|
In article , Radio Amateur KC2HMZ
writes: 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). John: You think I'm "hoping" that a devastating hurricane will strike and perhaps take lives and destroy property? Just so I can use some freshly-polished straight key to send emergency traffic? I don't think so. 73 de Larry, K3LT |
In article , Radio Amateur KC2HMZ
writes: So be it. In any case, the coming generation of New Age, Dumbed-Down, No-Coder hams That statement just convinced a few thousand people to try CW on its own merits...NOT! John: No, it just gave them another in an already lengthy list of excuses to be lazy and not give it a try. They could care less about what I think of them -- or, should I say, if they were motivated to learn a useful communications skill, nothing I say could stop them from trying. aren't likely to seeking any kudos from me on their CW skills. They are, however, likely to seek refuge from your insulting rhetoric. Oh, you mean the truth. I would hope that any who learned the code and became proficient with it's use on-the-air, would do so for their own personal gratification and to add that skill to their overall capability as a radio amateur. I hope so too, Larry, because with your apparent attitude towards fellow hams, they sure as heck aren't going to be leqarning it so they can put your call in the logbook. Or for any other reason. Of course, that is a concept that you will naturally reject, out of the necessity of your agenda to justify your own lack of useful communications skills. My, my, Larry, she does get under your skin, doesn't she? Are you sure there isn't more to this than meets the eye? :-) A whole lot less, actually. Don't worry -- our expectations of you are small. Why don't you quit beating around the bush and just ask her whether or not size really matters? Because I couldn't care less about what Kim thinks about "size," or anything else, for that matter. All she is interested in is defending her lack of motivation to learn a useful communications skill like the Morse code. 73 de Larry, K3LT |
Alun Palmer wrote: If that isn't hazing, then nothing is No, it isn't hazing, hazing is attempting to force someone to do something unnecessary to acheive a goal. Learning and passing the code test is necessary to obtain a ham license. I simply stated that fact. The choice was entirely up to the student. |
In article , Dwight Stewart
writes: Who said the goal of ending code testing is the growth of Amateur Radio? Some, but not all, nocodetest folks have claimed that the (perceived) lack of growth of the ARS is one reason to end code testing. IIRC, Cecil and Mr. Anderson have repeatedly claimed that the Technician license (without its code test) is the only thing that kept amateur radio in the US from experiencing a severe decline in numbers from 1990 to 2000. As if none of them would have gotten a license if they all had to learn code for the ticket. I've seen no mention of that from either the FCC or those at the ITU conference. It is a constant theme. The RSGB has repeatedly cited lack of growth as a major concern of theirs, and blamed it on the code test. Instead, both seem to be saying code is no longer a necessary radio skill since so few radio operators outside ham radio use it today. That's another argument entirely. Of course hams DO use Morse code quite a lot. It's a mystery why what is done in other radio services should count more than what hams do, when it comes to figuring out the requirements for an amateur license. This position relates to the basis and purpose of Amateur Radio (97.1a, 97.1c, and 97.1d). Opinions vary. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
... In article , Radio Amateur KC2HMZ writes: 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 Cecil, is that you? No, it's John again, sorry for the confusion! No, John, nobody "forced" me to get a ham license -- except my own self! 73 de Larry, K3LT So. You consider yourself a nobody? Kim W5TIT --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net Complaints to |
"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
... Kim is in no danger of getting "lip service" from me! In any case, she's a married woman, and your inuendoes aren't showing any respect for that, John. At least I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt in that regard, and keep my comments focused on her postings regarding amateur radio. 73 de Larry, K3LT Since when, Larry. And, be careful because I'll post a whole stream of posts wherein you stray far, far away from ham radio... Kim W5TIT --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net Complaints to |
Radio Amateur KC2HMZ wrote in
: 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 You only have to attend a field day to see that there are only a small group of serious CW ops, and they don't include all of the 20 wpm Extras, even. As someone rightly pointed out, I passed 20 wpm and I am not atall competent at CW. And no, that doesn't bother me. Actually, it's been this way for many years. I've been licenced for 'only' 23 years, so I can't remember it not being a minority interest. The fact is that those who were forced to learn it and found that they liked it won't be replaced. In fact, that's pretty much how it is already, since 5 wpm doesn't really count. I still come across people who want to learn CW irrespective of when the test will go away, and those are your future CW ops. They are fewer in number because _coercion_ is being removed, but they exist. The fundamental problem I have with Dick and Larry is that they favour using coercion to get people to learn CW. Did they never hear of the saying 'you'll catch more files with honey than with vinegar' ? |
"JJ" wrote in message ... Radio Amateur KC2HMZ wrote: 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. I am curious as to why CW would not be a valid operating mode on a MARS net. Perhaps because the military doesn't train its radio ops in Morse any more? (This is true ... my youngest son is a Radioman in Navy EOD ... never learned a single "dit" or "dah" ... the military only trains a very few "intercept operators" at a joint services school at Ft. Huachuca ... at least that's where it was last I knew ...) Carl - wk3c |
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Carl R. Stevenson wrote: "Arnie Macy" wrote in message ... "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 Arnie, I was voicing my opinion of the way that Dick, Larry, and a few others ACT. You will note that I said I didn't actually think they ARE stupid ... but that they ACT that way (IMHO). Too bad you decided to do a diss on a person who had a mental handicap. (and who wasn't stupid) I was brought up not to make fun of the handicapped. YMMV. Mike ... it wasn't me who brought the "Forest Gump" comparison into the debate ... IIRC, if you look back, you'll find that it was Dick or Larry. Carl - wk3c |
Larry Roll K3LT wrote: In article , "Dee D. Flint" writes: Elimination of the code requirement may actually cause a loss in the ham ranks, if not in numbers at least in activity. The elimination will probably coincide with the early part of the bottom of the current sunspot cycle. People will upgrade and quite a few will be so disappointed at the poor activity that they will become quite inactive on HF and this disappointment could spill over and affect their activity on VHF/UHF. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE A very cogent observation, Dee. The irony is, at the low side of a solar cycle, when the geomagnetic activity subsides along with the solar flux, the use of CW permits communication even though there isn't good enough propagation to pursue reliable SSB operation. Therefore, the one thing that could keep them active on-the-air -- knowledge of the Morse code, won't be within their capability because they had no incentive to learn it. \ Yep, someone convinced them that it was no more than a "hazing ritual" and dips like JJ who claims to be as longtime ham but knows so little about what's happened in the interim to be even conversant about issues, offered all their support. Tha hobby is in sad shape and is being held up like Atlas holding the world by hams who have taken a code test. When all you have left is the Loyd Davies, well I doubt that statement even needs finishing. |
Dick Carroll wrote:
Bill Sohl wrote: "Dick Carroll" wrote in message ... Bill Sohl wrote: You are (IMHO) clearly not up to the task of recruiting new hams by proactively advocating CW use. Just as I would have skipped learning the code if it hadn't been a licensing requirement, too. So much for your advocacy of morse to new hams. You made my point. Bill you have been quite consistant about missing the entire point. When there is no code test most hams won't learn Morse code. I know that taxes you not a bit, so that means that you don't care whether or not hams will be losing it as a viable mode. Which shows how shortsighted you are, right along with the rest of NCI. And yes, FCC too. Of course they have far bigger fish to fry than to worry about a trivial detail involving the ARS. The least time they must spend on ARS issues the better for them, whatever the end result. I don't think there is any point missed at all. I think that those who oppose the test know very well that elimination of the test will eventually eliminate use. - Mike KB3EIA - |
Larry Roll K3LT wrote: In article , "Arnie Macy" writes: Speaking of obsolete, there's your buddy -- good old SSB -- a mode which has been (borrowing your words) "supplanted, in virtually every service except ham radio ... by more modern, efficient, reliable, and convenient means of communications." and *I* (wink) think it should be retired as soon as possible and we should stop using SSB for EMComm immediately -- I mean after all, it is just about as ancient as it gets in communication terms, right? Why use that ancient old SSB when I can hop on the Internet or bring up VTC or digital and get through faster and farther. Arnie - KT4ST Arnie: Worry not, help is on the way! When the FCC finally acts on WRC-03 and drops the code testing requirement, the ARS will suddenly be filled with eager, computer-literate, technically-inclined young newcomers to ham radio who will invent, develop, and deploy the amateur radio version of the broadband infrastructure now available to anyone who owns a cell phone, wireless PDA, or Wi-Fi equipped laptop. We will be communicating by voice, data, and image, all with no need to purchase "minutes" of air time or enter into expensive contracts with service providers. Once relieved of the requirement to learn that obsolete old Morse code, we will see, as promised for years, a technical revolution in amateur radio the likes of which nobody could have imagined in the bad old days of being tested for competence in "beeping." I can hardly wait! You'd better be able to wait! You'll sure have to! |
Larry Roll K3LT wrote: In article , Radio Amateur KC2HMZ writes: The only no-coders I bother to "ridicule" are those who offer the typically inane arguments that code testing is somehow detrimental to the future of the ARS -- usually by discouraging the involvement of computer- literate, technically-involved young people. The truth about these people is that they just want to get on HF phone and yak away -- and for the most part, haven't a clue as to what's happening inside their off-the- shelf ham radio appliance. I'm sure that's true for some. I'm also sure it's not true for all. The funny thing is, John, that the ones for which it isn't true are apparently nowhere to be found among the typical newcomers to the ARS these days. The average computer-literate, technically involved people tend to be able to, for example, assemble a computer from its basic elements (case, power supply, motherboard and perhaps some daughterboards), connect the peripherals, install an OS and other software without a dozen calls to a tech support hotline, and end up with a viable working machine. I could do all that, and I don't consider myself to be particularly "technical" as far as computers are concerned. That's just simple assembly -- a mainly mechanical skill. Folks who can do this are technically involved in comparison to the folks who don't even know which port the monitor plugs into. They aren't technically involved in comparison to the guy who designed the motherboard in the first place. However, even in the industry, very few people do component level repairs on motherboards and daughterboards any more. What of it? Who do you know that's designed and built a multi-band HF rig lately? Some have, of course...most of them work for Kenwood, Icom, Yaesu, Alinco, etc. Component-level repairs aren't done these days mainly for economic reasons. The labor cost involved in trouble-shooting a board at the component level would exceed the value of the component probably long before the fault was diagnosed. Of those that are able to do component level repairs on computer equipment, they probably have much of the knowledge needed to pass our written exams, except they lack the specialized knowledge of RF. Certainly, though, it would seem they have the capacity to learn it - but when the first thing we do is hit them with something over a hundred years old and tell them this is our lowest common denominator, I have no doubt that it causes a lot of people to think, "@#$&%^* that!" and find another hobby...perhaps they already have one. Well, that reaction to having to learn Morse code would only indicate that they're not at all serious about becoming fully capable as radio amateurs. Nothing new there. Those with genuine technical skills, who come into ham radio with or without Morse code, are perfectly OK by me. My problem begins when they go out of their way to whine about the code testing requirement, and make all the usual inane NCTA arguments about the code itself causing technical ignorance. If they simply go about the business of pursuing ham radio to the extent that they desire, and leave out the childish whining, I am more than willing to stand in awe of the advanced technical skill they demonstrate -- when and where it is, in fact, demonstrated. You have to keep one thing in mind here, John -- I didn't start the code testing debate. The anti-code test whiners did, with their specious arguments and inane comparisons of Morse code proficiency to everything antiquated and obsolete -- without having any first- had knowledge or experience to give them a basis for their self-serving, usually parroted commentary. If any of them had been willing to invest a fraction of the time and effort in learning the code as they did in railing against it, they may be singing a different tune, indeed. 73 de Larry, K3LT JJ take note- this post is redirected to YOU |
YAGI Berra Sed That
Depending on the FCC whims, cud be a while before you get that no-code HF license. Yogi also sed "When you come to a Tee in the coax -- Take it" More Yogi at URL: http://www.yogi-berra.com/ |
JJ wrote in :
Dick Carroll wrote: Larry Roll K3LT wrote: In article , Radio Amateur KC2HMZ writes: The only no-coders I bother to "ridicule" are those who offer the typically inane arguments that code testing is somehow detrimental to the future of the ARS -- usually by discouraging the involvement of computer- literate, technically-involved young people. The truth about these people is that they just want to get on HF phone and yak away -- and for the most part, haven't a clue as to what's happening inside their off-the- shelf ham radio appliance. I'm sure that's true for some. I'm also sure it's not true for all. The funny thing is, John, that the ones for which it isn't true are apparently nowhere to be found among the typical newcomers to the ARS these days. The average computer-literate, technically involved people tend to be able to, for example, assemble a computer from its basic elements (case, power supply, motherboard and perhaps some daughterboards), connect the peripherals, install an OS and other software without a dozen calls to a tech support hotline, and end up with a viable working machine. I could do all that, and I don't consider myself to be particularly "technical" as far as computers are concerned. That's just simple assembly -- a mainly mechanical skill. Folks who can do this are technically involved in comparison to the folks who don't even know which port the monitor plugs into. They aren't technically involved in comparison to the guy who designed the motherboard in the first place. However, even in the industry, very few people do component level repairs on motherboards and daughterboards any more. What of it? Who do you know that's designed and built a multi-band HF rig lately? Some have, of course...most of them work for Kenwood, Icom, Yaesu, Alinco, etc. Component-level repairs aren't done these days mainly for economic reasons. The labor cost involved in trouble-shooting a board at the component level would exceed the value of the component probably long before the fault was diagnosed. Of those that are able to do component level repairs on computer equipment, they probably have much of the knowledge needed to pass our written exams, except they lack the specialized knowledge of RF. Certainly, though, it would seem they have the capacity to learn it - but when the first thing we do is hit them with something over a hundred years old and tell them this is our lowest common denominator, I have no doubt that it causes a lot of people to think, "@#$&%^* that!" and find another hobby...perhaps they already have one. Well, that reaction to having to learn Morse code would only indicate that they're not at all serious about becoming fully capable as radio amateurs. Nothing new there. Those with genuine technical skills, who come into ham radio with or without Morse code, are perfectly OK by me. My problem begins when they go out of their way to whine about the code testing requirement, and make all the usual inane NCTA arguments about the code itself causing technical ignorance. If they simply go about the business of pursuing ham radio to the extent that they desire, and leave out the childish whining, I am more than willing to stand in awe of the advanced technical skill they demonstrate -- when and where it is, in fact, demonstrated. You have to keep one thing in mind here, John -- I didn't start the code testing debate. The anti-code test whiners did, with their specious arguments and inane comparisons of Morse code proficiency to everything antiquated and obsolete -- without having any first- had knowledge or experience to give them a basis for their self-serving, usually parroted commentary. If any of them had been willing to invest a fraction of the time and effort in learning the code as they did in railing against it, they may be singing a different tune, indeed. 73 de Larry, K3LT JJ take note- this post is redirected to YOU So why is is redirected to me, I read it the first time Larry posted it. So what? I agree with Larry on one point, about those who whine about the code testing requirement. When I taught Novice classes there would for certain be at least one student who would complain about having to learn the code and would always ask, "why do we have to learn this code stuff, I don't ever plan to use it," My reply was, "because it is one of the requirements to obtain a license, if you want the license then learn the code, if you don't want to put forth the effort ot learn the code then you don't want a ham license, you would probably be happier on cb." If that isn't hazing, then nothing is But then again, some of the biggest complainers, eventually became the best CW operators. |
"Dick Carroll" wrote in message ... Tha hobby is in sad shape and is being held up like Atlas holding the world by hams who have taken a code test. Er, Dick ... you over-inflated, Morse-prowess-based ego REALLY shows in the above comment. First, I don't believe that "Tha hobby is in sad shape ..." Second, if it *were* it would be largely because of the narrow-minded, backward, egotistical sort of thinking that you express above. Carl - wk3c |
|
On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 01:09:43 GMT, "Dee D. Flint"
wrote: Studying the propagation before, during, and after the contest indicated that the best results would occur on CW. If the deck was thus stacked against the SSB stations from the beginning, then the results should come as no surprise. Nevertheless, the phone stations did, in fact, still manage to make contacts. The experience of our club bore that out. Our SSB stations tried both tactics, i.e. camping on a frequency to run stations and hunting and pouncing. Productivity was quite low on SSB. It picked up the second afternoon but was not good. Our CW stations also used both tactics and produced a high number of QSOs both ways throughout the event. I operated both SSB and CW modes for our club. Despite the fact that I am NOT an experienced CW contester and that my CW ability is rather weak, even I made far more contacts on CW even though I spent much more time on SSB. Do you attribute this to band conditions or to something else? 73 DE John, KC2HMZ |
"N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , "Carl R. Stevenson" there is nothing "magical" about Morse and the insistence on using "wetware" instead of software to do the decoding is an anomaly of ham radio. And you say you're not against the use of the mode, just the test, Carl? ;-) That's correct ... I am NOT against the use of the mode. Just pointing out the fact that there are better modulation/coding techniques than OOK Morse ... that does NOT mean that I mind/care/object to others CHOOSING to use OOK Morse ... only that I am disseminating some facts that the more "hard-core" Morse enthusiasts don't like disseminated because they fly in the face of the "Morse Myths" (like "Morse will get through were nothing else will.") This "do it the hard way, rather than the smart way" approach to things that is held by so many hams leads to stagation, backwardness, etc. And you say you're not against the use of the mode, just the test, Carl? ;-) See above ... For example, EME can be done, with proper modulation and coding with much less power/antenna gain than with OOK Morse ... Have you actually DONE it, Carl? Not just a paper design - an actual station, and actual QSOs? No, I personally haven't ... yet ... I've been working on other things. But the fact that *I* haven't personally done it yet doesn't mean it's not factual. (I am not so hung up on myself that "my way" and "what I've done" are the ONLY ways that things can/should be done.) Why does it bother you if some unnamed folks don't see things your way? If you can do "better", go ahead. What "bothers me" is that some folks deny the fact that there ARE better ways than OOK Morse (apparently in an attempt to bolster their "real ham" and "everyone MUST know Morse" viewpoints) Carl - wk3c |
Radio Amateur KC2HMZ wrote:
Certainly, though, it would seem they have the capacity to learn it - but when the first thing we do is hit them with something over a hundred years old and tell them this is our lowest common denominator, I have no doubt that it causes a lot of people to think, "@#$&%^* that!" and find another hobby...perhaps they already have one. Code did slow me down a few years (from 1970 to 76) and one summer in college I did the code thing. Well, 5 WPM anyway.... Had to take a receive test and also had to send code down at the FCC field office in NYC. Got my tech (general written and 5 WPM) in 76. I was suprized, I easily passed the code but nearly failed the written (I was a double E student then). |
|
|
In article , Dick Carroll writes:
Carl: If the fact that Dick and I support the concept of retaining code proficiency testing in order to be able to possess a unique and highly effective radio communications skill is being "stupid," then I must plead guilty. Keep in mind that Mr. Gump was a war hero, a successful businessman, and a keen investor who became a multi-millionaire. I should be so "stupid!" Not to mention, it is unfortunate that some people choose to denigrate those who have a lower IQ. (you mat substitute disgusting for unfortunate if you like) Hey, there's no one around any smarter than Carl. If you don't believe it just ask him! Dick: I have no doubts regarding Carl's intelligence. That doesn't mean that he is incapable of being wrong about code testing requirements. I have great respect for Carl and will not say that lunkhead is stupid, because it just ain't so! 73 de Larry, K3LT |
"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message ... Worry not, help is on the way! When the FCC finally acts on WRC-03 and drops the code testing requirement, the ARS will suddenly be filled with eager, computer-literate, technically-inclined young newcomers to ham radio who will invent, develop, and deploy the amateur radio version of the broadband infrastructure now available to anyone who owns a cell phone, wireless PDA, or Wi-Fi equipped laptop. We will be communicating by voice, data, and image, all with no need to purchase "minutes" of air time or enter into expensive contracts with service providers. Once relieved of the requirement to learn that obsolete old Morse code, we will see, as promised for years, a technical revolution in amateur radio the likes of which nobody could have imagined in the bad old days of being tested for competence in "beeping." I can hardly wait! 73 de Larry, K3LT Well, I'm not going to hold my breath for it or place any bets on it. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , Dwight Stewart writes: Instead, both seem to be saying code is no longer a necessary radio skill since so few radio operators outside ham radio use it today. That's another argument entirely. Of course hams DO use Morse code quite a lot. It's a mystery why what is done in other radio services should count more than what hams do, when it comes to figuring out the requirements for an amateur license. This position relates to the basis and purpose of Amateur Radio (97.1a, 97.1c, and 97.1d). Opinions vary. Actually the fact that other services don't use it very much is a strong argument to require hams to learn it. This is the place to preserve the skill in case of need and to prevent this capability from becoming a lost art. Plus of course the fact that quite a few hams do use it. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ... The credo of emergency preparedness is the same as the Boy Scout's Motto "Be prepared." HAVE backup power source(s), backup equipment, and backup operators available ... have a well-thought out PLAN for a wide range of scenarios. DON'T rely on cobbling together a Morse rig from scraps and running it from a generator powered by a hamster running on a wheel. Ok show me the calculation that predicts the duration of a power outage. Then we'll all know how many generators to have and how much gasoline to stockpile. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"N2EY" wrote:
Some, but not all, nocodetest folks have claimed that the (perceived) lack of growth of the ARS is one reason to end code testing. (snip) The "nocodetest folks" didn't end the code testing requirement - the members of the ITU did and the FCC perhaps will. Again, I haven't seen growth of Amateur Radio as a significant reason for their decision. It is a constant theme. The RSGB has repeatedly cited lack of growth as a major concern of theirs, and blamed it on the code test. The RSGB is neither a governing body in the UK or a member of the ITU. While they offered an opinion, it was only one opinion in many supporting the end of code testing. That specific opinion would have no weight if CW was still a significant communications mode outside Amateur Radio (see below). Of course hams DO use Morse code quite a lot. It's a mystery why what is done in other radio services should count more than what hams do, when it comes to figuring out the requirements for an amateur license. The Amateur Radio Service was not created in a vacuum. Its stated basis and purpose extends well outside Amateur Radio. None of those (emergency service, advancement of the radio arts, advancing skills in skills and technical phases of art, a reservoir of trained operators, and international goodwill) are limited to just what happens within the Amateur Radio Service itself (we seldom provide emergency service for ourselves, for example). Therefore, what happens outside of Amateur Radio must play a significant role in what happens within Amateur Radio. CW was justified as a testing requirement because is was once necessary for a reservoir of trained operators (for the services we could provide outside Amateur Radio). That is no longer true, so the test requirement is now being reconsidered. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in part ...
Arnie: Worry not, help is on the way! When the FCC finally acts on WRC-03 and drops the code testing requirement, the ARS will suddenly be filled with eager, computer-literate, technically-inclined young newcomers to ham radio who will invent, develop, and deploy the amateur radio version of the broadband infrastructure now available to anyone who owns a cell phone, wireless PDA, or Wi-Fi equipped laptop. We will be communicating by voice, data, and image, all with no need to purchase "minutes" of air time or enter into expensive contracts with service providers... __________________________________________________ ______________________ Yep, I'm breathless with anticipation (wink) Arnie - KT4ST |
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote .
the insistence on using "wetware" instead of software to do the decoding is an anomaly of ham radio. This "do it the hard way, rather than the smart way" approach to things that is held by so many hams leads to stagation, backwardness, etc. Carl, You seem to have moved positions from "the Morse test ought to be dropped" to "operators who use Morse code are stagnant and backward". I agree with the first position, but the second position is inflamatory, divisive, and not supported by a shred of evidence. With all kind wishes, de Hans, K0HB -- Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG |
"N2EY" wrote in message
om... Radio Amateur KC2HMZ wrote in message . .. On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 11:58:29 -0500, "Kim" 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! Won't do him any good. Kim's married/taken and quite happy with her mate, thank you very much. GRIN. Yep 14 years now. Uh, well, those reasons to begin with, anyway. The really number one reason is that I'm not that desperate for a man if it means Larry Roll... ;) 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. Incorrect. They could always accept the evidence presented by an experienced CW operator. That's correct. Except that folks such as Dick and Larry have such a war going on that it's completely gotten passed them that the rest of us can still think of each other nicely--even though our thoughts about different things may vary and, yes, even though we may get really fired up on each other once in a while. You couldn't even offer the contribution that N2EY made. An excellent example, I might add. Thanks - there are more. Like the student in Grenada during the invasion/revolution (1983?) whose mike broke. For real?! What was he saying, do we know? Larry gets rather emotional over the topic, whereas Jim looks at things a bit more objectively. But then, I think you noticed that. Just "a bit more"? ;-) heh heh When you get as good as N2EY at knowing CW and examples of its tremendous cabability, get back to us, won't you? There are plenty of examples which prove the point of CW/Morse's usefulness. Whether those examples constiute "proof" of the necessity of a TEST is a matter of opinion. Well, I never challenged the point of CW/Morse's usefulness. There's no doubt about the usefulness of CW. (Larry usually either chooses to ignore, or misses it when I have good things to say about CW, though). What I'd never really heard relayed was a real-life story of the claim of CW "getting through" when nothing else would. 73 de Jim, N2EY Kim W5TIT |
"Hans K0HB" wrote in
news:8951605be0ad1dbd7f68d241525766fc.128005@mygat e.mailgate.org: "Carl R. Stevenson" wrote . the insistence on using "wetware" instead of software to do the decoding is an anomaly of ham radio. This "do it the hard way, rather than the smart way" approach to things that is held by so many hams leads to stagation, backwardness, etc. Carl, You seem to have moved positions from "the Morse test ought to be dropped" to "operators who use Morse code are stagnant and backward". I agree with the first position, but the second position is inflamatory, divisive, and not supported by a shred of evidence. With all kind wishes, de Hans, K0HB If he had said that merely Larry and dick were stagnant and backward, would that have been better? |
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
y.com... "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , Dwight Stewart writes: Instead, both seem to be saying code is no longer a necessary radio skill since so few radio operators outside ham radio use it today. That's another argument entirely. Of course hams DO use Morse code quite a lot. It's a mystery why what is done in other radio services should count more than what hams do, when it comes to figuring out the requirements for an amateur license. This position relates to the basis and purpose of Amateur Radio (97.1a, 97.1c, and 97.1d). Opinions vary. Actually the fact that other services don't use it very much is a strong argument to require hams to learn it. This is the place to preserve the skill in case of need and to prevent this capability from becoming a lost art. Plus of course the fact that quite a few hams do use it. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Well, why does it have to be a requirement that hams learn it? An analogy to your thought above could be: Doctors should have to be required to know how to use Shaman medicine in case of need and to prevent this capability from becoming a lost art. (The analogy works if one believes that alternative medicine works--and I do). But, you see what I mean, right? There are groups, societies if you will, that take up and preserve the CW mode. FISTS comes to mind. There are great guys/gals, long-licensed amateurs, who love to share the skill with others and who will teach it at only the slightest provocation. There are EmCom "chiefs" who recognize the capability of increased communication benefits when using CW. The list goes on. Get rid of CW testing. If the mode is all that it is said to be, it will stand on its own. If it doesn't stand on its own, then adapt and adjust. Kim W5TIT |
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
y.com... "Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ... The credo of emergency preparedness is the same as the Boy Scout's Motto "Be prepared." HAVE backup power source(s), backup equipment, and backup operators available ... have a well-thought out PLAN for a wide range of scenarios. DON'T rely on cobbling together a Morse rig from scraps and running it from a generator powered by a hamster running on a wheel. Ok show me the calculation that predicts the duration of a power outage. Then we'll all know how many generators to have and how much gasoline to stockpile. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Oh, goodness, just a few car batteries... Kim W5TIT |
"Hans K0HB" wrote in message news:8951605be0ad1dbd7f68d241525766fc.128005@mygat e.mailgate.org... "Carl R. Stevenson" wrote . the insistence on using "wetware" instead of software to do the decoding is an anomaly of ham radio. This "do it the hard way, rather than the smart way" approach to things that is held by so many hams leads to stagation, backwardness, etc. Carl, You seem to have moved positions from "the Morse test ought to be dropped" to "operators who use Morse code are stagnant and backward". Hans, I said "... held by so many hams ..." Clearly, there are folks who are not Morse enthusiasts who also hold to the "do it the hard way, rather than the smart way" idea ... and not all Morse enthusiasts hold to that idea. I certainly did NOT intend to imply that all, or even most, folks who like Morse are stagnant and backward ... many Morse enthusiasts do lots of other things and are progress-minded (quite a few are NCI members who have sent me e-mail saying "I like Morse a LOT, in fact it's my primary operating mode, but the test just doesn't make sense any more.") 73, Carl - wk3c |
"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ... "Dee D. Flint" wrote in message y.com... "Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ... The credo of emergency preparedness is the same as the Boy Scout's Motto "Be prepared." HAVE backup power source(s), backup equipment, and backup operators available ... have a well-thought out PLAN for a wide range of scenarios. DON'T rely on cobbling together a Morse rig from scraps and running it from a generator powered by a hamster running on a wheel. Ok show me the calculation that predicts the duration of a power outage. Then we'll all know how many generators to have and how much gasoline to stockpile. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Oh, goodness, just a few car batteries... Kim W5TIT Ok, show me the calculation that predicts the duration of the power outage so I can calculate how many car batteries to keep charged up and on hand. The principal is the same no matter what power source you choose to specify. No one can predict when, where or how long emergency power will be needed. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Dick Carroll wrote: Bill Sohl wrote: "Dick Carroll" wrote in message ... Bill Sohl wrote: You are (IMHO) clearly not up to the task of recruiting new hams by proactively advocating CW use. Just as I would have skipped learning the code if it hadn't been a licensing requirement, too. So much for your advocacy of morse to new hams. You made my point. Bill you have been quite consistant about missing the entire point. When there is no code test most hams won't learn Morse code. I know that taxes you not a bit, so that means that you don't care whether or not hams will be losing it as a viable mode. Which shows how shortsighted you are, right along with the rest of NCI. And yes, FCC too. Of course they have far bigger fish to fry than to worry about a trivial detail involving the ARS. The least time they must spend on ARS issues the better for them, whatever the end result. I don't think there is any point missed at all. I think that those who oppose the test know very well that elimination of the test will eventually eliminate use. Strange that there are many things people do which are long past relative to modern needs (archery, old cars, etc.) without any testing needed to continue interest in and to bring newcomers to the interest. IF morse dies without testing then that's a sad commentary on "how great it is" as promoted by PCTAs in this newsgroup. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
"Dick Carroll" wrote in message ... JJ wrote: Dick Carroll wrote: JJ wrote: Dick Carroll wrote: 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. Then what is your problem with the fact that some have a no-code license and possibly the code requirement will be dropped? Goodness, if code testing were not a requirement and you skipped learning the code, then you would not be a "real" ham. Evidently you skipped code or you'd have some idea what ham radio would/will be without it. NO? no surprise, coming from you. That leaves you clueless, but we already knew that. Hate to burst you bubble Dickie, but I sat in front of an FCC examiner in the Dallas office and took my code test. If that's true it would seem reasonable that you would be aware that a ham who can operate a radiotelegraph station is better qualified than one who cannot. So why aren't youi? The ONLY aspect that the ham can claim is that s/he is better qualified at CW. The other, non-CW hams may be far superior hams than the coded ham in all the other aspects of ham radio operation and technical. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
y.com... "Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ... "Dee D. Flint" wrote in message y.com... "Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ... The credo of emergency preparedness is the same as the Boy Scout's Motto "Be prepared." HAVE backup power source(s), backup equipment, and backup operators available ... have a well-thought out PLAN for a wide range of scenarios. DON'T rely on cobbling together a Morse rig from scraps and running it from a generator powered by a hamster running on a wheel. Ok show me the calculation that predicts the duration of a power outage. Then we'll all know how many generators to have and how much gasoline to stockpile. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Oh, goodness, just a few car batteries... Kim W5TIT Ok, show me the calculation that predicts the duration of the power outage so I can calculate how many car batteries to keep charged up and on hand. The principal is the same no matter what power source you choose to specify. No one can predict when, where or how long emergency power will be needed. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Oh, duh....gads, Dee, it's late! I'm sorry... I just plain believe in the philosophy of trying to be as prepared as I can--and I don't even get that far very often. Being prepared takes some measure of organization and I lack on that part. Kim W5TIT --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net Complaints to |
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
... The ONLY aspect that the ham can claim is that s/he is better qualified at CW. The other, non-CW hams may be far superior hams than the coded ham in all the other aspects of ham radio operation and technical. Cheers, Bill K2UNK And it seems to me that non-CW hams would be far superior to CW-hams, with things such as phone nets, QSOs, etc. Oh wait, I think you already said that. . . But, you know what? It doesn't even feel good feeling superior. Kim W5TIT --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net Complaints to |
Bill Sohl wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Dick Carroll wrote: Bill Sohl wrote: "Dick Carroll" wrote in message ... Bill Sohl wrote: You are (IMHO) clearly not up to the task of recruiting new hams by proactively advocating CW use. Just as I would have skipped learning the code if it hadn't been a licensing requirement, too. So much for your advocacy of morse to new hams. You made my point. Bill you have been quite consistant about missing the entire point. When there is no code test most hams won't learn Morse code. I know that taxes you not a bit, so that means that you don't care whether or not hams will be losing it as a viable mode. Which shows how shortsighted you are, right along with the rest of NCI. And yes, FCC too. Of course they have far bigger fish to fry than to worry about a trivial detail involving the ARS. The least time they must spend on ARS issues the better for them, whatever the end result. I don't think there is any point missed at all. I think that those who oppose the test know very well that elimination of the test will eventually eliminate use. Strange that there are many things people do which are long past relative to modern needs (archery, old cars, etc.) without any testing needed to continue interest in and to bring newcomers to the interest. IF morse dies without testing then that's a sad commentary on "how great it is" as promoted by PCTAs in this newsgroup. Because there is the difference between a cheerful anachronism, and what will eventually be considered a waste of bandwidth. I can keep an old car in my garage without affecting anyone.but bandwidth is another matter. But let us look at this scenario. Say 15 years from now, there will be s aizable number of hams who have never used a paddle or key. There will be new hams taking up CW, but without an incentive, like a Morse code test, that number will likely fall somehat percentage wise (it has to if the No-coders are correct in that good hams are kept off the air by the code test) So these hams look at the bandplans: "Wow! just look at 80 meters. Fully half the bandplan is dedicated to stuff other than SSB! It's unfair that they should have all that bandwidth." And a bandwidth grab begins...... Doesn't matter that there are still CW users out there. "And heck, they are always bragging about how little bandwidth they use, so only give them a minimum abount if anything." - Mike KB3EIA - |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:49 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com