The Day has come....
 

Hey, go for it! Just keep in mind that I may be able to send and receive
Morse faster than you can type ... :)

I love it when folks talk about the speed of the internet. I have
programmed in a number of different languages, but 'cut and paste' doesn't
count in my book. Yes, one guy I worked with used to brag how he 'prepared'
his essays in college using 'cut and paste'. My question is, how fast can
someone actually send a message without cut and paste?

Dang, original thought has reappeared as 'vapourware'.

For the record, 40 per was the fastest test administered by the Navy at
Bainbridge, Md. I had perfect copy. How much faster I could go, I don't
know. I doubt it was much more that 50, however. So, the question is, can
you put 50 words per minute out on your keyboard? Hmmmm ... BTW, I could
hit bursts of 92 words per minute on a 100 word per minute teletype back
when. Ok, so I'm getting slow. Care to bet that I can't do 60? How about
70 on my keyboard? That doesn't matter; the question is, can you do 40 per
with *no* errors.

Your ball!

73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA




---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.500 / Virus Database: 298 - Release Date: 7/10/03

In article 3f0e2f6d@shknews01, "LA Davies" writes:

As I knew it always would. I would upgrade my ham license without EVER
taking a CW test. Do I wish CW "Exterminated"- No. You old farts need the
CW to pass the time away. I do not. Something like a CW test, keeps many
good people like me from enjoying the ham bands. This is 2003, not 1955.
Alot has changed.

I speak for many people. They feel the same way I do. We want the CW
requirement dropped SOON. I can live with taking a written test(s) to get
my HF.

I will be e-mailing my ARRL section manager soon. We will get the code
dropped. Then on to bigger things.

Lloyd Davies, N0VFP
Future no-code Extra
FT-817

Well, as always, those that can -- do. Those that can't -- whine about
the requirements and wait for them to be dumbed-down to their level!
I highly suggest that to add to your sense of self-satisfaction, that once
you get your "No-Code Extra" you make a point of telling every Pre-
Restructuring, 20-WPM code-tested Extra you know that you are their
"equal" as a ham radio operator. I'll go so far as to bet that you can
even find a few that might agree with you -- but they'll mostly be phone
operators who outgas into their microphones all day, and haven't touched
a key in who knows how long!

73 de Larry, K3LT

"Vshah101" wrote in message
...
Larry Roll K3LT said:
Those that can't -- whine about
the requirements and wait for them to be dumbed-down to their level!

Well some coders refuse to learn the technical material. Although
time-consuming, Its easy to learn one skill (CW) and claim superiority for
that.
Seems like the requirement was dumbed down to the non-technical Ham's
level.

There are other reasons not to learn code other than "dumbed-down" as you
say.
One is that I don't like code. Another reason is image. It shows that you
put
time into a worthless pursuit (Morse code). Image is NOT the consideration
for
me. I would learn it if I wanted to.

I agree 100% Code should be dropped ASAP. If we want to save Ham Radio.


I don't have to learn Morse code just so I can prove I have the ability
to
learn Morse code. I have learned other skills that are just as
difficult.
Another reason is the "benefit" is not worth the effort. I would put
effort
into those because I can use those skills in real life. I cannot use
Morse
code.

I agree too. What kind of high-paying jobs would you get by learning CW?


I highly suggest that to add to your sense of self-satisfaction, that
once
you get your "No-Code Extra" you make a point of telling every Pre-
Restructuring, 20-WPM code-tested Extra you know that you are their
"equal" as a ham radio operator.

Funny, thats what pro-coders say. They say that a General class that
learned
Morse code is superior because they have a higher license class. I would
say
that the General or Extra that just learned code may not be superior to
the
Technician that wants to have good technical skills, but refuses to learn
code.


It's the "I'm better than you" attitude that is ruining the hobby. People
like Larry and Steve, are old and want the CW to stay, as a "hazing" thing.

I'm afraid thoese days are going the way of the dinosour........

Lloyd Davies, N0VFP

"LA Davies" wrote in message
news:3f10550c@shknews01...

"Vshah101" wrote in message
...
Larry Roll K3LT said:
Those that can't -- whine about
the requirements and wait for them to be dumbed-down to their level!

Well some coders refuse to learn the technical material. Although
time-consuming, Its easy to learn one skill (CW) and claim superiority
for
that.
Seems like the requirement was dumbed down to the non-technical Ham's
level.

There are other reasons not to learn code other than "dumbed-down" as
you
say.
One is that I don't like code. Another reason is image. It shows that
you
put
time into a worthless pursuit (Morse code). Image is NOT the
consideration
for
me. I would learn it if I wanted to.

I agree 100% Code should be dropped ASAP. If we want to save Ham Radio.


I don't have to learn Morse code just so I can prove I have the
ability
to
learn Morse code. I have learned other skills that are just as
difficult.
Another reason is the "benefit" is not worth the effort. I would put
effort
into those because I can use those skills in real life. I cannot use
Morse
code.

I agree too. What kind of high-paying jobs would you get by learning CW?


I highly suggest that to add to your sense of self-satisfaction, that
once
you get your "No-Code Extra" you make a point of telling every Pre-
Restructuring, 20-WPM code-tested Extra you know that you are their
"equal" as a ham radio operator.

Funny, thats what pro-coders say. They say that a General class that
learned
Morse code is superior because they have a higher license class. I
would
say
that the General or Extra that just learned code may not be superior to
the
Technician that wants to have good technical skills, but refuses to
learn
code.


It's the "I'm better than you" attitude that is ruining the hobby. People
like Larry and Steve, are old and want the CW to stay, as a "hazing"
thing.

I'm afraid thoese days are going the way of the dinosour........

Lloyd Davies, N0VFP




Look at it this way LLLLLLoooooooYYYYYYdddddd...if CW stays it will keep you
off of HF. That in itself is a reason to keep it.

Dan/W4NTI

On 13 Jul 2003 05:53:13 GMT, ospam (Larry Roll K3LT)
wrote:

In article ,
(Vshah101) writes:

Well some coders refuse to learn the technical material.

Vipul:

If that is so, then they can't be hams, because they never would have
passed the theory part of the written tests, would they?

One word: Bash.

Naturally, this overlooks the fact that virtually every technical advance
created within the ARS has traditionally been achieved by hams who
also met the existing licensing requirements -- including Morse code
proficiency at up to 20 WPM.

And when's the last major technical advance that came from the ARS
rather than the military or industry? Hmmm...about the same time that
incentive licensing got started! What a coincidence...or is it?


Seems like the requirement was dumbed down to the non-technical Ham's level.

Yes, indeed, the technical knowledge requirements are lower now than they
were under the previous, more challenging and comprehensive standards of
the Pre-Restructuring Era.

Why? Because there are no more 13- and 20-WPM code tests?

Must be, because the material in the question pools now is pretty much
the same material that was in there before restructuring. It's
organized somewhat differently, but it's still the same basic
stuff...same cards shuffled in a different order. Same game being
played with those cards, too. Only thing different is that you don't
seem to like the hand you've been dealt this time around.

Can't win 'em all, Larry.

There are other reasons not to learn code other than "dumbed-down" as you
say.
One is that I don't like code.

The fact that you, personally, don't like "code" doesn't serve as a very
compelling argument to eliminate the requirement.

Agreed.

However, in this
New Age of a generally dumbed-down society, that's all it took!

What?

Oh, yes, of course! Vipul got WRC to reqrite S.25 singlehandedly, all
by himself, nobody else had anything to do with it. All the nations
that are signatories to the treaty got together and changed the
international requirement on his say-so alone. Stunning feat of world
leadership on his part...now if we could only get him to go to the UN
and argue on behalf of world peace.....

Another reason is image. It shows that you put
time into a worthless pursuit (Morse code). Image is NOT the consideration
for me. I would learn it if I wanted to.

Unfortunately for you, your circumscription of Morse code proficiency as a
"worthless pursuit" is no more than a highly subjective and flagrantly
self-serving evaluation made by a person with no qualification to render
such a judgment. I challenge you to provide some documentary evidence
that knowledge of the Morse code is somehow detrimental to the "image"
of amateur radio operators.

Picture the local ham radio club at their Field Day setup in a local
public park. Along comes some members of the general public curious
about what's going on. The club's PIO does his job, hands out the
literature from ARRL that talks about working through satellites using
handheld equipment, about digital modes using computers, about packet,
about disaster preparedness.

Then he takes them over to the radios and there sits a small group of
guys with headsets on (or worse, without headsets on and bitching at
everybody to be quiet so they can hear) doing basically the same thing
they did over hardwired telegraph systems 130 years ago.

We tell people we're on the cutting edge of technology, then put our
best foot forward with something that's almost as old as dinosaur
dung...but doesn't smell quite as bad.

Said members of the general public, knowing a hypocrite when they see
one, whip out their can of BS repellant as they beat a hasty retreat
from the area before their conversation can arouse the ire of the CW
ops again. As they're getting into their car, one remarks, "We could
have seen the same thing down at the railroad museum!"

Moral of the story: as is the case with fishing, your success rate is
largely determined by what you use for bait. We're using the wrong
bait. Our success rate at attracting new hams is the documentary
evidence, and we've ignored it long enough.

This is not an argument against learning Morse and encouraging people
to develop CW operating skills. However, we can do that by promoting
the merits of CW *after* we get them to bite first on the more modern
technology that we routinely use in the ARS.

I don't have to learn Morse code just so I can prove I have the ability to
learn Morse code. I have learned other skills that are just as difficult.

Name one. Just one. Please relate how this skill to which you refer
compares with a proven, effective communications skill such as Morse
code proficiency as applied within the ARS. Kindly leave out the usual
apples-to-oranges comparisons to military or commercial radio services.

He didn't say communications skills, just skills.

1. What's more difficult to learn - copying Morse at 5 WPM or flying
the space shuttle?

2. How many current astronauts are no-code Technicians and how many
are Extras that took a 20 WPM code test?

Go ahead, tell us the no-code astronauts are lazy because they can't
meaure up to your standards WRT using CW. Maybe if enough of them hear
you, you can be singlehandedly responsible for putting an end to ham
radio operation from space.

Another reason is the "benefit" is not worth the effort. I would put effort
into those because I can use those skills in real life. I cannot use
Morse code.

Again, this is a judgment that you are not qualified to make. The proof
is your own admission that you cannot use the Morse code. If you could,
you may have an entirely different perspective.

How's he or anyone else going to use Morse code in real life? Outside
of the ARS, who else is still using it?

I think we really need to examine this concept of "technical skill" within
the Amateur Radio Service, and find out just precisely what is meant when
that term is bandied about. It has always been one of the favorite arguments
of the NCTA, but actual experience has shown that new hams who come
into the ARS under relaxed licensing standards tend to be less technically
involved than ever -- to the point where they barely show enough curiosity
to even thoroughly read and understand the operator's manuals for their
off-the-shelf equipment. The concept of "Elmering" has transmuted from
a process of taking a newcomer through the basics of electrical theory up
to the building and operation of simple station equipment, eventually
advancing to more complex projects, and even inspiring formal education
in electronics, to simply showing the New Age No-Code Tech which button
to push to make his HT work.

And to help right this wrong, you're going to volunteer to show up at
the next club meeting and show everybody how to construct a modern,
state-of-the-art, all-mode, all-band transciever? Very good!

If any honest and objective evaluation of
the technical skill levels of ham radio operators were made from an
historical perspective, it would show that code proficiency testing certainly
could be linked to the advancement of technical knowledge, whereas the
elimination thereof has led to a decline in overall technical involvement.

Then why is it that guys who have been hams for fifty years sometimes
need help programming a new 2m handheld?

Whatever new people enter the ARS in the no-code testing future certainly
face a daunting task of proving the claims of those who have, throughout
the code testing debate, attempted to link Morse code knowledge with
technical ignorance. We shall see what the future holds.

You yourself are linking Morse code knowledge with technical
ignorance! You just said yourself one paragraph earlier (and I cut and
paste again here):

If any honest and objective evaluation of
the technical skill levels of ham radio operators were made from an
historical perspective, it would show that code proficiency testing certainly
could be linked to the advancement of technical knowledge, whereas the
elimination thereof has led to a decline in overall technical involvement.

As soon as a no-code Technician learns something (anything at all)
about radio, he or she has immediately disproven your claim. He/she
has advanced his/her own technical knowledge without benefit of any
knowledge of Morse code. Which means that either:

1. Every no-code Tech who has upgraded to General, Advanced, or Extra
in the last 25 years already knew everything they needed to know to
pass the writtens and only needed to learn the code in order to
upgrade, OR

2. Every no-code Tech who has upgraded to General, Advanced, or Extra
in the last 25 years and still holds a license is documented evidence
in the FCC license database that the neither the possession nor the
lack of code proficiency has any bearing on technical
proficiency...which is pretty much what FCC concluded in 1999. It's
now 2003, so you're about four years behind the rest of us.

73 DE John, KC2HMZ

You missed a small point; there were, believe it or not, elements other than
1-C that some of us had to take. Please don't worry; now there are Q&A
manuals to help (that didn't exist back when). Um, what is the proper way
to give your location on a repeater? Um, the 20 is ... er, ahhh ... Very
difficult questions. Don't worry; here in New York State, they threw out
the regents math exam. It was determined to be 'flawed' (read, too
difficult). One valid flaw was that the math exam asked questions
concerning geometry. Well, we can water those tests down next year too.
Maybe we can publish Q&A manuals for the regents math exam - and also make
sure there aren't any questions harder than addition, subtraction,
multiplication, and division. Oh, best keep the numbers less than four
digits. Forget imaginary numbers.

73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA

"Vshah101" wrote in message
...

Well some coders refuse to learn the technical material. Although
time-consuming, Its easy to learn one skill (CW) and claim superiority for
that.
Seems like the requirement was dumbed down to the non-technical Ham's
level.

There are other reasons not to learn code other than "dumbed-down" as you
say.
One is that I don't like code. Another reason is image. It shows that you
put
time into a worthless pursuit (Morse code). Image is NOT the consideration
for
me. I would learn it if I wanted to.

I don't have to learn Morse code just so I can prove I have the ability
to
learn Morse code. I have learned other skills that are just as
difficult.
Another reason is the "benefit" is not worth the effort. I would put
effort
into those because I can use those skills in real life. I cannot use
Morse
code.

I highly suggest that to add to your sense of self-satisfaction, that
once
you get your "No-Code Extra" you make a point of telling every Pre-
Restructuring, 20-WPM code-tested Extra you know that you are their
"equal" as a ham radio operator.

Funny, thats what pro-coders say. They say that a General class that
learned
Morse code is superior because they have a higher license class. I would
say
that the General or Extra that just learned code may not be superior to
the
Technician that wants to have good technical skills, but refuses to learn
code.



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.500 / Virus Database: 298 - Release Date: 7/10/03

Well, I just saw a post. Interesting problem from a brand-new 1X2 call.
Seems he had a fairly high SWR on his beam so to keep water out of the
traps, he sealed the holes in the traps. The beam is mounted on conduit 20
feet off the ground and now his SWR is *extremely* high on 20 and 15 meters.
So, someone kindly explain how elimination of any waiting period for the
extra class license and virtual elimination of the code (no, I'm not a
pro-coder; it just forced folks to wait and learn a bit before they were
ready for the 20 words per minute test) has increased the technical
competence of amateur radio.


73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA




---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.500 / Virus Database: 298 - Release Date: 7/10/03

Jim Hampton wrote:
Well, I just saw a post. Interesting problem from a brand-new 1X2 call.
Seems he had a fairly high SWR on his beam so to keep water out of the
traps, he sealed the holes in the traps. The beam is mounted on conduit 20
feet off the ground and now his SWR is *extremely* high on 20 and 15 meters.
So, someone kindly explain how elimination of any waiting period for the
extra class license and virtual elimination of the code (no, I'm not a
pro-coder; it just forced folks to wait and learn a bit before they were
ready for the 20 words per minute test) has increased the technical
competence of amateur radio.

Those are some of the reasons I advocate a return to the waiting period
before advanced ticket upgrades.

And I say that from personal experience. An Extra *should* be
essentially an expert in the ARS.

Oops, is that a "filter" or "hazing" like Morse code is?

- Mike KB3EIA -

In article 3f10550c@shknews01, "LA Davies" writes:

It's the "I'm better than you" attitude that is ruining the hobby. People
like Larry and Steve, are old and want the CW to stay, as a "hazing" thing.

Lloyd:

Actually, it's the "I couldn't be bothered to become as good as you" attitude
which is ruining our hobby.

I'm afraid thoese days are going the way of the dinosour........

Well, then, once you get your No-Code Extra, we will all be looking forward
to all those amazing technical advances you will personnaly create for the
benefit of the ARS! You see, I am one prehistoric reptile who has never
claimed to have anything more than AMATEUR-level technical skills -- as
has been the traditional requirement for this service. However, since the
NCTA has always claimed that code testing was standing in the way of
technical progress in amateur radio, we shall soon see whether those
claims are, in fact, valid -- or just empty blasts of hot air used to justify
the elimination of a licensing requirement which produced a cadre of
hams with useful, effective communications skills.

73 de Larry, K3LT

From: Mike Coslo

Those are some of the reasons I advocate a return to the waiting period
before advanced ticket upgrades.

I disagree. A waiting period would be unfair. If the person has prepared
themseleves well, they may well have the ability for the upgrade. Why slow down
someone that has the ability for the upgrade?

And I say that from personal experience. An Extra *should* be
essentially an expert in the ARS.

Thats what the license should imply. Each licence upgrade should have higher
skill than the previous license

Most of the clubs don't want to focus on technical skills. Most clubs focus on
contesting, antennas, and CW. Clubs could do homebrewing, tuning, radio
direction finding, or other technical areas.

Oops, is that a "filter" or "hazing" like Morse code is?

- Mike KB3EIA -

Morse code is a bullying tactic to force this skill at the expense of other
skills. Morse code is not a "filter". It blocks entry to the General class
license. It is an irrelevant skill, used as an obstacle.

Larry,

If you like, I might be able to sell you some nice ocean-front property in
North Dakota :))

73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA
BTW, you'd be surprised how many young folks I've helped at work with
computer problems (and I'm *not* an expert); also, learning Morse (and
Baudot in the Navy - yes, we had to memorize the RTTY code!) makes it very
easy to understand ASCII and other modes. You get used to the fact that
mark and spaces can transfer information. Like languages, the first foreign
language is the most difficult.


"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
Jim:

How politically-incorrect of you to point this out! However, the NCTA's
have, for years, made the claim that code testing was leading the ARS
down the path of technical ignorance. Now that all that is going to go
away soon, it will be very interesting, indeed, to learn of all the
wonderful
new technical advances that will be wrought by the influx of computer-
literate, technically-competent young people eager to join our ranks!

Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to call a realtor and buy a nice piece
of real estate in the Florida Everglades to build my retirement home.

73 de Larry, K3LT



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.500 / Virus Database: 298 - Release Date: 7/10/03

"Radio Amateur KC2HMZ" wrote in message
...
On 13 Jul 2003 05:53:13 GMT, ospam (Larry Roll K3LT)
wrote:

Moral of the story: as is the case with fishing, your success rate is
largely determined by what you use for bait. We're using the wrong
bait. Our success rate at attracting new hams is the documentary
evidence, and we've ignored it long enough.



Since the number of hams is growing FASTER than the general population, our
current system IS working and we are using the right "bait." All you have
to do is check the statistics that have been published several times on this
newsgroup. So the documentary evidence supports the conclusion that we are
already doing the right things.


Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

From: ospam (Larry Roll K3LT)

However, the NCTA's
have, for years, made the claim that code testing was leading the ARS
down the path of technical ignorance.

The Technician class license does not require passing a code test. Removing the
code test entirely, therefore, should have no effect on technical skills.

"Vshah101" wrote in message
...
From: ospam (Larry Roll K3LT)

I would be willing to improve my skills in homebrewing, troubleshooting,
APRS,
VHF, direction finding, and other technical areas. However, the Hams in
every
club, of the several I've been to, are not interested in those areas.

Its not a lack of resources. Its that Hams don't want to. My local club
even
has a Network Analyzer and a dedicated shack with radio setps, parts,
cables,
soldering iron, etc. They have the resources to do the technical
activities.
They just chose not to do that and to do contesting, antenna setups, and
CW.

And its not that I can't be bothered. I would actively contribute in those
areas, if other Hams joined me.

What's stopping you from doing it on your own with the club resources?
That's why the material is there and books are available. If people saw you
working on it, some would join you. Remember the earliest hams HAD to work
it out on their own.

Our club members have a variety of interests. However we may have only one
or two individuals interested in a particular area. Out of a membership of
150 or so we only have about 5 contesters if you include the casual
participants. We only have two people interested in satellites. We have
about a dozen or so who regularly participate in community service
functions. And so on. No one faults another member if he/she doesn't share
an interest in the same aspects of radio.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

From: ospam (Larry Roll K3LT)

Well some coders refuse to learn the technical material.

Vipul:

If that is so, then they can't be hams, because they never would have
passed the theory part of the written tests, would they?

With the current written test, they would not have to actually learn the
material to pass the written test.

Naturally, this overlooks the fact that virtually every technical advance
created within the ARS has traditionally been achieved by hams who
also met the existing licensing requirements

Thats probably not true today. I see the exact opposite in the clubs I've been
to. The Hams that focus on contesting and CW are the ones that dislike the
technical topics. Ask them about contesting, and they will show interest. Then
tell them about a Homebrew project, APRS, direction finding, or other technical
area and they are not interested in that.

Unfortunately for you, your circumscription of Morse code proficiency as a
"worthless pursuit" is no more than a highly subjective and flagrantly
self-serving evaluation made by a person with no qualification to render
such a judgment.

I know a Communications Theory Proffessor that worked in the Comm theory field
for many years, and has an Amateur Radio license. No mention of Morse code as a
useful Communications mode in the class.

I challenge you to provide some documentary evidence
that knowledge of the Morse code is somehow detrimental to the "image"
of amateur radio operators.

Here is one example where its bad for image of the individual Amateur Radio
operator. Mention to spouse, relatives, or friends that you got an upgrade to
your license class from passing a Morse code test and its likely that they
would say something about you spending too much time in a worthless pursuit.

Here is one example where its bad for image of the ARS. I mentioned that I had
a Ham radio license to someone. He asked me if they still used Morse code. He
also said its obsolete and even the military does not use it.

The proof
is your own admission that you cannot use the Morse code. If you could,
you may have an entirely different perspective.

Once you learn Morse code above a certain speed, you cannot forget it. I don't
want to permanantly remember code. Then even if I don't like it, I'm stuck with
it.

actual experience has shown that new hams who come
into the ARS under relaxed licensing standards tend to be less technically
involved than ever

I am very willing to do my part on technical projects. I even put an ad for it.
I got only two responses. After a lack of resources, I couldn't continue it. If
more people were interested, then I would be willing to put in the time and
effort to get some of these projects going.

The concept of "Elmering" has transmuted from
....snipped middle of this sentence...
to simply showing the New Age No-Code Tech which button
to push to make his HT work.

My local club got some additional funds. They used it to get an HF radio to get
more people operating with CW. They said this was part of them "advancing the
radio art". The same club members posed for a Homebrewing photo, which they
advertise as current. I asked many of the people in the photo if they liked
homebrewing. None of them did. Seems like the photo is a little dis-honest.

Vshah101 wrote:
From: Mike Coslo


Those are some of the reasons I advocate a return to the waiting period
before advanced ticket upgrades.


I disagree. A waiting period would be unfair. If the person has prepared
themseleves well, they may well have the ability for the upgrade. Why slow down
someone that has the ability for the upgrade?

Perhaps you are not aware of it, but there is a LOT more to the ARS
than just the test for each level. When I was unlicensed, I could have
studied for and passed the Extra exam. But I wouldn't have been much of
an extra.

It is simlar in some ways to driving a car You could read a lot of
information about driving a car, but nothing makes you a good driver
like experience behind the wheel.


And I say that from personal experience. An Extra *should* be
essentially an expert in the ARS.

Sure. Assuming that the prospective amateur gets some more experience.

Thats what the license should imply. Each licence upgrade should have higher
skill than the previous license

Most of the clubs don't want to focus on technical skills. Most clubs focus on
contesting, antennas, and CW. Clubs could do homebrewing, tuning, radio
direction finding, or other technical areas.

You do have a one track mind, eh? We've been through that one enough.


Oops, is that a "filter" or "hazing" like Morse code is?

- Mike KB3EIA -

Morse code is a bullying tactic to force this skill at the expense of other
skills. Morse code is not a "filter". It blocks entry to the General class
license. It is an irrelevant skill, used as an obstacle.

My sympathy.

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Vshah101" wrote in message
...
From: ospam (Larry Roll K3LT)

Here is one example where its bad for image of the ARS. I mentioned that I
had
a Ham radio license to someone. He asked me if they still used Morse code.
He
also said its obsolete and even the military does not use it.

Just shows how ignorant he is. Special Forces still learn it and use it as
they may need to operate low power and be stealthy.

Once you learn Morse code above a certain speed, you cannot forget it. I
don't
want to permanantly remember code. Then even if I don't like it, I'm stuck
with
it.


Specious argument. At 5wpm, it's easy to forget after the test. Even
though higher speeds do lead to permanently remembering it, it's hardly in
the forefront of the brain. It recedes to the background to lie dormant
until wanted or needed. The effect is nearly the same as forgetting since
it will not resurface until triggered by use.

I am very willing to do my part on technical projects. I even put an ad
for it.
I got only two responses. After a lack of resources, I couldn't continue
it. If
more people were interested, then I would be willing to put in the time
and
effort to get some of these projects going.

Two is plenty for a first effort. You should have continued. Every journey
begins with the first step. In my areas of interest, I will work with
whoever is interested even if it is only one person.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dick Carroll wrote:

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote:


"William H. O'Hara, III" wrote in message
. 3.61...


I had thought pilots DID. Does Anyone know?

The Morse IDs on radionav beacons send so slow
that it's easy to write down "dots" and "dashes" and
use a laminated "cheat sheet" to decode the ID and
make sure it's the beacon you want.


..while you fly the plane into a mountain

Come to reality Dickie, most pilots cannot copy code except to
look at the dots and dashes on the sectional chart.

Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message



That seems to be urban myth ... my youngest son is a Radioman in Navy
EOD ... a special unit that's one notch below the SEALs ... NO Morse
training.

If they USE Morse at all, it would likely be sent and received by machine
as very high-speed bursts to send relatively short messages that would
be "low probability of detection" and very difficult to DF because the
bursts would be so short. (I don't know that they use this any more ...
it was available, but uncommon, back in 1990 when I left Rockwell-Collins
Defense Communications for the commercial sector. It's probably been
supplanted by FSK, since at equal symbol rates that has about a 9 dB
weak signal advantage over OOK Morse and it's actually simpler to
encode and decode in hardware/software.

I doubt that any of the radio comms the special forces use are
capable of Morse code.

"William H. O'Hara, III" wrote in message
. 61...


I had thought pilots DID. Does Anyone know?

The Morse IDs on radionav beacons send so slow
that it's easy to write down "dots" and "dashes" and
use a laminated "cheat sheet" to decode the ID and
make sure it's the beacon you want.

Carl - wk3c

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote:

"William H. O'Hara, III" wrote in message
. 61...


I had thought pilots DID. Does Anyone know?

The Morse IDs on radionav beacons send so slow
that it's easy to write down "dots" and "dashes" and
use a laminated "cheat sheet" to decode the ID and
make sure it's the beacon you want.

...while you fly the plane into a mountain

Dick Carroll wrote in message ...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote:

"William H. O'Hara, III" wrote in message
. 61...


I had thought pilots DID. Does Anyone know?

The Morse IDs on radionav beacons send so slow
that it's easy to write down "dots" and "dashes" and
use a laminated "cheat sheet" to decode the ID and
make sure it's the beacon you want.

..while you fly the plane into a mountain

Carl is a pilot?

LA Davies wrote:


Lloyd Davies, N0VFP
Future no-code Extra
FT-817


Oh damm! My extra-lite will be watered down....! :-)
(I haven't used code so long I have since forgot it all).

"William H. O'Hara, III" wrote in message
. 61...

a Ham radio license to someone. He asked me if they still
also said its obsolete and even the military does not use
Just shows how ignorant he is. Special Forces still learn
it and use it as they may need to operate low power and be
stealthy.


Doesn't this seem like an immature comment? They
have manuals on operating pack trains. They have
manuals on all sorts of things. Do you think that
a SF op actually read the manual on constructing
railways?

I don't think that all SF op's get CW training.
They are generally cross-trained in many things,
but I don't think every Green Beret gets CW.
Your generalization about SF is bunk as now
the Marines are considered 1st cousins to the
Berets. :) Do they have to learn CW?


No one said that all special forces members get. Just that it is included.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

"William H. O'Hara, III" wrote in message
.61...

I had thought pilots DID. Does Anyone know?

The Morse IDs on radionav beacons send so slow
that it's easy to write down "dots" and "dashes" and
use a laminated "cheat sheet" to decode the ID and
make sure it's the beacon you want.

As JJ mentioned, the morse code tone ID is printed in the block
for each VOR and VORTAC on sectionals and en-route charts.
Since before 1962 they've been printed as little bold-face dots
and dashes.

Probably the main reason those tone IDs are still there is that
THE FAA NEVER TOOK IT OUT OF REQUIREMENTS. The ID
keying is a terribly simple mechanism (so many still survive as
mechanical form) that it was simply kept. Much easier to keep it
than require each and every VOR and VORTAC to remove it.

The tone ID pattern, along with the tone itself, can be generated with
a single Microchip PIC or equivalent plus a handfull of passive
components...will last for years. :-)

LHA

On 14 Jul 2003 01:35:20 GMT, (Vshah101) wrote:

I would be willing to improve my skills in homebrewing, troubleshooting, APRS,
VHF, direction finding, and other technical areas. However, the Hams in every
club, of the several I've been to, are not interested in those areas.

I can't account for the lack of interest in these activities from the
clubs in your area, but the club I'm active with has quite a bit of
interest there, especially in VHF and direction finding. In fact, we
run a transmitter hunt on a weekly basis during the summer. We don't
do it in the winter because we don't want to be the reason for people
driving around in snowstorms and getting killed while trying to have
fun and learn a useful skill. This is Buffalo, after all..... :-)

Its not a lack of resources. Its that Hams don't want to. My local club even
has a Network Analyzer and a dedicated shack with radio setps, parts, cables,
soldering iron, etc. They have the resources to do the technical activities.
They just chose not to do that and to do contesting, antenna setups, and CW.

Most clubs seem to have a core of people who assume a leadership role
in club activities. Most planning and execution of club activities
gets done by that group of people. If said group does not perceive an
interest in an activity from the rest of the membership, often they
won't waste their time doing it...meaning that until enough people
express an interest in something, it doesn't happen.

The solution would be to seek out others in the club who have the same
or similar interests, creating a sort of special interest group within
the club, and then suggest the idea to the club leaders with the
numbers to show that there is interest in a topic. Demonstrating that
the membership wants something done is the best way to get it to
happen. The squeaky wheels get the grease. :-)

And its not that I can't be bothered. I would actively contribute in those
areas, if other Hams joined me.

On the other hand, sometimes all it takes is for one person to do
something, and then others jump in and start to follow suit. This is
called leading by example, and it works, unless you happen to be doing
something that's obviously a bad idea. Your ideas seem good. Consider
starting the ball rolling yourself and see who jumps on the bandwagon.

Perhaps a change in attitude would benefit the ARS. Hams should have more than
just a limited view of contesting, antennas, and CW. If Hams wanted to become
good in many different areas, the ARS would benefit.

There are hams who detest contests and contesting. In fact, the same
could be said for CW. Yet, there are also plentry who are very
interested in those topics. As for antennas, every ham who wants to
actually get on the air needs at least one, so it should really come
as no surprise that it's an easy topic to get people interested in. At
our club, the seminar on building J-pole antennas was the most popular
meeting program of the just-completed club year. We actually built a
copper pipe J-pole during the program, and one out of 450-ohm
twinlead. Even guys who had been club members longer than I've been a
ham were fascinated.

The bottom line is to keep in mind that one of the greatest strengths
of any club lies in the diversity of its members' individual
interests. There are probably others in the clubs in your area who
share your interests. The trick is to identify them, and then get
something started. Once you get the ball rolling it usually keeps
rolling for quite a while.

73 DE John, KC2HMZ