It might have if it was promoted better. The argument of people running to
the internet, or the internet being competition is not as strong of an
argument (among other arguments). You can't "run" to something if you
didn't know it existed in the first place. Let's see, how many people have
heard of the internet?? How many have heard of ham radio??? How many of
these answeree's are under 25-30??

Our local group just did a presentation/booth for the boy scouts this past
week, and only about 5-10% had a clue that ham radio even existed.


--
Ryan, KC8PMX
FF1-FF2-MFR-(pending NREMT-B!)
--. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-.
... --. .... - . .-. ...

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

"Mike Coslo" wrote:

Might be the company you keep Dwight! 8^) Unless you
are counting only the building of the transciever itself,
homebrewing is alive and well. (snip)


My reply was directly in response to Jim's question about "100%
built-from-scratch amateur radio receivers, transmitters, transceivers,
antennas, power supplies, etc." I responded by talking about building "a
radio today." Does any of that clear up what I might have been addressing?


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Bert Craig" wrote:

Of course you can quote your source for these assertions, yes?


What assertions, Bert? This is a newsgroup discussion, not a courtroom.


Amateur radio is all we're talking about, Dwight.


For the reasons already stated several times, code testing cannot be
discussed solely within the context of its use within the Amateur Radio
Service. The FCC doesn't view it that way, therefore we cannot do so either.


(snip) Instead it's morphed into an "international" movement,
the result of which will devalue AR as a whole. (snip)


Nonsense. The entire rest of the radio world is moving, or has moved, away
from code/CW. If anything, our continued focus on that as a primary element
of this Service is what has devalued (and is devaluing) Amateur Radio.


I know I'd NEVER snub a licensed ARO OTA...but it'd be
foolish to believe that everybody will roll out the welcome
mat for known NCTA's. (Sad as it is.) Welcome to HF,
Dwight. Be careful what you wish for.


Is that some kind of veiled threat, Bert? If so, feel free to snub me all
you want. Someone who would treat another person as unwelcomed over
something as petty as the code testing issue is not someone I would want to
talk to anyway.


Try QRP, Dwight. You'll love it. Some of the newer antennas
are made to be used in just your situation and are no bigger
than VHF mobil antennas. There's also a special feeling of
accomplishment with making a contact with 2-1/2 Watts into
an "invisible" wire dipole or longwire strung temporarily
from a window.


You don't know what my situation is, Bert. I have considered the options
available and find none of them to be very useful. An external antenna, not
matter how small, is out of the question. The same with alternative antennas
(hidden and so on). Because of the building materials used, an internal
antenna is ineffective. The same with increased power output. I am not aware
of any solution that would be effective in my situation (other than moving,
which is also out of the question at the moment).


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"N2EY" wrote:

I disagree!

Apply that logic to some other skill or knowledge. For example,
the Smith Chart. (snip)

Or how about Ohm's Law? The phonetic alphabet? Typing skills?


Those are all skills or knowledge that can be used by every ham radio
operator. Not so with Morse Code.


You think that skills do not transfer in any way? I disagree!


I think code skill does not transfer to "more experienced" or "more
qualified" when discussing a ham radio operator instead of code alone.


Sorry Dwight, you're simply off base on this one. I cannot see
how you can deny that having Morse code skills makes a ham
more experienced and more qualified - all else being equal.


More experienced and more qualified in what, Jim? Morse Code only, not as
a ham operator. With the Technician license, the FCC has already established
that Morse Code is not a qualification needed to be a ham radio operator.
Therefore, Morse Code cannot be used when deciding who is "more experienced"
or "more qualified" as a ham radio operator.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

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. (snip)


It didn't? I have a Tech license and consider myself fairly well informed
when it comes to technology. I don't know how bright I am, or if my
involvement will ever lead to "significant technical advances in ham radio,"
but at least I'm here. Am I the only one? I'd surely hate to shoulder this
burdon alone.

Aren't you being a little unrealistic, Dee? Did you really expect this
group to offer up "significant technical advances" in a mature radio
environment? For that matter, did you really expect this one group to offer
anything more than the other license holders today? Radio is in the
evolution stage at this point, not the revolution stage. Changes will come,
but they're certainly not likely to be earth shattering changes.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"WA8ULX" wrote:

" trained operators, technicians, and electronics experts."

You have to kidding, most of the New Hams have no Idea what
it is to be trained technicians or electronic experts. (snip)


Only you would make a stupid statement like that, Bruce. They're new! By
definition, a person new to anything is not likely to be an expert. Duh!!


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Dwight
Stewart"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote:

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."


Without a desire to communicate with Morse Code, there is no truth to
that
statement at all.

I disagree!

Apply that logic to some other skill or knowledge. For example, the Smith
Chart. All else being equal, is a ham who knows how to use the Smith Chart
to
solve transmission line and impedance matching problems more experienced
and
more qualified than one who does not?

Or how about Ohm's Law? The phonetic alphabet? Typing skills?

Even with that (the all being equal aspect), there is no
truth to the "more experienced" or "more qualified" when it comes to
absolutely anything beyond Morse Code.

You think that skills do not transfer in any way? I disagree!

Therefore, those two have no place in
that paragraph without Morse Code, not the radio amateur, specified as
the
"more" being discussed. Therefore, only the "more radio communications
options" has any significant ring of truth to it.

Sorry Dwight, you're simply off base on this one. I cannot see how you can
deny
that having Morse code skills makes a ham more experienced and more
qualified -
all else being equal.

All else being equal, having Morse skills makes a ham more experienced and
more
qualified than not having them. But that fact is not a proof that those
skills
*must* be tested.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In today's society, it is politically incorrect to consider one person
better than another in almost any field regardless of how much they know in
that field and how little the other person knows.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
ink.net...
"N2EY" wrote:

I disagree!

Apply that logic to some other skill or knowledge. For example,
the Smith Chart. (snip)

Or how about Ohm's Law? The phonetic alphabet? Typing skills?


Those are all skills or knowledge that can be used by every ham radio
operator. Not so with Morse Code.



Morse code can be used by every ham radio operator if they choose to learn
it.

You think that skills do not transfer in any way? I disagree!


I think code skill does not transfer to "more experienced" or "more
qualified" when discussing a ham radio operator instead of code alone.


Sorry Dwight, you're simply off base on this one. I cannot see
how you can deny that having Morse code skills makes a ham
more experienced and more qualified - all else being equal.


More experienced and more qualified in what, Jim? Morse Code only, not
as
a ham operator. With the Technician license, the FCC has already
established
that Morse Code is not a qualification needed to be a ham radio operator.
Therefore, Morse Code cannot be used when deciding who is "more
experienced"
or "more qualified" as a ham radio operator.

The same argument can be used for Smith charts since Techs are not required
to learn that either. Morse code is a skill used in amateur radio so
someone who knows it is a more qualified operator than someone who doesn't
whether or not it is a required skill. Just as knowing how to use a Smith
chart makes one more qualified.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
ink.net...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

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. (snip)


It didn't? I have a Tech license and consider myself fairly well
informed
when it comes to technology. I don't know how bright I am, or if my
involvement will ever lead to "significant technical advances in ham
radio,"
but at least I'm here. Am I the only one? I'd surely hate to shoulder this
burdon alone.

Aren't you being a little unrealistic, Dee? Did you really expect this
group to offer up "significant technical advances" in a mature radio
environment? For that matter, did you really expect this one group to
offer
anything more than the other license holders today? Radio is in the
evolution stage at this point, not the revolution stage. Changes will
come,
but they're certainly not likely to be earth shattering changes.



I personally do not have such an expectation nor is it a comment on any
individual Technician licensee. Most of the Techs I know are indeed quite
bright and well informed on technology. I was merely pointing out why some
people seem to put so much pressure on Technicians, i.e. the proponents of
the change "sold it" by using the "big influx of technologically oriented
new hams and signficant technical advances" as one of the key elements of
their argument. That argument was invalid then and is equally invalid now.

In my opinion, almost every argument posed on both sides (for or against
code testing) has major flaws and is invalid.

Personally I consider basic code one of the fundamentals of radio even if
one chooses not to use it after learning it. As a basic, I believe it
should be tested. That is the position I will continue to support. And I
will continue to promote code use whether the code testing is dropped or
not.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

In article . net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

"N2EY" wrote:

I disagree!

Apply that logic to some other skill or knowledge. For example,
the Smith Chart. (snip)

Or how about Ohm's Law? The phonetic alphabet? Typing skills?

Those are all skills or knowledge that can be used by every ham radio
operator.

How can a blind amateur use the Smith Chart?
How can an amateur who cannot speak use the phonetic alphabet?

Not so with Morse Code.

Which amateurs cannot use Morse code?

You think that skills do not transfer in any way? I disagree!

I think code skill does not transfer to "more experienced" or "more
qualified" when discussing a ham radio operator instead of code alone.

All else being equal, having a skill related to amateur radio means the person
with the skill is more experienced than someone who doesn't. (Note that "all
else being equal" thing).

Sorry Dwight, you're simply off base on this one. I cannot see
how you can deny that having Morse code skills makes a ham
more experienced and more qualified - all else being equal.

More experienced and more qualified in what, Jim?

In amateur radio communications.

Morse Code only, not as a ham operator.

No, as a ham operator. Morse Code is a big part of amateur radio. (So are many
other things which do not have their own, standalone test for a license).

With the Technician license, the FCC has already established
that Morse Code is not a qualification needed to be a ham radio operator.

More precisely, they have said that a Morse Code *test* is not absolutely
necessary in order to be granted a license.

But I'm not talking about the *test*, but about relative levels of experience
and qualification.

Therefore, Morse Code cannot be used when deciding who is "more experienced"
or "more qualified" as a ham radio operator.

By that logic, nothing that isn't on the Technician written test can be used to
determine who is "more experienced" or "more qualified" as a ham radio
operator. Faulty logic.

For example, the Tech test does not require that an amateur actually operate an
amateur radio station at all. So, by the logic you use against the Morse Code
experience/qualification thing, an amateur who has spent many years operating a
wide variety of modes, bands, and on-air activities (public service, contests,
rag chews, satellites, etc., ) cannot be said to be "more experienced" or "more
qualified" as a ham radio operator, because the Tech test doesn't require any
actual operating.

The inescapable, logical conclusion that results is this: Having Morse code
skills makes a ham more experienced and more qualified as an amateur radio
operator - all else being equal.

Of course that plain simple fact doesn't prove that there must be a code test
as a condition of granting a license.

73 de Jim, N2EY