wrote in message
...
"Cool Breeze" WA3MOJ Georgeie wrote:
wrote in message
...

It's clear that you don't care about anything but yourself, and you're
still a cross-posting idiot.

--
GO# 40

So are you assclown.

Here's for you and Dan.

http://amishrakefight.org/gfy/



Yawn, your still a cross posting queer.

Mike Coslo wrote in :

Alun Palmer wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote in :



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....."



That is the strongest argument against it, i.e. is it a condition? It
may not be, but this is the first post to attack that point


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?



Yes


The administration has determined that the persons seeking a
license must pass a 5 wpm Morse code test.


Not so fast. Where does it say that in respect of the Novice
frequencies?


Until it changes it's requirements, it will continue.


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



Who said there was? Maybe D Stussy, but his line of argument is truly
wierd

Yeah, reading his argument makes me dizzy.


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



Yes, but have they actually made it in respect of those particular
frequencies? I'm not sure that they have.


Since many contries have individual bending of the rules, (US
technician, Japanese Low power HF as examples, there is already
evidence of some modification of the rules. This of course complicaes
matters.

So we are left with starting from the premise that we or whatever
country is in initial compliance. That initial compliance is dated from
the day before the rule change.

This to me says that the present state is in compliance, even
though
the requirement for the Morse test has been modified.

I certainly understand your argument.

Yes, I beleive you do now. I think we are at least 'on the same page'.

But when situations like
this
crop up, and one rule interferes with another, those who would be
called on to make a ruling have to make it with the concept of the
spirit of the rule, plus they have to make rulings that do not throw
the institution into chaos.



Others have pointed out that rule 301(e) was written that way to avoid
creating any new 'Tech+' licencees, but it looks as if invoking the
international rules created a sunset clause, whether intentionally or
otherwise.

I don't really see how that throws anything into chaos. Right now no-
coders who operate on the Novice/Tech HF allocations can't readily be
detected for lack of any central records to prove that they are actually
no-coders. If the changes to s25.5 affect 97.301(e) so as to make it
permissible, then from the FCC perspective it makes an enforcement problem
go away!



Using the argument that Morse code testing has been abolished is quite
simply *wrong*.


No-one is saying it has been abolished for the General or the Extra


- Mike KB3EIA -


73 de Alun, N3KIP

"Ryan, KC8PMX" wrote in message ...
Definitely a problem if you do not have a HF reciever at all. And those Rat
Shack ones suck for that too.

Amen, don't even think about one of those turkeys. One advantage I/we
had back then was a profusion of quite inexpensive but usable HF rcvrs
which are not available today. Mostly military surplus gear and some
commercial cheapies like the Hallicrafters S-38. In this respect maybe
we had it much easier than the newbies today have.

There used to be publication of VHF
rebroadcasts of the w1aw transmissions, but I have yet to hear any around
here in Michigan. Where the hell is the so-called field organization they
are so proud of on this one? Even if it is a members-only thing, still you
would think that the local (state-wise) field organizations would think that
was important enough to rebroadcast.........

Too much work. Plus once VHF comes into play CW becomes a no-interest
thing. We've had sporadic attempts around here to get 2M code practice
sessions going but they didn't last very long.


Ryan, KC8PMX

w3rv

"Dick Carroll;" wrote in message ...
Brian Kelly wrote:

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.

Exactly, and with my old ARC 5 receiver you NEVER heard only one signal, the thing was wide open and you
had to pick out which signal you wanted to copy and learn to ignor ethe rest. Sure was good training, I
developed a very
good 'internal filter' at the outset and still retain that skill.

Yessir. Ya had to learn operating skills along with learning just the
code. Whether ya wanted to or not. There was no "pause" button on W1AW
and ya couldn't replay it either.

I saw some *really* off-the-wall Novice rcvrs. One buddy of mine
comandeered an old wooden case Philco BC/SW rcvr which didn't have a
BFO. Musta had a 15 Khz "bandwidth". So he copied the thumps the
speaker cranked out. Some time later he managed to pick up a
half-working grid-dipper and tuned the dipper just off the sides of
the incoming signals and viola, hetrodynes he could copy. As long as
he had his mitts on both tuning knobs. I came along and had a
brainfart. I fished an insulated wire down inside the last IF can and
wound the other end loosely around the GDO coil and tuned the GDO to
455 kHz. Instant BFO. He took it one step further yet and added a
gawdawful narrow passive surplus audio filter and cruised all over
40M with that lashup. The homebrewed TX was another Rube Golberg gem,
some xtal oscillator tube driving a 6146, all of it in a cigar box.

Imagine any nocode even considering jumping thru those hoops just to
get on the air.

The upside was that the Novice bands were absolutely packed with slowspeed code and finding lots of
practice was no problem. You also learned to copy the many and varied 'fists', it was all hand sent, no
one had a keyer, though some used bugs. That provided another experience which developed lifetime
skills that no one today gets. I still enjoy copying hand sent or bug sent code, unless it's *really*
butchered.

Absolutely correct. It goes farther than that though.

As much as a pain in the butt as those days were in a number of
respects that regime had a number of huge advantages over what is
available today to newbies. The Novice bands were actually a very
successful "support group", we had no options but to clump together
and work with each other toward the same objectives. We climbed all
over each other trying to get our speeds up and beat the one-year
clock on our drop-dead tickets.

Boy there was the incentive licensing move from Hell! But it worked
and the only bitching I ever heard was from a few of the OFs who
turned their noses up at the mere thought of allowing newbies to get
on the HF bands with a lousy 5wpm code test. Turned out to be a
non-sequeter for them 'cause the FCC tossed us into our isolated
playpens 'way up the 80 & 40M bands where they didn't have to put up
with us. We *had* to work each other. Clever arrangement in
retrospect.

And in many if not most cases getting a Novice station took a bunch of
self-taught knowledge and work just to get on the air. All of which
were more learning experiences. One did not use a rubber-duckie or any
otjer catalog antennas on 80 . . autotuners . . as if . . digital
*nothing* . .

No doubt a dumb-down proponent or two will scan this diatribe and get
some giggles out of the ramblings of another stuck-in-the-past grouchy
OF. But in the end who will be the **real** losers?

Yeah, there's a "cultural gap", fuggem all, I hope they get just
exactly they want.


I'm still a very strong supporter of learning Morse via the W1AW
code practice sessions.

It's probaby the best training resource around if one owns a receiver, especially after one has learned
basic Morse.

Yup. Lotta newbies have used zero-cost borrowed rcvrs. I'd loan one of
my "spares" to anybody who was genuinely interested in copying W1AW.
I "loaned" my old HQ-120 to the kid accross the street, he then loaned
it some other kid . . . I have no idea wher it finally landed.


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've heard them one one band or another everywhere in the USA
that I've listened for them including out on the west coast.

Good. Then they do have big coverage.

w3rv

(N2EY) wrote in message ...
In article ,
(Brian Kelly) writes:

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.

Same here. Except I had to build the receiver, learn to use it, then find hams
to listen to.

I sure built my share of rcvrs. At least in my case finding the ham
bands didn't seem to be much of an issue and there wasn't much to
learn about how to use 'em. Under any conditions I'd rather try to
find 40 with one of those than I would the first time I sit down in
front of any of the current riceboxes. Heh.

Did not know W1AW existed when I was studying for Novice so I
listened to other hams.

I probably "got around" more than you did and I did a lot of "radio"
before I finally went for my Novice ticket. Early tinkering & tuning
led me to working on my Boy Scout Merit Badge. Which was basically an
ARRL publication and everything a newbie needed to know about W1AW
code practice sessions was in the Radio Merit Badge booklet. I still
remember buying it from the Boy Scout department in the Lit Brothers
store at the bottom of the Hill. They special-ordered it for me.

I was also all over the Red Arrow, PTC and PRR commuter lines at a
tender age. The newsstand in the PTC waiting room in 69th Street
Terminal stocked 73 and CQ and occasionally QST. I always scarfed one
of 'em up if I had enough pocket change. I picked up a lotta info from
those long before I got my ticket. Then there were my ham buddies in
UDHS. By the time I actually got on the air I was pretty well primed.

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.

W6OWP used to do west-coast runs but I think that has ended. The antenna farm
used for code practice and bulletins at W1AW is designed to blanket the USA on
all bands. Full legal limit into long Yagis aimed at the West Coast on all
bands where a Yagi is practical.

Dick sez they have good coverage of the west coast.

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.

W1AW DOES send Farnsworth at the slower speeds! And they've done so since
before I ever heard of them - 35+ years. I think they transition at 13 or 15
wpm.

They definitely did not use Fransworth back when I was getting
started. I wish they had. Once I got my General it was goodbye W1AW
code practice for years until I went back to clock myself at 25-30wpm
for the Extra in the same timeframe in which you were getting started.

Bulletins are sent at 18 wpm so there's even more practice.

One drawback/advantage of W1AW is that it is sent on a fixed schedule. If you
simply cannot be at the rx at the appointed time, you're outa luck. OTOH,
having a fixed preset practice time tends to help some folks actually DO IT
rather than talk about it.

W1AW has plenty of sessions per week, I dunno, I seldom had any
particular trouble making myself available for the evening sessions.

Another trick I've done for years: Have the rx on and tuned to a CW station
whenever possible. I used to do homework with the cans on and tuned to a CW
station - any station - as background. After a while it became like listening
to somebody talk.

No way. I can't obsess in two directions at the same time . . !

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

73 de Jim, N2EY

w3rv

On Fri, 1 Aug 2003, Alun Palmer wrote:
...
Others have pointed out that rule 301(e) was written that way to avoid
creating any new 'Tech+' licencees, but it looks as if invoking the
international rules created a sunset clause, whether intentionally or
otherwise.

AH! Someone who is now on the verge of understanding what that "wierd" thing I
said was. IT was a "sunset clause" and the change to S25.5 was the "sunset."

I don't really see how that throws anything into chaos. Right now no-
coders who operate on the Novice/Tech HF allocations can't readily be
detected for lack of any central records to prove that they are actually
no-coders. If the changes to s25.5 affect 97.301(e) so as to make it
permissible, then from the FCC perspective it makes an enforcement problem
go away!

It doesn't make it permissible. What it did is REVOKE the authority for those
Novices/Techs to operate on HF at all. The problem STILL GOES AWAY because NO
ONE has the privilege. The FCC doesn't have to worry about who's has a
Technician Plus legacy license, a renewed Technician (with code credit), or a
Technician with code credit in hand (that they don't know about) - it doesn't
matter; Technicians (and Novices) don't have any HF privileges anymore. "The
sun has set."

[This also explains why Tech Plussers received Technician licenses upon
renewal. The license class, and now its privilege, has been disposed of in a
very seripticious, systemic manner.]

Using the argument that Morse code testing has been abolished is quite
simply *wrong*.

No-one is saying it has been abolished for the General or the Extra

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

"Ryan, KC8PMX" wrote in message
...
Yep, As I was aware of that. And I never expected them to change for me
at
the last minute. BUT, I do believe that with enough warning ahead of
time
it should be considered more than fair for a VE team to make an
adjustment.
It should be no problem for a VEC to be able to send via code practice
oscillator!!!!!! Wouldn't that be a shame if the VEC's have become so
lazy
they can't even send a code test via a key because they are relying on
the
code CD's and tapes.

Where the hell did you think I expected to walk into a test session in
the
past, and at the last possible moment expect a major change?

They are supposed to make those provisions. If they did not, they were in
the wrong. However, I would not favor them using hand sent code with an
oscillator for two reasons. 1) Oscillators are often not adjustable in
pitch. 2) Some people who copy quite well have absolutely lousy fists and
do not send good clean code. It takes a pretty good op to copy some of
the
people out there.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


And the fluctuation in CW skills is yet another reason to question its
validity as a testing element.

Kim W5TIT


---
Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net
Complaints to

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
y.com...

"Ryan, KC8PMX" wrote in message
...
Yep, As I was aware of that. And I never expected them to change for
me
at
the last minute. BUT, I do believe that with enough warning ahead of
time
it should be considered more than fair for a VE team to make an
adjustment.
It should be no problem for a VEC to be able to send via code practice
oscillator!!!!!! Wouldn't that be a shame if the VEC's have become so
lazy
they can't even send a code test via a key because they are relying on
the
code CD's and tapes.

Where the hell did you think I expected to walk into a test session in
the
past, and at the last possible moment expect a major change?

They are supposed to make those provisions. If they did not, they were
in
the wrong. However, I would not favor them using hand sent code with an
oscillator for two reasons. 1) Oscillators are often not adjustable in
pitch. 2) Some people who copy quite well have absolutely lousy fists
and
do not send good clean code. It takes a pretty good op to copy some of
the
people out there.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


And the fluctuation in CW skills is yet another reason to question its
validity as a testing element.

Kim W5TIT

That's false logic. One could apply the same to the variation in all other
ham radio knowledge.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

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

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
y.com...

"Ryan, KC8PMX" wrote in message
...
Yep, As I was aware of that. And I never expected them to change
for
me
at
the last minute. BUT, I do believe that with enough warning ahead
of
time
it should be considered more than fair for a VE team to make an
adjustment.
It should be no problem for a VEC to be able to send via code
practice
oscillator!!!!!! Wouldn't that be a shame if the VEC's have become
so
lazy
they can't even send a code test via a key because they are relying
on
the
code CD's and tapes.

Where the hell did you think I expected to walk into a test session
in
the
past, and at the last possible moment expect a major change?

They are supposed to make those provisions. If they did not, they
were
in
the wrong. However, I would not favor them using hand sent code with
an
oscillator for two reasons. 1) Oscillators are often not adjustable
in
pitch. 2) Some people who copy quite well have absolutely lousy fists
and
do not send good clean code. It takes a pretty good op to copy some
of
the
people out there.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


And the fluctuation in CW skills is yet another reason to question its
validity as a testing element.

Kim W5TIT

That's false logic. One could apply the same to the variation in all
other
ham radio knowledge.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


Exactly. Except that the written tests, by virtue of their being only one
right answer that has already been chosen to be the right one, is much more
stable. Yes, sometimes the right answer isn't so right. BUT, by virtue of
agreeing to take the test you have studied for, you are agreeing that the
right answers are right.

By your observation above, the CW test is dependent on tone quality, morse
style, etc. It is not a very stable test environment.

Kim W5TIT

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
y.com...

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
y.com...

"Ryan, KC8PMX" wrote in message
...
Yep, As I was aware of that. And I never expected them to change
for
me
at
the last minute. BUT, I do believe that with enough warning ahead
of
time
it should be considered more than fair for a VE team to make an
adjustment.
It should be no problem for a VEC to be able to send via code
practice
oscillator!!!!!! Wouldn't that be a shame if the VEC's have
become
so
lazy
they can't even send a code test via a key because they are
relying
on
the
code CD's and tapes.

Where the hell did you think I expected to walk into a test
session
in
the
past, and at the last possible moment expect a major change?

They are supposed to make those provisions. If they did not, they
were
in
the wrong. However, I would not favor them using hand sent code
with
an
oscillator for two reasons. 1) Oscillators are often not
adjustable
in
pitch. 2) Some people who copy quite well have absolutely lousy
fists
and
do not send good clean code. It takes a pretty good op to copy some
of
the
people out there.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


And the fluctuation in CW skills is yet another reason to question its
validity as a testing element.

Kim W5TIT

That's false logic. One could apply the same to the variation in all
other
ham radio knowledge.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


Exactly. Except that the written tests, by virtue of their being only one
right answer that has already been chosen to be the right one, is much
more
stable. Yes, sometimes the right answer isn't so right. BUT, by virtue
of
agreeing to take the test you have studied for, you are agreeing that the
right answers are right.

By your observation above, the CW test is dependent on tone quality, morse
style, etc. It is not a very stable test environment.

Kim W5TIT



Again your logic is faulty. The code test administration environment is
stable. The pitch is predefined. The speed is predefined. The tapes or
CDs are made using computer generated code, thus all the spacing is correct
and stable. In other words, at the test, one is listening to perfect code
and then there is only one right answer. It is even more perfect than the
written tests since some of those answers are a bit if you've actually
studied and learned the theory rather than memorizing questions and answers.

In both instances, code and written, the person is to pass the test and then
improve their abilities in the real world.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE