Bill Sohl wrote:

Assuming your hypothetical...
IF the non-phone segment is being underused, then
the CW users will likly lose bandwidth. BUT, if the non-phone
segment is just as crowded with users, then there's
no valid argument for phone expansion. The burden
will be on the users of non-phone modes.


And right there you have it!

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Dan/W4NTI" wrote:

"Dwight Stewart" wrote

Kim, I don't know what is going on with your newsgroup
messages. (snip)

I had my witches coven put a curse on her.


Something has sure happened. After I posted that message, I ran into three
or four other messages posted by Kim that resulted in the same error message
(all posted after the message I replied to). Very odd.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Kim W5TIT" wrote:

"Dwight Stewart" wrote

Kim, I don't know what is going on with
your newsgroup messages. (snip)


There, how's that? :)


Well, I was able to read it. However, it has only been a little over an
hour since you posted it. I'm going to mark the message as unread and try it
again tomorrow to see if it is still on the server. I'll let you know what
happens.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

In article , Jack Hamilton
writes:


(Len Over 21) wrote:

In article ,

(Larry Roll K3LT) writes:

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

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

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

Hasn't that been disproved?

It hasn't been disproved to me, but then again, I have a lot of experience
using BOTH Morse/CW and a variety of digital modes, so I have seen for
myself that the saying "Morse gets through when everything else fails"
is apparently true. I have had many operating sessions when PSK-31
signals became useless, while I was still able to communicate in CW.
In fact, a lot of times, I've been able to identify PSK-31 signals only when
the CW ID came on after the station stopped sending! However, anyone
with an Anti-Morse/CW agenda will not be convinced of that.

73 de Larry, K3LT

In article , Radio Amateur KC2HMZ
writes:

"Radio Amateur KC2HMZ" wrote in message
. ..

Kim - excellent post, I'm impressed.


I'd rather you not be impressed, but thanks!

You're entirely welcome. To explain my comment...so much of your
participation in this NG seems to be wasted on sniping at Larry and
Dick, that I was pleasantly surprised to read that particular post, in
which you made a number of good points about emergency communications,
even if you couldn't resist the occasional shot at the aforementioned
two targets of opportunity. ;-)

You know what, John? Kim's posts would be a whole lot better if she
could resist the temptation to "take shots" at "targets of opportunity."
And, with all due respect, so could yours.

73 de Larry, K3LT

In article , "Kim W5TIT"
writes:

Kim:

All I can say is, I'm not suprised by your typically ungracious remark.
Apparently my effort was in vain, but that's my fault -- I should have
known better!

73 de Larry, K3LT


Would you like me to post some examples of where you have not kept your
posts related to ham radio? Actually, you can look it up yourself.

Kim W5TIT

Kim:

I know what I've posted, both in the past and in the present. I have
repeatedly posted replies to your own posts in which I have attempted to
deal with you as an equal, as an adult. I have most recently attempted
to stifle a disrespectful remark made at your expense, and you have
seen fit to react to it in an ungracious and disparaging manner. You
obviously have no intention of ever emerging from your inane, childish,
immature mode of thought, and continue to persist in personal attacks
against those of us who are best able to challenge you, since you know
you aren't up to the task of debating us on our level.

Ordinarily, I would ask you to reflect on this and consider a reply, but
I have been repeatedly shown that that is too much to ask of you. I have
tried to treat you with respect, but if I do not receive equal consideration,
all that will happen is that you will continue to make a fool of yourself,
and I will continue to be the one pointing to the errors of your ways.

73 de Larry, K3LT

How many New Age No-Code Extras do you think you can "sell" on the
concept of learning the Morse code, just on the basis of it's operational
characteristics or the fact that it's "fun" to do?

(major snippage)

Larry:

"Fun" is merely a perspective.... other people find, for example, football
fun. Personally I can't stand football. As far as morse code as a skill,
that is a different debate. Fun is merely in the eye of the beholder.


--
Ryan, KC8PMX
FF1-FF2-MFR-(pending NREMT-B!)
--. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-.
... --. .... - . .-. ...

I would have to agree with that statement in its basic form.

I would also add and feel pretty safe in saying that some of those people
that were required to learn the code, some may have learned it as a
requirement for the license set forth and might care for it, and some might
have turned out loving it like yourself.



--
Ryan, KC8PMX
FF1-FF2-MFR-(pending NREMT-B!)
--. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-.
... --. .... - . .-. ...

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

73 de Larry, K3LT

Now let's look at that phrase "pool of trained radio operators" Dee. The
vagueness of that can create some issues, such as what type of training???

Being able to handle message traffic, would be an extremely important detail
in training IMHO. How many people can formulate a formal messagegram??
Even though I am one of those low-life codefree techs, I still can.



--
Ryan, KC8PMX
FF1-FF2-MFR-(pending NREMT-B!)
--. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-.
... --. .... - . .-. ...
Except that ham radio is not mission critical for most of us. If
conditions are poor on HF SSB, I can just QSY to a repeater, or read a
book or watch TV, for that matter.

One reason that we are able to justify ourselves to the government is that
part of our mission as hams is to be a "pool of trained radio operators."
So since I want ham radio to continue to be allowed, I consider it mission
critical to be familiar with the various modes whether or not I like them.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Well, a generator with at least 20-30 gallons of gas would be a good start.
Storage of that much gas may be a different issue though. I wonder if there
are any generators for the general residential public out there that could
run on propane?? One could use one of those 500 gallon "pigs" and have that
last a loooonnnnggggg time.

A different direction could also be using, like mentioned below, car/truck
power! I have dual batteries in my pickup truck and a hi-amp alternator,
and have (2) 750+ watt DC-AC inverters mounted under the hood. As long as
the truck can idle on a full gas tank, I have quite a bit of both DC and AC
power from that vehicle.



--
Ryan, KC8PMX
FF1-FF2-MFR-(pending NREMT-B!)
--. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-.
... --. .... - . .-. ...
Well, how about a car battery installed in a car, which, with several
gallons of gas in the tank,
running to keep the battery charged. One could accept donations of more
gas siponed from
other volunteer cars if necessary..... The car could act as the shack
if the weather's lousy.

Only if morse code is "so valuable" as some claim it to be here, then it
should be a problem eh? If it is so damned valuable, all radio services
should have to learn it.

(And believe it or not, it happens alot more often than 1 in 10,000,000.)



--
Ryan, KC8PMX
FF1-FF2-MFR-(pending NREMT-B!)
--. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-.
... --. .... - . .-. ...
So you recommend that all firefighters and policemen be required
to learn code for that one in 10 million incidences where this
might happen?

Radio Amateur KC2HMZ wrote in message . ..
On 14 Jul 2003 07:33:25 GMT, ospam (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.

I think it's worth mentioning here that the solar flares that cause
the geomagnetic storms that degrade HF propagation also trigger a
significant increase in auroral activity in the higher latitudes. This
provides an opportunity for ops on six meters. I've observed the
phenomenon before. Your're in New York. You point your beam north and
you start hearing somebody in Florida. You figure you're hearing him
off the back of the beam and turn it south to bring up the signal,
only to have it disappear.

Much of this activity happens on CW. Voice signals get distorted a lot
due to the effects of all the ionization in the aurora itself.

73 DE John, KC2HMZ

John, though 6M is worth mentioning, it isn't HF and these guys don't
care. Its all about using fast CW on HF (to them). Brian

Radio Amateur KC2HMZ wrote in message . ..
On 14 Jul 2003 12:28:05 GMT, Alun Palmer wrote:

Did they never hear of the saying 'you'll catch more files with honey than
with vinegar' ?

Bingo.

73 DE John, KC2HMZ

DICK probably emulates a different fly bait. I've seen piles of dung
being buzzed by flies. Lots of flies.

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
In article , "Dan/W4NTI"
writes:

If BPL is fired up you have no HF SPECTRUM.

Particularly if you're strictly a phone operator. Those of us who are
code-proficient will most likely be able to keep communicating
in CW with our 250 Hz notch filters engaged!

Larry, why do you believe that a *notch* filter at 250 Hz will help
to deal with wideband noise?

Carl - wk3c.

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Bill Sohl wrote:

Assuming your hypothetical...
IF the non-phone segment is being underused, then
the CW users will likly lose bandwidth. BUT, if the non-phone
segment is just as crowded with users, then there's
no valid argument for phone expansion. The burden
will be on the users of non-phone modes.


And right there you have it!

- Mike KB3EIA -


Mike,

Don't read Bill's comments above as "NCI Policy" or "NCI Goals/Agenda" ...
that's
simply not the case.

Bill's just stating the obvious. (And since what CW fans refer to as "the
CW
bands" are actually the "non-SSB/phone, CW/narrowband digital modes bands,"
the occupancy thereof that Bill refers to need not be solely CW users, but
users
of other digital modes as well.

Collectively, they (CW and digital users) need to "use it or lose it" in a
long-term,
practical sense (even ARRL says "use it or lose it" ... see Dave Sumner's
recent
column on the new channels near 5 MHz). That, I am sure, is what Bill meant
when he said "The burden will be on the users of non-phone modes."

HOWEVER, phone band expansion is NOT an NCI agenda ... the ARRL has,
though, asked the FCC in the past to expand the phone bands by "refarming"
the Novice bands ... and, if the FCC were to see that roughly half of our HF
bands were grossly underutilized, they might, of their own volition, decide
to
do some "refarming" in the form of phone band expansion.

As I have said over and over, I would NOT favor/support phone band expansion
at the expense of the CW/digital portions of the bands.

Carl - wk3c

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in
:


"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Bill Sohl wrote:

Assuming your hypothetical...
IF the non-phone segment is being underused, then
the CW users will likly lose bandwidth. BUT, if the non-phone
segment is just as crowded with users, then there's
no valid argument for phone expansion. The burden will be on the
users of non-phone modes.


And right there you have it!

- Mike KB3EIA -


Mike,

Don't read Bill's comments above as "NCI Policy" or "NCI Goals/Agenda"
... that's
simply not the case.

Bill's just stating the obvious. (And since what CW fans refer to as
"the CW
bands" are actually the "non-SSB/phone, CW/narrowband digital modes
bands," the occupancy thereof that Bill refers to need not be solely
CW users, but users
of other digital modes as well.

Collectively, they (CW and digital users) need to "use it or lose it"
in a long-term,
practical sense (even ARRL says "use it or lose it" ... see Dave
Sumner's recent
column on the new channels near 5 MHz). That, I am sure, is what Bill
meant when he said "The burden will be on the users of non-phone
modes."

HOWEVER, phone band expansion is NOT an NCI agenda ... the ARRL has,
though, asked the FCC in the past to expand the phone bands by
"refarming" the Novice bands ... and, if the FCC were to see that
roughly half of our HF bands were grossly underutilized, they might, of
their own volition, decide to
do some "refarming" in the form of phone band expansion.

As I have said over and over, I would NOT favor/support phone band
expansion at the expense of the CW/digital portions of the bands.

Carl - wk3c


I would, though, but I have no connection with NCI

Bringing the phone subbands in line with other countries in Region 2 would
be sufficient

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...
"Dan/W4NTI" wrote in message
...

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

(snip)


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

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


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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


I had my witches coven put a curse on her.

Dan/W4NTI



That would be witch's...

Kim W5TIT



Not so in Alabama....we talk with a slur and a drawl. Something you Texans
can't quite get...you know with all that blue coat activity during the war
for Southern independence...hi.

Dan/W4NTI

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

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

That's correct... I am NOT against the use of the mode.

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

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

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

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

Does that satisfy you?

Not really. How about this:

"There exist some 'digital' modes other than OOK Morse which
outperform OOK Morse in various performance measures such as (but not
limited to) weak signal performance, data throughput, robustness in
the face of certain channel impairments, and lack of decoding error,
though not necessarily all at the same time. OOK Morse will outperform
all other 'digital' modes now in use in equipment simplicity and
adaptability to human operator encoding and decoding by non-visual
means. OOK Morse will also outperform some other 'digital' modes in
various performance measures such as (but not limited to) weak signal
performance, data throughput, robustness in the face of certain
channel impairments, and operator-detected data errors."

IOW, it all depends on what criteria you use for "better". Morse is
better for some things, while other 'digital' modes are better for
other things. Or perhaps we should say that Morse is better in some
way, while other 'digital' modes are better in other ways.

For example, look at PSK-31. Uses very little bandwidth, has some
error detection/correction, very good weak-signal performance in the
face of Gaussian noise. OTOH, it requires a very stable transmitter
and receiver, and is usually implemented by means of a
soundcard-equipped PC, greatly increasing equipment power consumption
and complexity. PSK-31 is also susceptible to phase distortion and
noise, both in the equipment and the transmission channel. (This is
one reason why it is sometimes possible to 'hear' a PSK-31 signal but
the decoder cannot decode the received signal).

Other 'digital' modes have their own strengths and weaknesses.

that does NOT mean that I mind/care/object to others CHOOSING
to use OOK Morse ...

Yet you wrote:

"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."

There is nothing "magical" about Morse ...

Sure there is - it's fun for hundreds of thousands of hams all over
the world. But of course that fact alone is no reason to have test for
it.

You're missing some of the main motivations of most radio amateurs,
Carl - they see radio as fun, as an end in itself, as "magic". That
"magic" is not limited to Morse code, of course. But take away the
"magic" and you take away the motivation for most hams.

Maybe "There is nothing "magical" about Morse" for YOU, but for
others, there is.

with the exception of the
(mis)use of the term "magical" in the nostalgia sense. (That doesn't
mean it's "bad" ... just that it has no magical, mystical properties ...
nor does any other mode, for that matter, it's just a matter of physics.)

You're missing the motivational forest for the reductionist trees,
Carl.

Consider an analogy - why do people bother to learn how to play
musical instruments anymore, and pay serious sums of money for
instruments and lessons, when almost any music and instrument can be
synthesized much more easily? Why do orchestras still exist, and why
do people go to concerts, when so many excellent recordings exist,
more are being produced every day, sound reproduction quality is
excellent and the whole thing can be synthesized by feeding the sheet
music into a computer anyway?

The answer is simple - people want to experience the "magic" of live
perfomance by human beings.

Or consider this: Why are there so many different type fonts? It's
understandable that there be different sizes of type in, say, a
newspaper, but why does ever wordprocessor allow such a wide range of
choices of what the letters and numbers look like? Does the meaning of
a word change if it's printed in Arial Bold instead of Times New
Roman?

and

"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."

I maintain that the statement is true.

It's your opinion, nothing more. Is the marathon "stagnated and
backward" because it's done "the hard way"? After all, it would be so
much easier on roller skates. How about swimming - why won't they
allow the use of flippers in swimming competitions?

If you say those things aren't "technical", just look at Indy-car
racing. All sorts of limitations on what can be entered into
competition on that circuit.

Note I said "so many hams" ... not ALL hams.

I did. "so many hams" implies that there are a lot of them.

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.")

There you go again. I'm about as hard-core a Morse enthusiast as you
will ever come across, yet have you ever seen me write "Morse will get
through were nothing else will" ? I don't think so.

I know you're a hard-core Morse enthusiast, but you're not as narrow-minded
about it as SOME (I did limit the comment to SOME) ... and I don't see you
as having a "religious zeal" or "I'm superior" attitude ... to your credit.

Then I'm a living disproof of your statement.

Yes. When you describe someone's choise of mode as "the hard way" and
"ridiculous!!!!!", it becomes difficult to accept that you don't
"mind/care/object to others CHOOSING to use OOK Morse ..."

Take me at my word ... I was talking about fanatical attitudes, not the
norm.

Who defines what is 'fanatical'? Many would say that the insistence on
total removal of code testing is 'fanatical', given the extremely
basic nature of Element 1 and the many training methods now available.

And the fact is that you were ridiculing others' choice of mode for a
particular use, while not being able to demonstrate a 'better' way.

[more on EME when I have something to report ... this summer is
intended for some serious antenna work ... winter should bring some
progress on other projects that work demands have kept me from
longer than I had hoped]

OK, fine. Let us know when you have something working. Please note
that the challenge is to develop a system that is easy and inexpensive
for most hams to implement. For example, it should not take 'serious
antenna work' for such a system. A single Yagi or small dish on a
polar mount with an inexpensive rotator/indicator is what's needed,
with all parts readily available. Just a suggestion if you want the
system to ever be widely accepted.

(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.)

Sure you are, Carl. For example, you insist that the only correct way
for the future of amateur radio is without any form of code testing,
regardless of what the majority wants. That's insisting on "your way".

1) I believe I am right. YMMV

But you INSIST on your way (no code test of any kind for any amateur
license anywhere) as the only way.

2) I am not at all convinced that "the majority wants" something other
than what I am advocating.

Look at the comments to 98-143. The MAJORITY of those who bothered to
comment wanted two or more code test speeds, and no "sunset clause".
That is very, very different from what you advocate.

There hasn't been an effective poll or survey of what the amateur
community wants in the code-test area in many, many years. So nobody
really knows. But when it mattered, the majority of those who
expressed an opinion disagreed with you.

I think FCC knows this and will bypass any NPRM, NOI or other
rulemaking method that allows public commentary, and will simply dump
Element 1 by MO&O as soon as they can do so legally. One little
sentence, something like 'Credit for Element 1 is hereby granted to
all applicants for and holders of an amateur radio license of any
class'. Poof, bye bye code test, game over, thank you for playing.

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)

That's because your statement is too general. You don't define what
you mean by "better" in any way. And you don't seem to accept that
Morse is better in some ways, while other modes are better in other
ways.

I've attempted to define "better" better above :-)

Your new definition is somewhat better but still far too general. And
you still don't mention the fact that Morse is better in some ways,
while other modes are better in other ways.

Good luck with the EME system.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Ryan, KC8PMX" wrote in message
...
Now let's look at that phrase "pool of trained radio operators" Dee. The
vagueness of that can create some issues, such as what type of training???

To clarify any "vagueness" that may exist in some folks' minds ...

******
From the FCC's Report and Order in WT Docket No. 98-143:

(at para. 30)
"We are persuaded that because the amateur service is fundamentally a
technical service,
the emphasis on Morse code proficiency as a licensing requirement does not
comport with
the basis and purpose of the service. We note, moreover, that the design of
modern
communications systems, including personal communication services,
satellite, fiber optic,
and high definition television systems, are based on digital communication
technologies.
We also note that no communication system has been designed in many years
that depends
on hand-keyed telegraphy or the ability to receive messages in Morse code by
ear. In
contrast, modern communication systems are designed to be automated systems.
Given the
changes that have occurred in communications in the last fifty years, we
believe that reducing
the emphasis on telegraphy proficiency as a licensing requirement will allow
the amateur service
to, as it has in the past, attract technically inclined persons,
particularly the youth of our country,
and encourage them to learn and to prepare themselves in the areas where the
United States
needs expertise."

(and at para. 31)
"
We also find unconvincing the argument that telegraphy proficiency is one
way to keep amateur

radio operators ready to be of service in an emergency. In this regard, we
note that most

emergency communication today is performed using either voice, data, or
video modes. We

also note that most amateur radio operators who choose to provide emergency
communication

do so, according to the amateur radio press, using voice or digital modes of
communication, in

part, because information can be exchanged much faster using these other
modes of

communication. Further, we note that in traditional emergency services,
such as police, fire,

and rescue, there is no requirement that emergency service personnel hold
amateur radio licenses

or any other license that requires telegraphy proficiency. We conclude,
therefore, that telegraphy

proficiency is not a significant factor in determining an individual's
ability to provide or be prepared

to provide emergency communications."

******

So, you can see, in the FCC's own words, in their view, the "trained pool of
operators"
thing has essentially nothing to do with Morse, but, rather, with technical
and operating
skills in the modes that are PREDOMINANTLY used in comtemporary emergency
communications.

Being able to handle message traffic, would be an extremely important
detail
in training IMHO.

Much message traffic is handled via voice or digital modes ... those that
still
pass NTS traffic (or emergency traffic, for that matter) in CW almost
invariably
do so as a matter of personal preference, NOT out of necessity.

How many people can formulate a formal messagegram??
Even though I am one of those low-life codefree techs, I still can.

So can I ... but I have found that in real-world emergency communications
there is little demand for formal radiograms ...

Carl - wk3c

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

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

That's correct... I am NOT against the use of the mode.

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

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

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

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

Does that satisfy you?

Not really. How about this:

"There exist some 'digital' modes other than OOK Morse which
outperform OOK Morse in various performance measures such as (but not
limited to) weak signal performance, data throughput, robustness in
the face of certain channel impairments, and lack of decoding error,
though not necessarily all at the same time.

For some digital modes, I would leave out the "though not necessarily all at
the same time" qualifier.

OOK Morse will outperform
all other 'digital' modes now in use in equipment simplicity

So what? Equipment simplicity is a non-starter ... with today's
level of integration, with gates so cheap, there is NO logical
reason to insist that a 1 transistor TX is "better" than a TX with
an IC or several ICs in it ... and the TX is invariably simpler than
the RX ... the RX for FSK, for example can be as simple as
one for OOK CW (maybe simpler).

and
adaptability to human operator encoding and decoding by non-visual
means.

Again, so what? The "human error factor" is, I am quite sure
larger than the probability of a well-coded digital signal being
decoded in error ... and many FEC schemes will "flag" a
decoding error if the coding can't correct it ...

To me, this goes PURELY to the "I like to do it myself." personal
preference for Morse ... I don't deny anyone's right to choose that
preference, but I simply don't see it as bolstering some sort of
"advantage" for Morse.

OOK Morse will also outperform some other 'digital' modes in
various performance measures such as (but not limited to) weak signal
performance, data throughput, robustness in the face of certain
channel impairments,

Which ones will it outperform? As has been elaborated, even simple
BFSK, at the same information transfer rates, has about a 9 dB weak
signal advantage over OOK Morse (technical fact based in the math
and physics of modulation theory ...) Additionally, as I have pointed
out, at the same data rate as, say a 13-20 wpm Morse signal, a human
operator could learn to decode the FSK tone shifts by ear (some have
reportedly done it, but I don't have references to examples).

and operator-detected data errors."

I'll put my money on a good FEC system over a human operator
in bad signal conditions any day ... I've seen HF modems that were
so robust you could unhook the antenna cable for 20-30 seconds
and the system would not drop a single character ... that's how much
coding and interleaving was being employed. And, again, with today's
level of integration, such a device takes an IC or two ... what's the
big deal about that?

IOW, it all depends on what criteria you use for "better". Morse is
better for some things, while other 'digital' modes are better for
other things. Or perhaps we should say that Morse is better in some
way, while other 'digital' modes are better in other ways.

For example, look at PSK-31. Uses very little bandwidth, has some
error detection/correction, very good weak-signal performance in the
face of Gaussian noise. OTOH, it requires a very stable transmitter
and receiver, and is usually implemented by means of a
soundcard-equipped PC, greatly increasing equipment power consumption
and complexity.

Again, I don't buy the arguments about "complexity" ... because of the
low cost of high integration and the inherent reliablilty of such gear.
Power consumption is something that one plans for in one's emergency
preparedness planning ... all of my gear runs from 12VDC and I have
substantial batteries (and the means to charge them for a LONG time
without mains power). I plan to install a propane powered generator
here at the house as well, eventually. With the 1000 gallon propane
tank, and two vehicles as well, I figure I could keep my station batteries,
the notebook computers, etc. charged for months.

PSK-31 is also susceptible to phase distortion and
noise, both in the equipment and the transmission channel. (This is
one reason why it is sometimes possible to 'hear' a PSK-31 signal but
the decoder cannot decode the received signal).

PSK-31 has some interesting attributes, but, with all due respect to its
inventor, it is certainly not the "be all and end all" of digital
communications.
(nor do I belive the inventor ever intended it to be ...)

Other 'digital' modes have their own strengths and weaknesses.

that does NOT mean that I mind/care/object to others CHOOSING
to use OOK Morse ...

Yet you wrote:

"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."

There is nothing "magical" about Morse ...

Sure there is - it's fun for hundreds of thousands of hams all over
the world. But of course that fact alone is no reason to have test for
it.

You're using "magical" like Disneyworld uses it ... as a way of saying
that something is entertaining, fun, and has its own "draw" for some
people.

I'm talking about "magical" in the sense of "having special powers to
do things beyond the ordinary." There is nothing "magical" about Morse
in that sense.

You're missing some of the main motivations of most radio amateurs,
Carl - they see radio as fun, as an end in itself, as "magic". That
"magic" is not limited to Morse code, of course. But take away the
"magic" and you take away the motivation for most hams.

Maybe "There is nothing "magical" about Morse" for YOU, but for
others, there is.

See above ...

with the exception of the
(mis)use of the term "magical" in the nostalgia sense. (That doesn't
mean it's "bad" ... just that it has no magical, mystical properties ...
nor does any other mode, for that matter, it's just a matter of
physics.)

You're missing the motivational forest for the reductionist trees,
Carl.

No, I'm being REALISTIC that there is nothing magical (in the
practical sense) about Morse. (That STILL doesn't mean that
I have any desire to eliminate its use ... I DON'T. I just want
it to be viewed for what it really is ... one mode, whose value
is primarily entertainment/nostalgia and which doesn't deserve
a separate pass/fail test that keeps one from getting an HF license.

[snipped repetitive argments about what constitutes "magic"
and what doesn't]

[more on EME when I have something to report ... this summer is
intended for some serious antenna work ... winter should bring some
progress on other projects that work demands have kept me from
longer than I had hoped]

OK, fine. Let us know when you have something working. Please note
that the challenge is to develop a system that is easy and inexpensive
for most hams to implement. For example, it should not take 'serious
antenna work' for such a system. A single Yagi or small dish on a
polar mount with an inexpensive rotator/indicator is what's needed,
with all parts readily available. Just a suggestion if you want the
system to ever be widely accepted.

I believe that I have a good grasp of what would be required for
an EME system to gain widespread use ... when I spoke of serious
antenna work above, I was talking about the task of installing at
least one (and preferably two) tower(s) and multiple antenna systems
before winter precludes further work (this is going to be hard, based
on my work travel committments, but I'm REALLY going to work
hard on getting at least one tower and associated antennas up.

(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.)

Sure you are, Carl. For example, you insist that the only correct way
for the future of amateur radio is without any form of code testing,
regardless of what the majority wants. That's insisting on "your way".

1) I believe I am right. YMMV

But you INSIST on your way (no code test of any kind for any amateur
license anywhere) as the only way.

2) I am not at all convinced that "the majority wants" something other
than what I am advocating.

Look at the comments to 98-143. The MAJORITY of those who bothered to
comment wanted two or more code test speeds, and no "sunset clause".
That is very, very different from what you advocate.

There hasn't been an effective poll or survey of what the amateur
community wants in the code-test area in many, many years. So nobody
really knows. But when it mattered, the majority of those who
expressed an opinion disagreed with you.

The call was pretty close ... and I am confident that with the
continuing influx of no-code techs and the large number of
folks who have been able to upgrade without jumping through
the unnecessary 13/20 wpm code "hoop," that the tide has
inevitably swung well in the direction that I advocate.
(But, as I and others have previously said, the decision should
NOT be based on a popularity contest in the community of
incumbents, but should, rather, be based on the sound judgement
of the FCC as to what's regulatorily necessary and good for the
future of ham radio.)

Carl - wk3c

"Radio Amateur KC2HMZ" wrote in message
...
On 14 Jul 2003 07:33:28 GMT, ospam (Larry Roll K3LT)
wrote:

[snip] Lemme try again: At one point in history, humanity's most
learned scholars had it proven to their satisfaction that the Earth
was the center of the universe. That is, until Copernicus came along.

73 DE John, KC2HMZ


Copernicus still thought the earth was the center of the universe and he
came up with an elaborate mathematical system to explain the apparent motion
of the planets in the sky including the "retrograde" motion.

It was Galileo who showed that the earth was not the center when he spotted
the moons of Jupiter and determined that they orbited that body and not the
Earth.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

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

(But, as I and others have previously said, the decision should
NOT be based on a popularity contest in the community of
incumbents, but should, rather, be based on the sound judgement
of the FCC as to what's regulatorily necessary and good for the
future of ham radio.)



The FCC is not all that qualified to judge what is good for the future of
ham radio. Many of the staff are not involved in ham radio. They are a
government body whose purpose is to regulate the various radio services so
that they can coexist. There purpose is not to maintain ham radio or decide
what is good for it.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Kim W5TIT" wrote ....

Arnie, Arnie, Arnie....no I don't make the presumption at all. I was being
sarcastic with my post... Uh, see the last line?
__________________________________________________ _________________________

Ohhhh. sarcasm -- I get it now. :-))

Arnie -

"N2EY" wrote in message
om...
Nope. I've worked AC6XG at least twice, both times on CW. Once was on
Field Day (20 CW) and the other on the rrap net on 7037 kHz.

The rrap net on 7030 kHz???

Is that where you PCTAs send "secret messages," safe from the
prying eyes/ears of the no-coders??? :-)

Sheesh ...

Carl - wk3c

In article , Dwight Stewart
writes:

"Dan/W4NTI" wrote:

"Dwight Stewart" wrote

Kim, I don't know what is going on with your newsgroup
messages. (snip)

I had my witches coven put a curse on her.

Something has sure happened. After I posted that message, I ran into three
or four other messages posted by Kim that resulted in the same error message
(all posted after the message I replied to). Very odd.

Dwight, you need to upgrade your computer's AntiCurse software. :-)

I got mine through the Hogwart's on-line store. University rates, too!

LHA

In article , Jack Hamilton
writes:

(Len Over 21) wrote:

In article ,

(Larry Roll K3LT) writes:

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

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

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

Hasn't that been disproved?

Ahem...read Brian Burke's quotation again, please... :-)

LHA

In article ,
(Brian) writes:

(Len Over 21) wrote in message
...
In article , Dick Carroll
writes:

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

Too bad Ayn Rand didn't write about ham radio...shrug... :-)

LHA

She wrote about railroads, and by extension, telegraphy.

One of Ayn Rand's novels is titled "Atlas Shrugged." Shrug. :-)

LHA

Brian wrote:

Radio Amateur KC2HMZ wrote in message

...provides an opportunity for ops on six meters. I've observed the
phenomenon before. Your're in New York. You point your beam north and
you start hearing somebody in Florida. You figure you're hearing him
off the back of the beam and turn it south to bring up the signal,
only to have it disappear.

Much of this activity happens on CW. Voice signals get distorted a lot
due to the effects of all the ionization in the aurora itself.

John, though 6M is worth mentioning, it isn't HF and these guys don't
care. Its all about using fast CW on HF (to them). Brian

How do you manage to be wrong so often, Brian? I worked about forty
Europeans on 6m this past week. About half of those QSOs were made on
CW. About half of the CW QSOs were made using relatively slow speeds.
Those contacts were not made using Aurora. Had they been, all of the
QSOs would have been made using slow CW.

So far, the only people here claiming that "it" (whatever "it" is) all
about using fast CW on Hf are you and Len. Len isn't a ham. What's
your excuse?

Dave K8MN

X-A-Notice: References line has been trimmed due to 512 byte limitationAbuse-Reports-To: abuse at airmail.net to report improper postings
NNTP-Proxy-Relay: library1-aux.airnews.net
NNTP-Posting-Time: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 21:45:17 -0500 (CDT)
NNTP-Posting-Host: !WoSO1k-XS!m/JM1a"N_ (Encoded at Airnews!)
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165

"Arnie Macy" wrote in message
...
"Kim W5TIT" wrote ....

Arnie, Arnie, Arnie....no I don't make the presumption at all. I was
being
sarcastic with my post... Uh, see the last line?

__________________________________________________ _________________________

Ohhhh. sarcasm -- I get it now. :-))

Arnie -




Whew...thank goodness... :)

Kim W5TIT

"Dan/W4NTI" wrote in message
...

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...
"Dan/W4NTI" wrote in message
...

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

(snip)


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

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


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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


I had my witches coven put a curse on her.

Dan/W4NTI



That would be witch's...

Kim W5TIT



Not so in Alabama....we talk with a slur and a drawl. Something you
Texans
can't quite get...you know with all that blue coat activity during the war
for Southern independence...hi.

Dan/W4NTI



Have no idea. I'm not a Texan.

Kim W5TIT

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
In article , "Kim W5TIT"

writes:

Kim:

All I can say is, I'm not suprised by your typically ungracious remark.
Apparently my effort was in vain, but that's my fault -- I should have
known better!

73 de Larry, K3LT


Would you like me to post some examples of where you have not kept your
posts related to ham radio? Actually, you can look it up yourself.

Kim W5TIT

Kim:

I know what I've posted, both in the past and in the present. I have
repeatedly posted replies to your own posts in which I have attempted to
deal with you as an equal, as an adult. I have most recently attempted
to stifle a disrespectful remark made at your expense, and you have
seen fit to react to it in an ungracious and disparaging manner. You
obviously have no intention of ever emerging from your inane, childish,
immature mode of thought, and continue to persist in personal attacks
against those of us who are best able to challenge you, since you know
you aren't up to the task of debating us on our level.

Ordinarily, I would ask you to reflect on this and consider a reply, but
I have been repeatedly shown that that is too much to ask of you. I have
tried to treat you with respect, but if I do not receive equal
consideration,
all that will happen is that you will continue to make a fool of yourself,
and I will continue to be the one pointing to the errors of your ways.

73 de Larry, K3LT


Well, ya know what, Larry? You have a good time. You must like wasting it.

Kim W5TIT

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

"Dwight Stewart" wrote

Kim, I don't know what is going on with
your newsgroup messages. (snip)


There, how's that? :)


Well, I was able to read it. However, it has only been a little over an
hour since you posted it. I'm going to mark the message as unread and try
it
again tomorrow to see if it is still on the server. I'll let you know what
happens.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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


Alrighty then... :)

Kim W5TIT

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
y.com...

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

(But, as I and others have previously said, the decision should
NOT be based on a popularity contest in the community of
incumbents, but should, rather, be based on the sound judgement
of the FCC as to what's regulatorily necessary and good for the
future of ham radio.)

The FCC is not all that qualified to judge what is good for the future of
ham radio.

Then who is?

The reality, however, is that the FCC is the determining body.

Many of the staff are not involved in ham radio. They are a
government body whose purpose is to regulate the various radio services so
that they can coexist.

That's only part of their purpose.

There purpose is not to maintain ham radio or decide
what is good for it.

I would argue that these are also part of FCC goals
for ham radio or any other service.

Again, bottom line...FCC does the deciding.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK


Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Alun Palmer wrote in message . ..

Bringing the phone subbands in line with other countries in Region 2 would
be sufficient

Can't we all just get along?

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
y.com...

"Ryan, KC8PMX" wrote in message
...

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...

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

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

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

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


That is true Dee, if even half of the licensees out there operated a little
more often, the bands would be busier. HF seems to be holding it's own for
the most part as far as usage. 2 meter and somewhat in the 70cm bands usage
is fair but could be better. 6 meters is considered a "throw-away" band, as
people seem to think it is only good during a band opening. I personally
have had some excellent local, or better put "within state" contacts when
the band otherwise appeared dead.
220Mhz, 902Mhz, and 1.2Ghz bands are desolate, at least around here. I
wouldn't be surprised if we lost the 220 and 902 bands.



--
Ryan, KC8PMX
FF1-FF2-MFR-(pending NREMT-B!)
--. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-.
... --. .... - . .-. ...

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
y.com...

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

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
y.com...

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

(But, as I and others have previously said, the decision should
NOT be based on a popularity contest in the community of
incumbents, but should, rather, be based on the sound judgement
of the FCC as to what's regulatorily necessary and good for the
future of ham radio.)

The FCC is not all that qualified to judge what is good for the future
of
ham radio.

The FCC is the expert agency on radiocommuncations matters.

They are the expert agency on regulating the radiocommunications matters.
It is not their function to be an expert on what is good for a service.
They accept input from all radio services and balance them. Afterall what
is good for say commericial radio might be detrimental towards ham radio
and
vice versa.

In which case they balance the good of both services based
on the needs of the situation.


Many of the staff are not involved in ham radio.

Many of the staff, including at least some of those in WTB who
administer Part 97, are long-time Extras (some even operate Morse
as their primary, preferred mode ... but they seem to be smart enough
to realize that jamming it down everyone's throats isn't good for the
future
of ham radio)


Their reasons for wanting to drop it may have nothing to do with the good
of
the future of ham radio. While they have stated that they see no reason
to
keep it, they did not say that dropping it would be good for ham radio.

Nor did anyone filing comments provide even ONE
argument that rationally suggested dropping code
would be detriminental to ham radio.

They are a
government body whose purpose is to regulate the various radio
services
so that they can coexist.

That is a simple statement of fact.

There purpose is not to maintain ham radio or decide what is good for
it.

"There" (try "their") purpose is to administer ham radio in accordance
with
some fundmental principles about what the basis and purpose of the
amateur
radio service exists for ... see Part 97.1 of the FCC's rules and
Article
25
(newly revised, effective July 05, 2003) of the ITU Radio Regulations.


Sometimes my typing gets ahead of my thoughts. I seldom make such errors
as
you should know by reading my posts and thus there is no reason for you to
point it out other than to divert attention from the main topic of
discussion.

As stated their purpose is to ADMINISTER ham radio, not necessarily to
encourage its growth.

That is your opinion, not fact.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
In article , "Dan/W4NTI"
writes:

Anyone who thinks that BPL will be stopped in favor of amateur radio
is due for a rude awakening -- probably in the form of a very loud
buzzing noise on his favorite SSB net frequency!
73 de Larry, K3LT


Quite true, and even if the amateur radio public unanimously collectively
chipped in 100 bucks a piece in defense of this threat, I am sure it still
would be DWARFED by the corporate threat of the companies getting involved
in this technology. Money talks, and you-know-what walks.


--
Ryan, KC8PMX
FF1-FF2-MFR-(pending NREMT-B!)
--. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-.
... --. .... - . .-. ...

"Len Over 21" wrote:

Dwight Stewart writes:

"Dan/W4NTI" wrote:

"Dwight Stewart" wrote

Kim, I don't know what is going on with your
newsgroup messages. (snip)

I had my witches coven put a curse on her.

Something has sure happened. After I posted that
message, I ran into three or four other messages
posted by Kim that resulted in the same error
message (all posted after the message I replied
to). Very odd.

Dwight, you need to upgrade your computer's
AntiCurse software. :-)

I got mine through the Hogwart's on-line store.
University rates, too!


I've tried the swish and flick method several times. It didn't help with
Kim's messages (my computer's mouse is a little charred though). Perhaps I'm
pronouncing the words wrong.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Radio Amateur KC2HMZ" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 00:08:16 -0400, "Ryan, KC8PMX"
wrote:


2. Most public safety professionals (by which I mean law enforcement,
fire supression, EMS, and SAR personnel) know precisely this about the
radios they use on the job: Either it works or it doesn't. Either the
city cops can talk directly to the county sheriffs or they can't.
Change to a different radio? Sure...just get a new radio...see item
number (1) above for the problem with that.

Hmmm.... but if there ever was any career paths that the possibility of
needing to communicate in a non-voice manner those professions just may
be..... If a firefighter gets trapped in a building or cop has some type
of
situation where he may not be able to speak or something, he may be able
to
tap code out on the speaker.

Perhaps, but it wouldn't be all that likely that anyone hearing it
would recognize it as an attempt to communicate, let alone copy the
message...chances are the fire dispatcher isn't required to learn
Morse in order to qualify for the job.


Perhaps, but I would think the dispatchers would have to know it as well.
Based on the tone of the response I take it as you feel that morse does not
have as much value as stated by others here in the past. If morse is so
important, than radio "services" should have to know it as well, otherwise
the arguments "for code" fall apart in my opinion.
"Radio service" personell are required to learn other skills, in order to
perform their positions, and hams are required to learn other skills along
with morse code.

--
Ryan, KC8PMX
FF1-FF2-MFR-(pending NREMT-B!)
--. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-.
... --. .... - . .-. ...