHO) clearly not up to the task of recruiting new hams by proactively advocating CW use. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
JJ wrote:
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. Wrong. I don't feel the same way about CW as Dick does, and we get along just fine! - Mike KB3EIA - |
Kim W5TIT wrote:
"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. You never watched Star Trek TNG, eh? - Mike KB3EIA - |
"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message ... 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. It did...then why do you next state... 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. Sure seems that it didn't hold sway at all with the FCC. 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. Of course, and the cost of having thousands of hams learn morse isn't born out by any need whatsoever...as the FCC has already determined in 98-143. Rather, the PCTA folks failed to make sufficient justification to the FCC that hams MUST know morse. 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. Well it seems to me the only folks that are living in fantasy land are the PCTAs. Not ONE of the PCTA arguments was "accepted" by the FCC as sufficient reason to retain code testing. Rather, the ONLY reason the FCC even kept 5 wpm was the former ITU treaty...now that's gone too. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
"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, in global communications, SSB has pretty much seen its day too. Comms are now digital and via satellite for many ships. Telecommunications, both terrestial, microwave and satellite are almost exclusively digital. Even so, no one is asking to shut down SSB in ham radio any more than CW is being asked to shut down. Use it all you want...the test isn't needed to use the mode. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
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. |
"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. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
Arnie Macy wrote:
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote ... 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. __________________________________________________ _________________________ And when did you become the expert on who and who is not intelligent, Carl? And remember, he was mentally challenged, not stupid. Time and again, we see the difference. - Mike KB3EIA - |
In article , Radio Amateur KC2HMZ
writes: 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 John: 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. 73 de Larry, K3LT |
In article , JJ
writes: Well, on behalf of my colleague Dick (that's MISTER Carroll to you, BOY!) it's nice to know that we're providing a much needed service to the ARS! 73 de Larry, K3LT Anyone ever tell you what a pompous ass you really are Larry? JJ: Oh, but of course! But this is Usenet, and, more specifically, rrap -- so I won't take that personally, since I'm in such good company! That's MISTER JJ to you little BOY!! Uh, no, not quite. You see, Mr. Carroll is YOUR moral and intellectual superior, therefore it is appropriate for you to address him in a form which shows proper respect. You, OTOH, deserve no such consideration, since you have not earned it through your participation in this forum. 73 de Larry, K3LT |
In article , "Kim W5TIT"
writes: 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 Kim, Dear, what kind of "proof" of this would you accept? You are not a CW operator, so you are not even qualified to judge any "proof" offered. Those of us who are proficient CW operators with adequate on-the-air experience have certainly had this fact proven to them to their satisfaction, but a no-coder will always claim that it isn't proven simply because they have no way of discerning and analyzing the evidence, and they have an agenda which would cause them to deny the outcome. So please don't go demanding "proof" unless you're willing to place yourself in a position to be an objective, competent arbiter of any evidence offered. 73 de Larry, K3LT |
In article , Radio Amateur KC2HMZ
writes: On 12 Jul 2003 02:05:48 GMT, ospam (Larry Roll K3LT) wrote: At the risk of sounding Kim-like, ROTFLMAO!!! Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, Larry. I think you're in love with her! Omigosh, I feel my dinner coming up...BIWBAPMGO!!! Damn, good thing I had that waste basket handy! 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. Heckuva lot of growth in the number of no-code Techs, though. 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? Funny thing is, most of the No-Code Techs in my club haven't upgraded yet, in spite of the meager 5 WPM code test requirement. What a bunch of maroons! 73 de Larry, K3LT |
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? I predict that there will be no significant growth in new licensees. Now, all we need to do is define the term "significant growth." We currently have around 600-some kilohams in the US. I'd call a five percent growth factor, or 30,000 newly-licensed radio amateurs, to be significant. Let's give this a year to happen. I say it won't. How say you? Keep in mind that at this stage of the discussion, I'm just trying to establish reasonable parameters -- so let's all weigh in and try to arrive at a consensus as to what any future growth could be. Then we can commit to our numbers and see who gets it right -- or at least close. 73 de Larry, K3LT |
"JJ" wrote ...
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. __________________________________________________ ________________________ We used it when Floyd hit in 1999. We were having a hard time getting through on SSB, so switched over to CW and continued ops until the band conditions improved. CW didn't "save the day", but it sure came in handy when needed. It is still an integral part of our EMA plan. Remember, in disaster planning, we try to use *all* of the tools available to us. Maybe one day, the light will come on for you and you'll understand that concept. Arnie - KT4ST |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:03 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com