About Us

August 12th 03, 08:52 AM

ospam (Larry Roll K3LT) wrote:
In article , Floyd Davidson
writes:

Using PSK-31 is not exactly a great indication of experience.
DICK's experience with *only* CW, PSK-31 and other common modes
used on Amateur bands is an extreme restriction. And that is
exactly why he (and Larry Roll) should *not* be using themselves
as a yard stick for other hams.

Frostbite Floyd:

This newsgroup is about AMATEUR Radio. The experience that Dick and I
have with CW, PSK-31, and other modes "common" to AMATEUR Radio
is certainly not a "restriction," and is, indeed, a "yard stick" by which we

You need a micrometer, not a yard stick Larry. That's a very
*small* area of exposure.

The more you take this discussion out of the context of AMATEUR radio,
the more irrelevant you make yourself. If you have professional-grade

The more we put it in the context of reality, and remove it from the
small sand box you play in, the more appropriate it becomes as a way
to measure the ARS as a whole.

technical qualifications, I think that's great. However, I don't -- and very
few AMATEUR radio operators do. What we do have is curiosity, and a
willingness to learn. We also have the operating authority to experiment with
modes such as PSK-31 and adapt them to effective communications in keeping
with the rules, regulations, and purpose of the AMATEUR Radio Service.

If hams and the ARS were where all the innovations in radio and
communications come from, your point would be valid. But
exactly the opposite is true, and what actually happens is that
hams and the ARS pick up innovations, mostly from the *many*
hams that do work in the industry.

A perfect example of what happens when the rest of the world is
closed off per your specifications is this entire concept that
CW is still somehow a vital and useful mode of radio operation.
Despite all of your blathering, it is not vital and it is useful
virtually *only* as a hobby pastime for ham operators to enjoy
if they wish.

I won't presume to speak for Dick, but I consider myself to be a typical,
average AMATEUR radio operator who has pursued the art and science

Look Larry the Liar, you can't have it both ways. You've claimed
that *everyone* should learn CW, because you were forced to and then
you ended up enjoying it; you've claimed that your written exam
was more difficult than those given today; you've claimed that your
experience puts you in the top 5% of all hams.

of AMATEUR radio communications at a level which is considerably
above that of other hams who, for whatever reasons (excuses), fail to
pursue modes beyond those involving voice communications. Now, to

So you *aren't*, by your measure, "a typical, average AMATEUR radio
operator". So stop trying obfuscate your claims of being the
Great Stick To Measure All of Hamdom By.

be fair, I don't include among that group those who tend to specialize in
more technical aspects of the hobby such as building and maintaining
repeater systems.

Yeah, they don't count... they do something you don't.

I've known a lot of hams who do this, but are No-Code
Techs who don't have any interest in CW, or anything else on HF, for

And that is what you like, so that is where the Stick Dips. Hmmmm...

Larry, the Calibrated Dip Stick for all of the Amateur Radio Service.

that matter. I value their contribution and consider them to be full-fledged
radio amateurs.

Garsh, I bet everyone of them is just *so* glad to hear about that.

However, they represent a very tiny minority of the
overall ham radio population, and an even smaller minority of No-Code
Techs.

You constitute the *tiniest possible* minority of the overall
ham radio population: One Dip Stick.

They are even further diluted when you consider the fact that a
lot of the technical/repeater gurus are also CW-tested, CW-using, CW-
loving, and Morse code test supporting Pre-Restructuring Extra class
licensees.

So you've just demonstrated that CW doesn't have much to do with
the highly technical aspects of the ARS.

DICK and Larry have dabbled at 2, 3, maybe 4 different kinds of
digital communications systems. Thrilling. Whether I or

Yup. "Dabbled" is just about what I'd call it myself. However, my
"dabbling" represents a level of technical involvement which I would
dare say places me in the top 5th percentile of just Extra-class hams,
not including all other license classes. Therefore, I consider myself
to be more than qualified to judge other hams on this basis.

That's an exceptionally rude insult to all Amateur Radio
operators. You appear to me to be probably at about the 25%,
where 3 out of 4 Extra Class hams have a broader base of
experience. (Note that that *is* rather complimentary for
someone who is not a professional. Now if only your ego matched
your experience, you'd be a valuable ham instead of an
embarrassment.)

level of technical involvement among radio amateurs. Legitimate
"pros" like Len, Carl, and yourself do add considerable value to the
ARS as a whole, but you cannot in any sense of fairness use yourselves
as any kind of objective "yardstick" by which other hams are measured.

And we *aren't*. That's the point. We don't think *you* should
either.

In fact *your* argument is the same bogus one that DICK and
Larry make! Because *they* use CW (or PSK-31), everyone else
either does, or is declared too dumb to license (or understand
how Shannon applies to PSK-31). That is invalid logic and leads
you to erroneous conclusions.

Fallacy. You are making apples-to-oranges comparisons, which is a
well known Usenet tactic, but one which always ultimately ends up
disqualifying the person using it.

You just did the exact same thing up above using repeaters instead
of CW or PSK-31. I'm not comparing apples-to-oranges Larry, I'm
just tossing one bad apple out of a barrel of apples.

The truth of the matter is that under some
conditions PSK-31 outperforms OOK
Morse CW, and under some conditions
OOK Morse CW outperforms PSK-31.

And that tells us *nothing* about which is the more efficient or
effective mode of communications.

No, it doesn't. That would depend on a universally accepted
definition of the terms "efficient" and "effective" in the context
of the use of these modes within the ARS. To the extent that the
meaning of these terms are infinitely arguable, only those of us
with fairly extensive operating experience in each can even come
close to being qualified to render an objective opinion.

Actually, the definition of "efficient" isn't much in debate.
It's a simple measure of the percentage of the channel capacity
attained. "Effective" is as you say, open to debate. In the ARS
"effective" can mean does it make Larry Roll puff up with pride
after a half and hour CW session, or does it take him 4 hours...

Dick's claims are not "bogus" in any way, since they are based on

Dick's claims are simply ludicrous. He is spouting absolute
nonsense. Everything he says is right up there with your concept
of Empirical Theory.

BTW, I do believe that Mr. Shannon's theory is relevant to Amateur
Radio. I believe that what Dick is doing is making observations
based on actual operating experience, rather than empirical theory.
This may be the cause of the confusion, but as I said earlier, I do
not presume to speak for Dick.

That paragraph sums it up just so perfectly that you can't imagine
what you've said!

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
NCVEC Position on Code	Chic N Pox	Policy	87	August 19th 03 12:41 PM
NCVEC Position on Code	Chic N Pox	General	1	July 31st 03 05:23 AM
NCVEC NPRM for elimination of horse and buggy morse code requirement.	Keith	Policy	1	July 31st 03 03:46 AM
NCVEC Position on Code	Phil Kane	Policy	0	July 31st 03 03:30 AM
NCVEC Position on Code	Jim Hampton	Policy	0	July 31st 03 12:50 AM

Menu

About Us