but it'd be foolish to believe that
everybody will roll out the welcome mat for known NCTA's. (Sad as it is.)

Whats amazing is these NCTA think they should be welcomed with open arms, and
thanked for getting a license. I for one will never welcome a No-Code into Ham
Radio. Because to me they are nothing more than CBplussers, looking for more
Welfare Handouts.

"Arnie Macy" wrote in message ...
"Dwight Stewart" wrote ...

Math is not my forte. I got through the classes, but had to struggle every
single step of the way. In fact, I still struggle with it to some extent to
this day, so I'll obviously never be anything close to an expert on it.
Perhaps I need to do what most do and simply avoid situations involving
serious math.
__________________________________________________ __________

When I was in high school, I absolutely hated math. And not unlike you, I
tried to avoid it as much as possible. But for some reason, the light came
on when I entered college. As much as we might hate it, math does play a
rather large roll in Amateur Radio.

Arnie -
KT4ST

Bruce says not to work the math on the Extra exam. Should everyone take his advice?

Bruce says not to work the math on the Extra exam. Should everyone take his
advice?


Thats because there is no reason to work the Math, the Test is so simple.

Brian wrote:
(N2EY) wrote in message om...

"Arnie Macy" wrote in message ...

"Dwight Stewart" wrote ...

Math is not my forte. I got through the classes, but had to struggle every
single step of the way. In fact, I still struggle with it to some extent to
this day, so I'll obviously never be anything close to an expert on it.
Perhaps I need to do what most do and simply avoid situations involving
serious math.
_______________________________________________ _____________

When I was in high school, I absolutely hated math. And not unlike you, I
tried to avoid it as much as possible. But for some reason, the light came
on when I entered college. As much as we might hate it, math does play a
rather large roll in Amateur Radio.

Arnie -
KT4ST

I think that a lot of people who imagine themselves to be "poor" at
math are actually the result of poorly written math books and
less-than-stellar math teachers.


My calculus teacher was the wrassling coach.

Wuz he a good calculus teacher?

- Mike KB3EIA -

In article , (N2EY)
writes:

In article .net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

Code makes a person more experienced?

Using the mode sure does.

What about when NOT using morse code?

Remember that morse code is only the secondmost used mode and then
only on HF bands.

If that is true, then a person who
passed a code test yesterday is more experienced than a person who got his
license ten years ago without knowing code, and more experienced than all
those in the other radio services where code is not used.

No, that's not what is being said.

That is what was IMPLIED.

More rounded in what?

In the communications methods actually used by radio amateurs. A ham license
is
a license to operate an amateur station in the amateur radio bands, not to
particiapte in other radio services.

US radio amateurs use VOICE more than on-off keying CW.

Nothing is stated in Part 97 CFR referring to amateur radio operators
as "ham" operators or having "ham" licenses.

In the USA, the FDA would regulate ham.

Emergency communications?

To a very small degree. Ask KT4ST - he's been there, done that.

We have NO actual evidence available for that. Being some kind of
local emergency manager is NOT factual evidence of actual
emergency communications.

Moonbounce? Satellites?

A lot of amateur moonbounce and satellite work has been done with Morse code.

Accurately show the values or percentages of US amateur radio
extraterrestrial communications.

And if a person with
code was truly more able to provide communications under adverse conditions,
all radio services would still be relying on code.

No, that's not true.

It is ABSOLUTELY TRUE. Denial does not alter reality.

Other radio services use radio as a means to an end, not an end in itself.
Most
of them have the complete elimination of radio operators and radio operating
skill as a goal. That's why the maritime service phased out Morse code on the
high seas - they wanted to save the cost of having radio officers on their
ships.

The purpose of radio on waterborne vessels is for the purpose of
COMMUNICATIONS. It was never about maintaining some kind of
standards on operating radios, maintaining radio operators, or
preserving some kind of "tradition" of old-time radio.

Feel free to look at Part 1, Title 47 CFR, to see that the FCC has
added more radio license categories for watercraft communications
and safety than ever existed for radiotelegraphy.

They aren't. In the end, these are all code myths.

No, they are misunderstandings by those who don't like the code test.

UNQUESTIONABLE INCORRECT in the reality of world use of radio.

Here, try this one:

"All else being equal, a radio amateur who has Morse Code skills is more
experienced, more qualified, and has more radio communications options
available than a radio amateur with no Morse Code skills."

That is what is referred to as a "loaded" statement which automatically
implies that morse code users are somehow "superior" communicators.

The loading comes from the opening "All else being equal."

US amateur radio regulations do NOT specify that morse code MUST be
used over and above any other mode.

US amateur radio regulations allow free and optional use of ANY
allocated mode, any frequency band.

Your statement would be correct ONLY if morse code was required for
USE by all US radio amateurs. It is not so.

The amateur radio service is NOT the "amateur radiotelegraphy service."

In article , (N2EY)
writes:

In article .net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:

I've already answered that question many times, but the
short form is that without code testing, there is no incentive
for radio amateurs to learn the code at all. (snip)

But, again, why should there be "incentive" for hams to learn code?

Because it's not a skill that most people will have learned elsewhere.

Invalid as to federal regulations.

The FCC was not chartered in 1934 to be some kind of educational
organization encouraging or promoting morse code use.

Most prospective hams already know how to read, write, talk and type. Most dod
not know any Morse code.

Irrelevant as to federal regulations.

Notice
that I'm not asking why a person would want to learn code on their own.
Instead, I'm asking why there should be an effort on the part of the ARS or
FCC to promote (boost, encourage, or push) this single operating mode (it's
the only mode specifically skill tested)?

See above.

Invalid "see." The FCC is the ONLY agency licensing radio amateurs in
the USA and was never chartered 69 years ago to promote or encourage
morse code.

Retaining continued skill in Morse/CW has no negative
effect on the development of technology in the future.
That's an NCTA red herring.

I didn't say it had a negative effect, Larry. Instead, I asked you how
this (code skill testing) will help to keep the ARS abreast of modern
technology, insuring our continued value to others? I also asked how this
(code skill testing) will help move the ARS into the future (where we should
be mainly focused)?

Some claim that Morse Code testing is at odds with the purpose of the amateur
radio service as a fundamentally technical service. But in the practical
experience of thousands of amateurs, the opposite is true.

There are over 600 thousand US amateur radio licensees. Please show
proof of your claim of "practical experience of thousands of amateurs..."

Try not to misdirect into areas not under discussion.

Skill in Morse Code, even at a very basic level, permits amateurs to use radio
equipment ranging from very simple to highly advanced designs, and
technologies of almost any vintage.

The purpose of the US amateur radio service, as defined in Part 97.1,
Title 47 CFR, is NOT to be some living museum of radio or radio arts.

Skill at morse code, at any level, is NOT required or even necessary
to OPERATE radio equipment, any complexity, any vintage, that does
NOT use on-off keying coding for communication.

Morse Code skill encourages amateurs to actually build
their own radio equipment by offering an easy first step, and a growth path
that leads to almost any usable technology.

Unproven. Unjustifiable.

Morse code skill is a psychomotor skill which has NO direct or even
remote relationship to building, designing, or even conceiving of radio
equipment.

It must be remembered that most
radio amateurs are self-trained and do not have access to professional level
resources.

One "professional level resource" is a BOOK.

There are thousands of text books available on the market today which
are not published by the ARRL.

Few amateurs today would consider a single-sideband transceiver as a
first project, but the home construction of Morse Code equipment is possible
for almost all amateurs.

"Home construction of morse code equipment" can consist of a switch
(code key), wire, and buzzer. Hardly rocket science.

I speak from direct experience in amateur radio home construction, having
built
my first amateur station at age 13. Since then I have built many more projects
of increasing complexity, and much of my current amateur radio station is
entirely homemade.

So, the way you did it is the role model for all others?

"Homemade" has diverged from older definitions of design and build to
just assembling kits, such as from Elecraft.

Kit building is not exactly "home made" and certainly not DESIGNED
by the builder/assembler.

The construction of my early stations led me to an
electrical engineering degree and career.

The majority of EEs of today got there from INTEREST in electrical
and electronic engineering and NOT by having a "ham" license
first.

The removal of the Morse Code test from the Technician class license has not
resulted in a technical revolution in amateur radio from newly-licensed
"technically qualified" amateurs.

False analogy.

Most (by photo evidence, overwhelmingly so) communications equipment
used by radio amateurs is READY-BUILT, designed by others,
assembled and tested by others. It has been so for over three decades.
See any collection of amateur radio related periodicals to confirm that.

The "technical revolution in amateur radio" has come from RADIO EQUIPMENT
MANUFACTURERS. See any collection of amateur radio related periodicals
to confirm that. See any collection of radio related periodicals to confirm
that.

USE of already designed and manufactured radio equipment is simply USE
and NOT "advancing some technical art in radio."

Instead, the continued progress in amateur
technical efforts continues to be mostly the result of work done by
experienced
amateurs, even though the Technician class license has not had a code test for
more than 12 years.

ENTIRELY FALSE analogy. Unrelated and unproven.

All vague inference.

Trying to "convince" others by using false and misleading inferences is very
"bad form" and equivalent to the vague generalities of the BPL advocates in
response to FCC Docket 03-104, none of whom have submitted any factual
information, just marketing phrases.

"Radio Amateur KC2HMZ" wrote in
message ...
**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****

On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 23:51:00 GMT, "Dee D. Flint"
wrote:
[snip]
If the simplest approach
is taken to this change (simply dropping the code requirement), we would
actually have an immediate increase in people with access to the Novice
subbands as all Techs, not just Techs with code, would now be able to
operate there. So this should increase the need to keep these bands
allocated to the Novice/Technician groups.

I think it will create a need for even *more* spectrum to be allocated
to those groups - and bear in mind it's not an exclusive allocation;
General, Advanced and Extra licensees can operate there as well, as
long as they stay at 200 watts or less - but the question is, how many
of them are going to be using CW absent a code testing requirement,
and how many will be on other modes?

Nope don't give them more room. If they don't want to be restricted to the
current Novice subbands and privileges, they can go pass the General test if
they want more space. NO FREEBIES. The General test is almost a repeat of
the Technician test. The additional material between Tech and General is
pretty minimal.


We're told by some PCTAs that once the test is eliminated, the stock
of CW operators in the ARS is going to dry up - to hear them tell it,
like a wet lawn on a sunny day in July. If they're correct (and with
the way some of those folks toss around insults I have to admit that
if I was a Technician the last thing I'd be interested in doing is
learning code just so I could get on the air and work the same guy who
just raked me over the coals in this NG), there's going to be a need
for more space for all the new phone ops the PCTAs seem to be fearing
the arrival of. Meanwhile, CW is already authorized on any frequency
where an amateur has operating privileges, so why continue to have
subbands at all?

If the code "monster" is eliminated, they can get more room by upgrading to
General. Again I repeat, NO FREEBIES.

Why have subbands? Well simple, there are 600,000+ amateurs in the US.
This is more than all other nations combined (if Japan is excluded). US
voice operators could conceivably make too much noise worldwide for foreign
operators. At least this way they foreign operators have a section that
they can use voice while we are restricted to CW or data.

Also given the way people are very poor at following the existing band plans
that overlay the mandated subbands, I wouldn't trust the 600,000+ operators
to follow a mere band plan.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
.net...
"N2EY" wrote:
The removal of the Morse Code test from the Technician
class license has not resulted in a technical revolution in
amateur radio from newly-licensed "technically qualified"
amateurs. (snip)


I didn't know the Technician license was supposed to lead to a technical
revolution in anything, Jim. Instead, I thought they were just supposed to
participate in the same activities most other Amateur Radio operators are
participating in. Why the unique expectation for Technician license
holders
alone?



Those who pushed for the Tech no code license loudly and repeatedly claimed
that it would lead to a major influx of technically bright hams that would
lead to significant technical advances in ham radio since it was supposedly
code keeping them out. Well that influx of technical types didn't happen.
Unfortunately, the Technician licensees following that change are saddled
with an expectation that they themselves did not create. They shoulder the
burden of expectations created by those who would not have to fulfill them.
Whether or not one believes in code testing, it highlights some of the
inherent flaws in the argument that code keeps technical types out of ham
radio.


Dee D. Flint, N8UZE