"Phil Kane" wrote:

(snip) There's nothing wrong with the language
of the USC or CFR if (1) one has a good command
of American English and (2) one has a good
command of law and (3) one understands what the
statute/regulation was intended for in the
first place. (snip)


You forgot to add in (4) a lot of time. As in time to look through the
various subsections to find related material. For example, when reading that
certification is required, one has to hunt elsewhere to find details about
that certification and even elsewhere to find how one can obtain it.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

(Michael Black) wrote in message ...
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.

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.

That would drive me batty!

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

At the very least, with people spending so much time at their
computers, I'd suggest running a CW practice program, sending
random letters, while you do something else at your computer.
Set the volume relatively low, and don't even bother trying to
copy it; just use it to get used to the sounds.

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".

That's a bad idea, an hour straight is 'way too long for learning
purposes.

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.

When I studied for my earliest tests there were no consumer-level
recording methods let alone computers. My only options for practicing
Morse were having somebody hand-send it or copying it off the air.
Which, as a practical matter, meant copying it with a rcvr or forget
it. I'm still a very strong supporter of learning Morse via the W1AW
code practice sessions. Today they transmit computer-generated code
and back then I believe they used tape-generated code so it has always
been quite precise. I'll concede that I'm only around 150 miles from
the station so they boom here on 80M and QRM wasn't/isn't a problem.
Might be more difficult from the west coasts but I don't know.

I still recommend W1AW over any of the "canned" aids. Two downsides of
course are that W1AW does not send Farnsworth and one needs a
half-decent HF rcvr.

http://www.arrl.org/w1aw.html#w1awsked


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.

w3rv






Michael VE2BVW

(Brian) wrote in message . com...
"Dan/W4NTI" wrote in message ...

Yeah its tough now Dee. When I took mine is was solid copy at 20 wpm for
one solid minute out of five. Oh well.

Dan/W4NTI

And uphill both ways in 6 foot of snow...

And you couldn't pass it in Miami even if the VE provided you with a limo both ways.

w3rv

(Brian Kelly) wrote in
om:

"D. Stussy" wrote in message
.org...
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Brian Kelly wrote:



False circular logic.

Amazing.

Welcome to the kinds of thinking which will "take ham radio into the
21st Century". I just cain't frigging wait . . .

If you're so smart, then indicate exactly what proof is acceptable for
the "international requirement" cited in 47 CFR 97.301(e). Obviously,
you will have to also IDENTIFY that requirement to demonstrate the
acceptability of the proof....

97.301(e): "For a station having a control operator who has been
granted an operator license of Novice Class or Technician Class *AND*
who has recieved credit for proficiency in telegraphy in accordance
with international requirements."

The FCC sets the license requirements and grants the licenses and the
FCC *STILL* requires a a 5wpm code test for HF access specific class
of license completely aside. Yes? Of course. That's U.S federal law
until such times as the FCC changes the regs regarding Element 1.
Which they have not done.

The "AND" in 97.301(e) is *not* translatable into an "OR"which is what
you're obviously trying to twist it into to suit your own agenda.

It's a brick wall. If ya don't meet the current existing FCC
requirements for passing the Element 1 test the rest of 97.301(e) is
automatically rendered completely moot PERIOD.

No rocket science required, just takes a bit common sense.

w3rv


You don't get it, do you? Nobody has ever implied it says OR, and it
certainly never mentions Element 1.

What it does say is:

"who has recieved credit for proficiency in telegraphy
_in_accordance_with_international_requirements_"

(_emphasis_added_).

The phrase "international requirements" is a clear reference to s25.5,
which now makes code testing optional for each administration, such as the
FCC. The code requirement for access to Novice/Tech HF frequencies appears
nowhere except in rule 301(e), which in turn only refers back to the
optional language in s25.5. If the FCC refer to the international
regulations for the code requirement, and it says there that it is
optional, then where is the determination from the FCC as required under
s25.5 that code is required? Nowhere, that's where!

Although my interpretation of the rule is that no-code Techs do have
access to Novice/Tech HF frequencies, I hesitate to recommend that they do
this without some kind of interpretation from the FCC, which it seems
could be almost as time consuming to obtain as a clarifying change in the
rule. OTOH, in light of the lack of any FCC records as to which Tech is
what, I seriously doubt that they care.

You know, perhaps Technician class amateurs DO have HF privileges due to
the reference to the old International requirement. However, where in the
Schedule are the specific frequency bands allocated.

I would need to rereat Pt97, but, my guess is that they either have NO
specific allocated frequency bands, or, they would be the same as the Novice
class licence.

--
Chris Cox, N0UK/G4JEC NIC Handle: CC345
UnitedHealthGroup, Inc., MN10-W116, UNIX Services & Consulting
6300 Olson Memorial Highway, Golden Valley, MN 55427
email: (work) (home)

Alun Palmer wrote:

You don't get it, do you? Nobody has ever implied it says OR, and it
certainly never mentions Element 1.

What it does say is:

"who has recieved credit for proficiency in telegraphy
_in_accordance_with_international_requirements_"



You are taking what is an aside, and basing your whole argument on it.
Won't work.

This argument doesn't work on enough levels that it is surprising that
anyone would use it.

1. My first remark about the very secondary nature of the "in accordance
with....."

2. The reworded Article 25.5 now says, "Administrations shall determine
whether or not a person seeking a license to operate an amateur station
shall demonstrate the ability to send and receive texts in Morse code
signals."

Do you agree that this is the reworded article 25.5?


The administration has determined that the persons seeking a license
must pass a 5 wpm Morse code test. Until it changes it's requirements,
it will continue.


3. There is nothing in the rules that we are out of compliance with.


4. Morse code testing is not abolished. Individual administrations now
make that call- to test, or not to test.


Using the argument that Morse code testing has been abolished is quite
simply *wrong*. It will be wrong until the FCC rules otherwise.



- Mike KB3EIA -

"Dan/W4NTI" wrote in message ...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
y.com...

"C" wrote in message
...

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.

At 5 wpm with Farnsworth spacing, you have around 1.5-2 seconds
between characters. That should be plenty. Are you using Farnsworth
spacing?

Try this experiment: Have someone read a random sequence of standard
phonetics ("Hotel, Sierra, Alfa, Yankee..." at a rate of about one
word every two seconds while you write down the first letter of each
word. If you can do that, it's a good bet you can learn to copy 5 wpm
code.

Are you block printing or writing cursive? I found block printing
avoided a lot of problems because each letter stands alone.

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.

Try this:

Set the computer to send just two unrelated characters - say, R and Z.
Practice copying those two until you get 95% or better copy. Then add
just one more letter and practice until you can get 95% or better with
those three. The trick is to not add any new ones until you know the
old ones almost perfectly.

None of us could react fast enough at first. You are not alone. When you
are copying and miss a letter, just skip it and catch the next one. If
you
let your mind focus on what you missed, you will then miss several others
that come after. DON'T TRY TO GET THE MISSED LETTER AT THAT TIME. Just
write an underscore and go on so that you don't miss following letters.
This takes a little practice by the way as we all want to be perfect so we
sit there and try to figure it out while falling further behind. If you
get
a lot of blanks at first, that's OK. Just keep working on it.

Good advice. But don;t be afraid to backtrack as above, to find what
letters are giving you trouble.

When you take the test, you are allowed time to go back over your paper
and
fill in what you think the missing material might be. Here is an example
(using an underscore for characters that you miss on the copy).

What you originally copied: NAM_ IS JO_N.
Now if you look back over your copy, fill in what you believe the missing
letters should be. In this case, the text sent was most likely: NAME IS
JOHN.
Then on the test questions, you will probably be asked the name and there
you have it right there on your paper.

When I took my extra code test (20wpm), I had a lot of underscores on my
paper but despite that I was able to successfully answer the country
question (it was Switzerland) even though I only had about half the
letters
copied on my sheet.

That works fine unless the text sent was "NAME IS JOAN"

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


Yeah its tough now Dee. When I took mine is was solid copy at 20 wpm for
one solid minute out of five. Oh well.

Me too. And no time was allowed for going back - when the code
stopped, they took the paper away. Plus, if the examiner could not
read your writing, you flunked. Also you had to send 20 per to the
examiner's satisfaction.

But all that has been gone for over 20 years now. Ancient history. Yet
many hams licensed since those days could easily meet that standard.

Note that today's test can be passed by answering the questions OR
finding one minute (25 characters) of solid copy.

73 es GL de Jim, N2EY

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

I like that..sounds plausable. Oh....when I was learning it and I was
riding in the car with mom I would sound out the Morse on all the
roadsigns I could see. Drove mom nuts, but it helped. Not dot
dash.....di dah.

Dan/W4NTI

Do you want to impress me Dan? Sit shotgun in my Belvedere and
tap out some portable CW in a quarter mile launch!

You cross posting fart.

--
GO# 40

I didn't initiate this thread. Track it down moron.

Dan/W4NTI

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

I didn't initiate this thread. Track it down moron.

Dan/W4NTI

Just keep hitting send, you ****ing asshole.

--
GO# 40

OK. Just for you I will keep doing it. Over and Over again. Everytime I
damn well want.

Dan/W4NTI

(Brian Kelly) wrote in message om...
(Brian) wrote in message . com...
"Dan/W4NTI" wrote in message ...

Yeah its tough now Dee. When I took mine is was solid copy at 20 wpm for
one solid minute out of five. Oh well.

Dan/W4NTI

And uphill both ways in 6 foot of snow...

And you couldn't pass it in Miami even if the VE provided you with a limo both ways.

w3rv

I don't think VE's are permitted to provide limousine service to
examinees anymore. Boy have the times changed for the better!