"Keith" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 13:41:24 -0400, "Spamhater" wrote:

Get off your lazy ass and learn 5 WPM CW.

Pal I can receive CW at 18 WPM and I even have a fancy certificate from
the US
government to prove it.

--
The Radio Page Ham, Police Scanner, Shortwave and more.
http://www.kilowatt-radio.org/

Well then, you should know that 5 WPM isn't that difficult to learn... And I
TOO have a 20 WPM Extra. I have NO problem with the FCC keeping the 5 WPM
code element.

I've seen some situations in my life time where code was able to be used
aside from radio. Not a bad idea to keep it in tact at LEAST at 5 WPM.

JMS

"D. Stussy" wrote in
. org:

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, Keith wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 00:52:54 GMT, "Phil Kane"
wrote:

Until the FCC changes the rules concering Element 1, the requirement
in the US remains that Element 1 must be passed.

That is NOT what 97.301(e) says. 97.301(e) does not require a tech to
possess
element 1, it requires the tech licensee to meet the international
standards set down in s25.5 to transmit on HF.

I agree with the above as to what 47 CFR 97.301(e) says.

I disagree that what is left means that any Technician or Novice has
any HF privilege at all. The FCC rule still says that these licensees
must show compliance with a non-existent regulation. Since they CANNOT
COMPLY with a non-existent [international] regulation, they LACK the
privilege.

The reason 97.301(e) was written that way is because the FCC expected
the s25.5 reference to be deleted, but it was changed. The fact that
it was changed does not mean a tech licensee is not meeting the
requirements set down in 97.301(e).

I disagree. There is a [U.S.] requirement for these licenseholders to
meet the international requirement. Show me how they can do this if
the international requirement doesn't exist.... It's impossible for
them to demonstrate compliance, and therefore, they cannot meet all of
the U.S. requirements (one of which is to meet the non-existent
international requirement), and thus have no such privilege.


You have posted this in lots of places, so I will reply only once. The
international requirement is that code testing is optional, hence it can
be met either with or without passing a code test, i.e. veryone meets it
all the time.

It doesn't mean a tech can get on 20 meters, it should mean he can
operate on
HF in the allocated tech bands according to the FCC rules.

What you think it should mean and what it does mean are as clear as
night and day.

"Landshark" . wrote in
.com:


"D. Stussy" wrote in message
. org...\

Why don't you people pay attention that
your cross posting this troll fodder?

Landshark



I beleive that the word you are searching for is drivel, not dribble

snip

Call me anything that you want but don't call me late for dinner or
a juicy pile-up on 20m.


snip

That's what my grandad always said (without the bit about 20m)!

Michael Black wrote:
Mike Coslo ) writes:

C wrote:

No I am not doing a memorizing of each dit and dah and converting
method. My problem is my brain does not react fast enough to decide what
each character is before the next one is sent. I just get further
behind. I practice at least 20 to 30 minutes usually twice a day if not
more. I use computer programs and ARRL training CDs.

I will check "The Art and Skill of Radiotelegraphy". Thanks for the
encouragement.


Ahh, that training CD! I used it, and failed miserably at it. Turns out
I memorized the darn thing. You might try a program that sends out
random groups or even makes up QSO's.

- Mike KB3EIA -


With most people having computers, learning CW should be so much easier
nowadays. Not like when I was ten, and bought a telegraph set so I
could learn Morse Code, not realizing that sending is not he same thing
as receiving.

Big time! I can send at twice the speed I can recieve at.


One of the things I've wondered about is whether one could get used
to the sounds of the letters subconciously via a program that
sends the morse letter everytime you press a key on your keyboard.
You wouldn't really being paying attention, but it would be a positive
reinforcement of what sounds go with what letters. I'm not sure
it would be a completely painless method, but it would either help
get someone used to the sounds, or reinforce the learning already done.

But I'm not sure anyone has cooked up such a program.

That would be interesting to have running in the background while
typing int the newsgroups. 8^)


I suspect some of the problem some people have is that they are
trying way too hard. They see the code as an obstacle, and are
fighting it all the way. "Now I'm going to do my hour of code
practice". In the old days, that would mean going to a code
practice course, or buying one of those records (I had one to
start, and I think it did help), or listening to a receiver
where the code might not be optimal or under the best conditions.
You sit there with your pen and paper, and struggle to get it
all right. But moving it into the background makes it less important,
and perhaps by simply getting used to the sounds before struggling
to get it all, it might all come easier.


My bigget problem was missing a letter, and getting hung up on it. By
then 3 or 4 more letters would go by, and then the real frustration
would set in. It ended up that I needed to just relax and let the
mistakes roll by. Then the mistakes went away.

- mike KB3EIA -

C wrote in message .. .
My only gripe with the code is the testing. It is stated as a 5 word
per minute test. When I challenged the test a few weeks ago I found that
it is actually anywhere from 13 to 18 words per minute, not 5 words per
minute. The 5 words per minute is a lie....

You are correct, sir.

The exam administered by the various VEC's is called Farnsworth. If
you look at Part 97, you will see that it specifies Morse. Farnsworth
is mentioned nowhere in Part 97. Furthermore, the specification of
Morse Code is defined nowhere in Part 97, nor in all of Title 47. We
on RRAP have been down this road before.

Basically, if you are a Pro-Code Test Agenda type, you agree to allow
the VEC's to break the law, even encourage it because the examinee may
eventually want to actually use Code at a higher speed.

But if you can read, you see that Morse is specified, not Farnsworth.

If you happen to know enough about all this to ask for the real Morse
Exam at a test session, then the VE must accomodate you. But the
aren't likely to mention it unless you do. If you've been studying
the Morse training tapes, you are likely to fail the Farnsworth exam.

Farnsworth is fairly well agreed to be the better METHOD to learning
faster code. By the time one gets to about 20WPM, there is supposed
to be no difference between Farnsworth and Morse, but with the various
code tutor programs, anything is possible.

Anyway, the VEC's are administering a code exam not specified in Part
97.

Hopefully it will all be over with soon.

Good luck, Brian

"Dan/W4NTI" wrote in message ...
"C" wrote in message
...

My only gripe with the code is the testing. It is stated as a 5 word
per minute test. When I challenged the test a few weeks ago I found that
it is actually anywhere from 13 to 18 words per minute, not 5 words per
minute. The 5 words per minute is a lie....

snip

Not trying to be a smart ass here...but...how do you know it was 13 if you
say you can't copy 13???. Could it be he was sending the characters fast
and making the spacing long. I.E. Farnsworth method, which is the
recomended way to conduct a test?

If you want to quit. Thats your choice. I would suggest you go to a
different test place with different folks instead.

Dan/W4NTI

Dan, he probably finished failing the exam again and said to one of
the VE's, "Sheesh, that code seemed awfully fast." Whereas the VE
replied, "Sure, we're sending it at 13-18wpm with long spaces in
between. It all evens out in the end. By the way, we are denying you
access to HF."

That's what happens to people who study Morse Code tapes at 5wpm then
take the Farnsworth exam.

If they don't have a high level understanding of all of this, then
they are just as likely to get a hold of real Morse study material as
opposed to Farnsworth study material.

Brian

Alun Palmer wrote in message
...
"Landshark" . wrote in
.com:


"D. Stussy" wrote in message
. org...\

Why don't you people pay attention that
your cross posting this troll fodder?

Landshark



I beleive that the word you are searching for is drivel, not dribble


"beleive"? (I before E, except after C) remember..?

"Landshark" . wrote in message y.com...
"D. Stussy" wrote in message
. org...\

Why don't you people pay attention that
your cross posting this troll fodder?

Landshark

shark, can you imagine what would happen if the shoe was on the other foot.??

In article , Dwight Stewart
writes:

"Len Over 21" wrote:

(snip) Nowhere in the Constitution of the United
States is there any mention of radio, morse code,
the United Nations, nor the Federal Communications
Commission. [that includes Amendments which were
ratified by the states much later than the original
Constitution acceptance-ratification. (snip)

Len, I'm not going to sit here and argue with you as you try to twist what
I've said. The Constitution gives Congress the power to ratify international
treaties. That ratification process you want explained has be established
for over two hundred years and can easily be researched yourself if you
really want to know something about it.

Well, long ago I found out that the United States of America was
signatory to the creation of the United Nations, thus making us and
all the other signatories a part of that "treaty."

I haven't bothered to look up the EXACT details of the "treaty" in
which the USA "signed" onto the ITU and away from the CCITT.
That happened several years ago.

The point should be obvious that the USA is ALREADY involved
with an existing treaty to be a part of the UN and also to be a part
of the ITU.

The United States is not, and has
never been, automatically subject to any treaty change by either the UN or
ITU. Any change in a treaty requires action by our government before it
becomes the law of this land.

Was some kind of Congressional "action" required to send US
administration delegates to the World Radio Conference in June?

Was there some kind of Congressional "action" required by the
FCC International Bureau to do a number of changes and adjustments
in international tariffs with the ITU-T? Or regarding communications
satellite use uplink/downlink frequencies internationally?

WHERE is there evidence of "ratification" actions taken by Congress
or the states of the US on any of the above?

I don't think that all the "ratification" exists except in the minds of a
few amateurs who want to elevate amateur radio OVER & ABOVE
all other radio services in importance.

The US Congress DELEGATED AUTHORITY for civil radio regulation
to the FCC and government communications regulation to the NTIA.

When it comes to code testing, our government
will have to take steps before any change takes place in this country. Until
you offer something which disputes any of this, nothing further needs to be
said.

So, you are unable to explain the "ratification" process of our government
insofar as morse code testing for radio amateur licensing.

Maybe someone else (admitted to a legal bar, not a neighborhood one)
can explain the "ratification" details?

LHA