"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message link.net...
"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/

And therin lies the problem.

These OF's expect that the newbie will study a Q/A guide, pass a test,
and somehow end up with 20, 30, 40 or even 50 years of experience
under their belts - just like they did(?) back in '06.

That's not how it works.

These OF's expect that the newbie will study a Q/A guide, pass a test,
and somehow end up with 20, 30, 40 or even 50 years of experience
under their belts - just like they did(?) back in '06.


BS, first they dont Study, or even know the Basic Material. All they do is
Memorize some Q&As, and then take a test on material they know nothing about.

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

"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


I wonder how many of the 'enlightned' know what the Technician license was
ORIGINALLY
intended for?

I'll help you out....it wasn't an 'entry level' license.

Come on all you old timers. Straighten out the enlightned out there.

Dan/W4NTI

In article , (N2EY)
writes:

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?

Why are you so focussed on a common graphical tool used by RF
PROFESSIONALS?

A Smith Chart is no damn good if you don't understand complex
number quantities.

Oh, I get it. The US amateur test regulations should all be about
satisfying the "disabled." Understand.

How can an amateur who cannot speak use the phonetic alphabet?

Q: How can an amateur who cannot think talk about radio regulations?

A: Go into this newsgroup and blather about the importance of code!

:-)


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).

"All else being equal" does not apply. That is pre-loading your
supposition.

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.

Ah, you think amateur radio is ALL about morsemanship!

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).

Morse code is NOT the biggest part of amateur radio.

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.

Yes they did, 13 years ago and again 5 years ago.

The FCC is the ONLY agency which grants US amateur radio
licenses. The "amateur community" doesn't grant them.

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

...which you have absolutely pre-loaded to favor your own personal
desires and abilities. Not valid for establishing regulations that
apply to ALL Americans.


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.

It's only "faulty logic" to morsemen.

For example, the Tech test does not require that an amateur actually operate
an
amateur radio station at all.

Neither does the General or Amateur Extra, nor did the Novice or Advanced
classes. Tsk, tsk, tsk.

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.

Yes, yes, yes, mighty macho morseman...you are the "most experienced"
of all, especially using satellites to rag-chew on "CW."

We KNOW that you set yourself and morsemanship as the very model of
a modern macho morseman.

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.

That is inescapably ILLOGICAL. There is NO "all else being equal" situation
in the US amateur radio license test regulations that make it "logical" to
prove any morsemanship ability. That is just your personal viewpoint.

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

The only "plain simple fact" proven was that you are a morseman and are
trying to force all future US radio amateurs to test for morse code
regardless
of its validity in determining licensing to the FCC.

LHA

The only "plain simple fact" proven was that you are a morseman and are
trying to force all future US radio amateurs to test for morse code
regardless
of its validity in determining licensing to the FCC.

LHA

And the other simple fact is, the No-Code Knuckle Draggers are trying to push
Ham Radio into CB Status.

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

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. (snip)


I've never made such a claim, so have no response to any counter-claim.

You might want to take a look at the NCI and NCVEC petitions, for a
start on who is claiming what.

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. (snip)

Skill in Morse Code is certainly not unique in that ability, Jim.

Actually, it is unique in that ability. What other mode permits a
skilled operator to extract so much on-air performance from such
simple equipment?

Last night I worked a ham in Mississippi on 40 CW. He was running a
homebrew 3 watt QRP transceiver of his own design and a simple wire
antenna. I was running my homebrew 100 watt Southgate Type 7
transceiver and inverted V. Good solid QSO, homebrew-to-homebrew. How
often does that happen on any other mode? How much performance would
you expect from a simple homebrew SSB transceiver of the same
complexity?

In fact, almost any knowledge of radio would allow that.

What homebrew rig would you recommend to a newcomer with no
experience, few resources, but a great desire to learn?

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. (snip)

With almost every commercial radio today equipped to transmit code, why
would that be true?

It's true because there are folks who actually want to build radios
with their own hands and heads, rather than buy them ready-made. Kinda
like home-cooking, even though there are restaurants all over, and
packaged foods of every description in the supermarkets.

Plus there's money to be saved. My current homebrew rig cost me less
than $100 to build. How much of a used rig HF rig can you buy for
under $100?

Few today, even those with an interest in code, are
building their own equipment. Instead, most are using the same type of
equipment I've purchased.

And that's sad. In fact, it's a real problem for a service that FCC
calls "fundamentally technical".

How can we say we're a "technical" radio service if we don't even
design, build, repair or maintain our radios?

What does it matter if a ham knows how the DDS synthesizer in his
Ikensu box works if, at the first sign of trouble, he packs it up and
sends it to a service facility without even trying to fix it?

I speak from direct experience in amateur radio home
construction, having built my first amateur station at
age 13. (snip)

How many 13 year old kids today, with or without a ham license, with or
without code skills, are building their own radio equipment today?

I don't know - but there are some. One reason there aren't more is
because of the de-emphasis of HF and CW as a starting point in the
ARS.

You think an average motivated 13 year old couldn't build a simple CW
rig today, put it on the air and make lots of contacts with it?

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.

That was one of the prime arguments for dropping the code test for
Tech back in 1990, and it's one of the prime arguments for dropping it
altogether today. You want me to quote chapter and verse from some
petitions?

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?

Because there were *allegedly* all sorts of "technically qualified"
and "cutting edge" folks out there just itching to get a ham license
and usher in a brave new world of ham radio - except they were stopped
by the code test. Either they weren't interested in code or they
didn't have the time, or they refused to "jump through the code test
hoop".

So the code test was dropped and.....there was no revolution.

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.

Which "amateur technical efforts" are you referring to, Jim? I must have
missed something because I haven't seen much technical efforts from ANY of
the operators I've met over the last few years, regardless of license class.

How about these:

- 24 GHz EME QSOs with small dishes and less than 100W
- APRS
- PSK-31 and other TOR modes
- WSJT and other software decoders
- SO2R software and hardware
- the Tayloe (N7VE) mixer

The last is my personal favorite. Ham thinks up a new use for an
interesting chip. Designs and builds a really high performance low
current drain direct-conversion HF transceiver around his idea to
verify the performance. Amazing results. Rig is simple enough for most
hams with a little soldering skill to replicate. Might even be a
patent involved in the thing.

What mode did he build his transceiver for? CW.

There was supposed to be a kit marketed, but AFAIK that hasn't
happened. No matter - there's enough info on the website (Red Hot
Radio) to build one from scratch.

Just think - a ham can build an honest-to-goodness rig (not a lab
experiment, not a curiousity) that will work lots of other hams. And
it has high-priced-rig performance for a tiny fraction of the price of
any store-bought set.

But you have to know Morse to be able to use the thing.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
news
"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.

The word assertion is not confined to a courteoom.

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.

I believe it's the job of the majority to work on getting the FCC to view it
that way. (Assuming, of course, the majority are PCTA's. Your opinion may
differ.)

(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 disagree...and BTW, it NOT a primary element.

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.

Puh-lease Dwight. Remember the "you're talking about me!" thread? No need to
play paranoid with me. If I were going to snub you or anybody else, I'd tell
you...CRT to CRT. HOWEVER, as the opening sentence of the paragraph states,
it's not my style and it's just plain wrong. Cautioning someone of a
possible hole in the road ahead is NOT akin to digging it. "Veiled threat,"
sheesh, Dwight. ggg

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.

Sorry, just making an assumption in an attempt to assist.

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).

My job is like that. The building is really well shielded and I wanted to
run an inconspicuous 30/40m SW+ QRP rig from my desk.

--
73 de Bert
WA2SI

"N2EY" wrote ...

Emergency communications?

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

This is true. Ben there, done that. Although Len likes to say that I work
as a "local" Emergency Manager, the fact is that I am the Director of
Emergency Management for two of the largest Military Installations east of
the Mississippi. We serve a very large population and coordinate closely
with multiple county EMA Directors. With that background in mind, we *do*
use CW to some degree when conditions warrant. For example, in 1999 (for
Hurricane Floyd) CW was used to communicate on HF when the conditions were
too poor to use SSB. Once the conditions improved we went back to voice,
which is always our primary mode. This is one of the reasons that I say
every Ham should have a basic skill in CW. It just adds to their
versatility in emergency communications.

Arnie -
KT4ST

In article . net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

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.

Dwight:

Incorrect. The Technician class license infers that knowledge of Morse
code isn't required to be an *entry-level* amateur radio operator. There
are two higher classes which require a code test.

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

Of course it can, since becoming a General- or Extra-class ham still
requires a code test, and always has.

If and when the Element 1(a) code test is abolished, that will simply prove
that the FCC has a low opinion of the ARS as a whole, and that it responds
to political pressure -- i.e. petitions to remove code testing, and the
comments
which support them.

73 de Larry, K3LT

Dee D. Flint wrote:

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.

I suppose if you talk to teenagers it is. My environment is quite
cognizant of education, knowledge and accomplishment.

- Mike KB3EIA -