"Arnie Macy" wrote in message
...
What's a "code key" -- Could that possibly be
something like a straight key?
Or maybe it is a secret way of learning CW?
Please enlighten us, Leland.

Are you really that "dense" Arnie where you can't
figure it out on your own?

73's de,

Leland C. Scott
KC8LDO

ARRL member
NCI member

"You ask what Morse Code is good for? I'll tell
you. Morse
Code is used exclusively by Electronics Based life
forms to
communicate amongst themselves using advanced
Organic
Digital Signal Processors, running state of the
art Artificial
Intelligence Software, to perform the highly
complex
transmit encryption, receive decryption and error
correction
functions."

On 07 Jul 2003 11:11:10 GMT, (N2EY) wrote:


Here are some predictions for ya:

Hmmm...hang on, lemme wipe the dust off the crystal ball for ya
first....okay, go ahead.

The dropping of the code test will not be accompanied by a significant change
in the written exams.

In the short term, probably not. In the long term, as the written
tests go through their normal revision and updating processes, I'd
expect and hope that the question pool committee members would begin
to include questions on practical operating knowledge in addition to
the questions on theory that are already part of the tests. I've long
felt that it was time for the CW testing requirement to go, but the
fact remains that it has indeed been the only practical skill (as
opposed to theoretical knowledge) tested, and I think that this does
need to change.

The dropping of the code test will not be accompanied by a significant,
sustained increase in growth rate of the ARS. There may be a short term surge,
and lots of upgrades, but total numbers will not skyrocket.

Seems to me that the outcome, in this regard, is up to us. We have an
opportunity to start a significant influx of good operators into the
ARS provided we're willing to identify them and elmer them and welcome
them into the ranks, so to speak.

Those of us who go out of our way to meet these people and convince
them to get into the club meetings and the VE sessions, and who answer
questions and provide the guidance the newcomers will need and then
accept and respect them as fellow hams should, will be taking good
advantage of the opportunity.

Those of us who spend our time coming up with witty and derogatory
names like Extra Lite and insist on distinguishing between No-Code and
Know-Code and go out of their way to make people feel like
second-class citizens will be letting the opportunity just slide on by
and will be doing a disservice to the ARS.

The dropping of the code test will not be accompanied by a significant change
in the modes and technologies used by hams. There will not be a
technorevolution, nor big increases in experimentation or homebrewing. Just
more of the same of what has been going on.

Again, this depends on us.

Hmmm...lemme see...we're faced with the possibility of having a lot of
newcomers with little or no practical experience WRT radio wave
propagation on the HF bands, and thus little knowledge on which to
base selection of a frequency band on which to begin making contacts
at any particular time. Isn't this exactly what ALE is supposed to do?
Yet, how many hams do you know of who have even heard of ALE, outisde
of those in this forum where I know the subject has come up
previously? How many hams in your local club know what ALE is? How
many would be willing to accept and use it if they did?

Let's see what happens in the UK. RSGB and RA have been pushing to drop the
code test for a long time. Maybe they won't be disappointed.

Just wondering.

Don't hold yer breath. The usual bureaucratic delay will slow things down here
in the USA. And remember, those who get the licenses after the change will be
raw, inexperienced newcomers, who will need our help and guidance as they are
welcomed into the ARS.

To use the British term: Bloody Well Right! Especially since there
will undoubtedly be those who will not welcome them at all, and in
fact do quite the opposite. Those of us who wish to take advantage of
this opportunity will have to work doubly hard in order to overcome
the harm done by the minority that will attempt to ostracize and chase
away the newcomers, forgetting that they were newcomers themselves
once upon a time.

73 DE John, KC2HMZ

Radio Amateur KC2HMZ wrote:

Hmmm...lemme see...we're faced with the possibility of having a lot of
newcomers with little or no practical experience WRT radio wave
propagation on the HF bands, and thus little knowledge on which to
base selection of a frequency band on which to begin making contacts
at any particular time.

Back in the early days of my HF career, I figured that if the band seems
empty, well either
propagation is out or everyone's asleep or at work or such. In any
event, there's nobody
to qso with, so check other bands.

After a while, one figures out that on say ten meters, you can (when the
sunspots are in)
talk to Texas from NJ, but not Ohio. That the coverage looks more like
a ring instead
of a disc. Which also means that the ham in Texas can hear a ham in
Ohio that you
cannot hear. Thus you could QRM a Ohio to Texas QSO while doing a QSO from
NJ to California. Thus you should realize that the Texan isn't talking
to himself, but
to someone you cannot hear. And QSY up or down a little. But say
you're using
a kilowatt linear to QSO from NJ to California, and the Texan is only
using 50 watts
and is S1 on your receiver and thus you don't know that he's there. BUt
things like this
happen, and it is understood that it is not malicious.

Robert Casey wrote:


Back in the early days of my HF career, I figured that if the band seems
empty, well either
propagation is out or everyone's asleep or at work or such. In any
event, there's nobody
to qso with, so check other bands.

But--- did you listen carefully for any very weak signals on CW? Often that
is the clue to what's happening, or about to happen, on an otherwise seemingly
dead band.
Sometimes when you tune around carefully, listening for any hint of signals,
you'll start something - you hear a very weak one, peak him up with your
receiver filtering, whatever you have to work with, listen long enough to ID him
and where he's located. If he signs off with the station he's working, and
you've tuned up, you give him a call. If he's copying as well as you, he answers
and suddenly you've turned a dead band into a QSO. More often than not, others
will hear you two in QSO and next thing you know they're either calling in
tailending you, or calling CQ nearby and drumming up their own contact. When you
next tune around, there'll be several QSO's going on on the "dead" band.

This scene plays out far more often than you would think, or used to back when
HF experienced hams were the norm rather than the exception. Sure is worth
trying, anyway.

Dick

Dick Carroll wrote:

Robert Casey wrote:


Back in the early days of my HF career, I figured that if the band seems
empty, well either
propagation is out or everyone's asleep or at work or such. In any
event, there's nobody
to qso with, so check other bands.

But--- did you listen carefully for any very weak signals on CW? Often that
is the clue to what's happening, or about to happen, on an otherwise seemingly
dead band.
Sometimes when you tune around carefully, listening for any hint of signals,
you'll start something - you hear a very weak one, peak him up with your
receiver filtering, whatever you have to work with, listen long enough to ID him
and where he's located. If he signs off with the station he's working, and
you've tuned up, you give him a call. If he's copying as well as you, he answers
and suddenly you've turned a dead band into a QSO. More often than not, others
will hear you two in QSO and next thing you know they're either calling in
tailending you, or calling CQ nearby and drumming up their own contact. When you
next tune around, there'll be several QSO's going on on the "dead" band.

This scene plays out far more often than you would think, or used to back when
HF experienced hams were the norm rather than the exception. Sure is worth
trying, anyway.

Dick

One more hint-some of the best DX contacts I've ever had occurred when I called
CQ
on a "dead" band. You get to work the rare one who answers without the "benefit"
of
the hounds, no pileup, no QRM, at least until enough others hear you working him
to
draw a crowd.

Radio Amateur KC2HMZ wrote in message . ..
On 07 Jul 2003 11:11:10 GMT, (N2EY) wrote:

Here are some predictions for ya:

Hmmm...hang on, lemme wipe the dust off the crystal ball for ya
first....okay, go ahead.

Thanks!

The dropping of the code test will not be accompanied by a significant change
in the written exams.

In the short term, probably not. In the long term, as the written
tests go through their normal revision and updating processes, I'd
expect and hope that the question pool committee members would begin
to include questions on practical operating knowledge in addition to
the questions on theory that are already part of the tests.

The current writtens are a mixture of rules and regs, theory,
operating practices, and RF safety. They have been in constant
revision and development for over 20 years. I don't see them changing
all that much.

What sort of "practical operating knowledge" questions would you have
the QPC add? (Anyone can submit questions for review, btw).

I've long
felt that it was time for the CW testing requirement to go, but the
fact remains that it has indeed been the only practical skill (as
opposed to theoretical knowledge) tested, and I think that this does
need to change.

One of the problems with skill testing is that the test has to
actually include the skill - it can't be a purely paper test and
actually mean anything. (You can't judge my bicycle-riding or
stick-shift skills with a written test). And such testing means a
separate test element and the same problems that come with the code
test.

The dropping of the code test will not be accompanied by a significant,
sustained increase in growth rate of the ARS. There may be a short term
surge,
and lots of upgrades, but total numbers will not skyrocket.

Seems to me that the outcome, in this regard, is up to us. We have an
opportunity to start a significant influx of good operators into the
ARS provided we're willing to identify them and elmer them and welcome
them into the ranks, so to speak.

Those of us who go out of our way to meet these people and convince
them to get into the club meetings and the VE sessions, and who answer
questions and provide the guidance the newcomers will need and then
accept and respect them as fellow hams should, will be taking good
advantage of the opportunity.

I agree with all of the that - but a lot of it comes down to publicity
for the ARS, and the simple fact that most people are not interested
in radio as an end in itself. There's a limit to how much we can
"sell" amateur radio. The trick is to identify those who are really
interested, and help them out.

Those of us who spend our time coming up with witty and derogatory
names like Extra Lite and insist on distinguishing between No-Code and
Know-Code and go out of their way to make people feel like
second-class citizens will be letting the opportunity just slide on by
and will be doing a disservice to the ARS.

Agreed - and I challenge you to find any postings of mine where I have
done any of that.

The dropping of the code test will not be accompanied by a significant change
in the modes and technologies used by hams. There will not be a
technorevolution, nor big increases in experimentation or homebrewing. Just
more of the same of what has been going on.

Again, this depends on us.

To a certain extent. There are not many hams who will homebrew
themselves a multiband multimode transceiver from scratch. Even if
someone has the time and tools, it's usually not cost-effective.

Hmmm...lemme see...we're faced with the possibility of having a lot of
newcomers with little or no practical experience WRT radio wave
propagation on the HF bands, and thus little knowledge on which to
base selection of a frequency band on which to begin making contacts
at any particular time. Isn't this exactly what ALE is supposed to do?

Sure.

Yet, how many hams do you know of who have even heard of ALE, outisde
of those in this forum where I know the subject has come up
previously? How many hams in your local club know what ALE is? How
many would be willing to accept and use it if they did?

Many of us know what ALE is, and even how it could be used on the
amateur bands.

The bigger question is - why would hams want to use ALE for normal
amateur operation? The whole point of ALE is to reduce/eliminate the
need for a knowledgeable operator. In fact, if you look at most
nonamateur radio equipment design philosophies, one of the driving
forces behind them is to replace the skilled "radio operator" with a
relatively unskilled "user", who doesn't really know what's going on -
and doesn't have to. Consider the nearly-ubiquitous cell phone - none
of the radio-specific functions are controlled by the user at all! In
fact, far too many people don't even realize a cell phone is a radio
transceiver. (I recall an indignant fellow airline passenger telling
me "I can use this while we take off! It's a TELEPHONE, not a
RADIO!!")

Let's see what happens in the UK. RSGB and RA have been pushing to drop the
code test for a long time. Maybe they won't be disappointed.

Just wondering.

Don't hold yer breath. The usual bureaucratic delay will slow things down here
in the USA. And remember, those who get the licenses after the change will be
raw, inexperienced newcomers, who will need our help and guidance as they are
welcomed into the ARS.

To use the British term: Bloody Well Right!

Fair dinkum, mate!

Especially since there
will undoubtedly be those who will not welcome them at all, and in
fact do quite the opposite.

A few. That's not a new thing - ever hear of the fellow who used to
call CQ on 75 AM and add "no kids, no lids, no space cadets, Class A
operators only"?

Those of us who wish to take advantage of
this opportunity will have to work doubly hard in order to overcome
the harm done by the minority that will attempt to ostracize and chase
away the newcomers, forgetting that they were newcomers themselves
once upon a time.

All true. Actually, it doesn't seem like that long ago that I was a
newcomer.

But there is also the reverse problem: Newcomers who do not want
advice or elmering from the "old f@#$S", no matter how it is offered.
I've been on the receiving end of that more than a few times. What's
the right approach - just ignore them?


73 de Jim, N2EY

(N2EY) wrote in
om:

Radio Amateur KC2HMZ wrote in message
. ..
On 07 Jul 2003 11:11:10 GMT, (N2EY) wrote:

Here are some predictions for ya:

Hmmm...hang on, lemme wipe the dust off the crystal ball for ya
first....okay, go ahead.

Thanks!

The dropping of the code test will not be accompanied by a
significant change in the written exams.

In the short term, probably not. In the long term, as the written
tests go through their normal revision and updating processes, I'd
expect and hope that the question pool committee members would begin
to include questions on practical operating knowledge in addition to
the questions on theory that are already part of the tests.

The current writtens are a mixture of rules and regs, theory,
operating practices, and RF safety. They have been in constant
revision and development for over 20 years. I don't see them changing
all that much.

snip

As a matter of fact the question pools may well change as a result of WRC
2003. The new s25.6 incorporates by reference a document called M.1544,
which is a syllabus for theory tests! This is a new requirement!

73 de Alun, N3KIP

On 8 Jul 2003 14:16:00 -0700, N2EY wrote:

The current writtens are a mixture of rules and regs, theory,
operating practices, and RF safety. They have been in constant
revision and development for over 20 years. I don't see them changing
all that much.

What I would LOVE to see is a set of 50-question elements on EACH
of the topics which you listed plus operating practices. Make it an
all-at-one-sitting procedure. Just like the olden days......

Let's make it more fun, and do it like the Nursing Board exam that
my daughter took several years ago:

The questions come out of computer at a speed which is dependent on
how fast the applicant is answering them. Scramble the qyestions
and the multi-choice answers so that if one memorizes the "little
red book" of all the questions and answers it won't help unless
s/he understands and knows the material.

The machine keeps feeding questions until it is a guaranteed "pass"
or a guaranteed "fail" and then it terminates the exam session. The
applicant does not know whether s/he passed or not until the
results are sent by mail. Just like the olden days.....

I'm sure that there are enough ham-programmers that can write such
a program.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon

Phil Kane wrote:


The questions come out of computer at a speed which is dependent on
how fast the applicant is answering them. Scramble the questions
and the multi-choice answers so that if one memorizes the "little
red book" of all the questions and answers it won't help unless
s/he understands and knows the material.

The machine keeps feeding questions until it is a guaranteed "pass"
or a guaranteed "fail" and then it terminates the exam session. The
applicant does not know whether s/he passed or not until the
results are sent by mail. Just like the olden days.....



Back in 1994 I lived in Oregon for a year. The written driver's test at
the DMV was
done with a computer with touch screen. I knew how many questions I got
wrong, but
lost track of how many more I had to complete during the test. Then it
told me that
I passed and my score, around 92%.

Paper tests generated just before the VE session via computer would be
cheaper and
easier than dedicated hardware like that DMV had anyway.

N2EY wrote:
Radio Amateur KC2HMZ wrote in message . ..

On 07 Jul 2003 11:11:10 GMT, (N2EY) wrote:


some snippage


One of the problems with skill testing is that the test has to
actually include the skill - it can't be a purely paper test and
actually mean anything. (You can't judge my bicycle-riding or
stick-shift skills with a written test). And such testing means a
separate test element and the same problems that come with the code
test.


The dropping of the code test will not be accompanied by a significant,
sustained increase in growth rate of the ARS. There may be a short term
surge,
and lots of upgrades, but total numbers will not skyrocket.

Seems to me that the outcome, in this regard, is up to us. We have an
opportunity to start a significant influx of good operators into the
ARS provided we're willing to identify them and elmer them and welcome
them into the ranks, so to speak.

Those of us who go out of our way to meet these people and convince
them to get into the club meetings and the VE sessions, and who answer
questions and provide the guidance the newcomers will need and then
accept and respect them as fellow hams should, will be taking good
advantage of the opportunity.


I agree with all of the that - but a lot of it comes down to publicity
for the ARS, and the simple fact that most people are not interested
in radio as an end in itself. There's a limit to how much we can
"sell" amateur radio. The trick is to identify those who are really
interested, and help them out.

Right. The ARS is simply not for everyone. People who try to make it
that way are just spinning their wheels. You need a technical bent, and
getting a thrill out of sending a teeny signal across the world helps too.


Those of us who spend our time coming up with witty and derogatory
names like Extra Lite and insist on distinguishing between No-Code and
Know-Code and go out of their way to make people feel like
second-class citizens will be letting the opportunity just slide on by
and will be doing a disservice to the ARS.


Agreed - and I challenge you to find any postings of mine where I have
done any of that.

I am an Extra lite, I was a No-Code Tech at one time. I'm also a hockey
puck and a few other things.

Seriously, there isn't anyone around that someone doesn't like, so we
just have to work on being less sensitive.

I was sitting around a dinner table with some friend hams, and the
conversation shifted to licensing. One of the guys noted how "Any moron
can become an Extra now." I just chuckled and said, "and I am the proof
of that!" He was a bit embarrassed, but I took no offense and made a
joke of it.

More snippage



Yet, how many hams do you know of who have even heard of ALE, outisde
of those in this forum where I know the subject has come up
previously? How many hams in your local club know what ALE is? How
many would be willing to accept and use it if they did?


Many of us know what ALE is, and even how it could be used on the
amateur bands.

The bigger question is - why would hams want to use ALE for normal
amateur operation? The whole point of ALE is to reduce/eliminate the
need for a knowledgeable operator. In fact, if you look at most
nonamateur radio equipment design philosophies, one of the driving
forces behind them is to replace the skilled "radio operator" with a
relatively unskilled "user", who doesn't really know what's going on -
and doesn't have to. Consider the nearly-ubiquitous cell phone - none
of the radio-specific functions are controlled by the user at all! In
fact, far too many people don't even realize a cell phone is a radio
transceiver. (I recall an indignant fellow airline passenger telling
me "I can use this while we take off! It's a TELEPHONE, not a
RADIO!!")

I don't know whether to laugh or cry!


snippage again

Especially since there
will undoubtedly be those who will not welcome them at all, and in
fact do quite the opposite.


A few. That's not a new thing - ever hear of the fellow who used to
call CQ on 75 AM and add "no kids, no lids, no space cadets, Class A
operators only"?


Radio Amateur KC2HMZ is simply wrong here. And old mister No kids, no
lids is just the exception that proves the rule.

Most all hams, even those who think that elimination of the Morse code
requirement is the beginning of the end of Western civilization, are
very welcoming of new people.

Sometimes when we think everyone around us is nasty, we need to look to
ourselves for the problem.


Those of us who wish to take advantage of
this opportunity will have to work doubly hard in order to overcome
the harm done by the minority that will attempt to ostracize and chase
away the newcomers, forgetting that they were newcomers themselves
once upon a time.


All true. Actually, it doesn't seem like that long ago that I was a
newcomer.

But there is also the reverse problem: Newcomers who do not want
advice or elmering from the "old f@#$S", no matter how it is offered.
I've been on the receiving end of that more than a few times. What's
the right approach - just ignore them?

Eventually, that's all you can do, if the person insists on being
nasty. It's also important to remember that that same peron will
probably spend time moaning about "those rotten hams".

- Mike KB3EIA -