|
"N2EY" wrote in message ... I'd say they should have at least half of the General CW/data subbands. No need to if the code is eliminated as they can easily upgrade to General with a 35 question test that is only marginally harder than the Technician test. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"Clint"
Arnie : On the contrary, Dwight. He has claimed in one of my threads that we are nothing more than knuckledraggers who don't understand modern technology. BZZZZZT! Wrong... (1) I have never used the term "knuckledragger" at all, nor have I called any of you guys one... (2) I have never said that you "don't understand modern technology". All my comments have been to the effect that the PCTA crowd has an agenda that doesn't reflect the change in times and modernization of communications, both of which is suppose to be reflected in the ham radio community... I never said you didn't UNDERSTAND modern technology, I said you guys weren't wwilling to allow the testing to "advance the hobby into the modern age." __________________________________________________ ___________ "Clint" wrote in response to my reply ... "the PCTA crowd just said "six mega what ???" you screwed up and mentioned something modern and applicable in the real world.... they're trapped in 1952." Arnie : Gee, you got us there, Clint. All of us knuckle-dragging CW'ers are just caught in a time warp. "Yep. pretty much." Arnie - KT4ST |
agenda that
doesn't reflect the change in times and modernization of communications, Of love this term that the No-Code Knuckle Draggers keep throwing out. I guess there meaning of the Term "modernization" means Dumbing Down to there Level. |
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 article , "Dee D. Flint"
writes: "Dwight Stewart" wrote in message k.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. Just who made such a statement in 1990 or before? Well that influx of technical types didn't happen. Over 200 thousand NO-CODE-TEST Technician licenses happened since 1991. You seem to be saying that every one of them "isn't technical." Tsk, tsk... Unfortunately, the Technician licensees following that change are saddled with an expectation that they themselves did not create. "Saddled" with what? They shoulder the burden of expectations created by those who would not have to fulfill them. WHAT "burden of expectations?" In the last four decades of US amateur radio the MAJOR TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCES in the state of the amateur radio technological art have been made by COMMERCIAL people designing and making radios for amateur radio. The narrow bandpass filters that made SSB filter-method transceivers possible used basic designs intended for commercial and military radio. The Collins Radio mechanical filters were intended originally for landline- microwave radio relay equipment. The introduction of SSB to US amateur radio was made possible largely by Collins Radio receiving a design-development contract from USAF for the Strategic Air Command. That "proved" that single-channel SSB transceivers were practical. The frequency-control of amateur radio transceivers is due to adaptation of commercial and military designs of PLL synthesizers and, later, to designs of Direct Digital Synthesis sub-systems once microprocessors were available and low enough in cost. You are probably too young to have experienced the very COARSE and sometimes inaccurate frequency control in transceivers of four decades ago...and the "crystal calibrators" used to spot-check "bandspread" and "main" tuning dials at 100 KHz increments...and when amateur transmitters needed individual quartz crystals to insure stability on HF bands. The "TOR" in such RTTY/Data systems using PACTOR, AMTOR, etc. means "Teleprinter Over Radio" and was developed primarily for commercial users. The various "TORs" are the mainstay today of maritime shipping communications. The modern computer you are using in here does (or should) reach throughput rates up to 56 KBPS in a band-limited space of just 3 KHz bandwidth (the telephone line). That wasn't invented or innovated in amateur radio by some morse code user. Microprocessors and microcontrollers are at the heart of nearly EVERY MF-HF-VHF-UHF amateur radio receiver/transmitter/transceiver. Those can trace back to about 1973 and the first Intel microprocessor chip or the competitors appearing shortly thereafter. The in-line, on-line antenna bridge-detector to enable automatic tuning known as the "Bruene Detector" came about from the T-192 transmitter designed and built for a USMC contract by Collins Radio...in 1955. All of the automatic antenna tuners of today can trace their ancestry directly to that practical, working implementation of 48 years ago. Single-channel FM transceivers at VHF and higher owe much to the pioneering of Motorola done just prior to the US entry into World War 2. Both AM and FM mobile radios were pioneered by various commercial concerns and several metropolitan police departments just before WW2. The fact that quartz crystal units became relatively cheap for amateur purchasing just after WW2 was a result of the 2nd highest priority in war production (behind the Manhattan Project) when the US total production averaged a MILLION quartz crystals a MONTH. US military contracts spurred the development of "artificial" (man-done) growth of quartz crystal blanks which came about just after WW2. What have been the "advances" for on-off morse codings? The electronic keyer? An adaptation of already-known basic digital circuits to create the controllable dot and dash times. More "sophisticated" keyers used conventional keyboards and computer components and software to enable writing to be transmitted by on-off keying methods. Hardly an "advance in technology." The brick-wall DSP filters touted by a few morsemen owes its existance again to military efforts and development for SONAR...and later adaption of that to telephony circuits and general communications. 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. Those who love the PAST, the "good old days," and the simplicity of primitive technology of a century ago might be attracted to a radio service requiring a demonstrated morse code test. Morse code was first used in 1844, almost 160 years ago. Ordinary mortals who have adapted to the new millenium are very well acquainted with men traveling to the moon and those men being televised live from a quarter million miles away walking on its surface. We are all used to global communications satellites in-use for two decades, FAX transmission of documents and images from the home (or a corner chain store at a shopping center), color television for over three decades and, for some, digital television with superb picture quality. Popular as well as classic music through CDs has already reached epic market heights and the MPEG-based DVD has replaced the magnetic videotape. Anyone can buy a pair of FRS handheld radios at consumer stores for less than $50, absolutely no license required. Cordless phones are available now at 5 GHz carrier frequencies, something unheard-of or even expected three decades ago. One in three Americans is a cellular telephone subscriber and has the capability of dialing directly to any other direct dial telephone in the world from anywhere within a cell site's antenna reach. Do you REALLY expect that morse code offers a "challenge" let alone interest in emulating a century-past primitive radio communications means?!? Incredible! LHA |
In article , "Clint" rattlehead at computron
dot net writes: I don't whine or nag. Yea, you pretty much do. I have a strong belief in my position code testing, and I am able to state it with clarity, passion, and conviction. But simply without any convincing debate points or ideas other than "do it, we all had to" and "do it because you are told to do it, you are a insert childish, juvenile personal attack here if you do not want to. Clint: Please provide either the direct quotes from me where I have made such statements in the exact manner and with the exact meaning that you infer, or your immediate apology for mischaracterizing my postings on this topic. I'll give you a clue: I have very carefully avoided saying those things. I have always supported my position on code testing on the basis of the value of the Morse/CW mode to the ARS, and the need for radio amateurs to learn and gain useful proficiency in this mode in order to exploit it's many advantageous features and benefits. I've NEVER said, "I had to take code tests, so you should have to," except in this very sentence. You, Kim, and most of the NCTA appear to be limited to name-calling -- boy if that' isn't the pot calling the kettle black. WHO is doing the name calling? it's not the NCTA group calling the PCTA "lazy", "stupid", and an assortment of complex insults using spurious comparisons. I may have referred to NCTA's as "lazy," but not "stupid." As a matter of fact, I find that lazy people are usually quite ingenious in finding ways to avoid doing things they can't be bothered to do. Everyone is "lazy" about something. I'm lazy about a lot of things. 73 de Larry, K3LT |
In article , Radio Amateur KC2HMZ
writes: On 27 Sep 2003 02:29:22 GMT, ospam (Larry Roll K3LT) wrote: Not necessary, Dwight. I was right the first time. Heh...no you weren't - FCC dropped the 13 and 20WPM tests last time, just like they'll drop the remaining vestiges of code testing this time around. There's still time for you to change your mind before a report & order comes out, though... 73 DE John, KC2HMZ Tonawanda, New York John: I have stated many times that I fully expect the FCC to abolish code testing as a result of WRC-03. This will have little or no impact on me personally, so I have nothing to change my mind about. I will always be a 20-WPM code-tested Extra-class amateur radio operator, and nobody can take that away from me. Unfortunately for the new Zeroed- Out Hams, nothing can confer that status upon them. I will continue to operate as I always have. I don't ask anyone's license class or code speed on-the-air. 73 de Larry, K3LT |
In article , Radio Amateur KC2HMZ
writes: That doesn't seem to be how the FCC (which is where the final decision on code testing will come from) views it: "We note, moreover, that the design of modern communications systems, including personal communication services, satellite, fiber optic, and high definition television systems, are based on digital communication technologies. We also note that no communication system has been designed in many years that depends on hand-keyed telegraphy or the ability to receive messages in Morse code by ear. In contrast, modern communication systems are designed to be automated systems. Given the changes that have occurred in communications in the last fifty years, we believe that reducing the emphasis on telegraphy proficiency as a licensing requirement will allow the amateur service to, as it has in the past, attract technically inclined persons, particularly the youth of our country, and encourage them to learn and to prepare themselves in the areas where the United States needs expertise." SOURCE -- The Federal Communications Commission In the Matter of WT Docket No. 98-143 RM-9148 RM-9150 RM-9196 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review Amendment of Part 97 of the Commission's Amateur Service Rules. REPORT AND ORDER Adopted: December 22, 1999 Released: December 30, 1999 You may now proceed to thank me for finally clearing this up. 73 DE John, KC2HMZ Tonawanda, New York John: I've said it before, and I'll repeat it now: The FCC doesn't have the best interests of the ARS in mind. The ARS is an administrative liability for the FCC, and they would be more motivated to deregulate it as much as possible than to bolster licensing requirements in any meaningful way. Therefore, the FCC's words must be taken with a grain of salt, and I'm on a self-imposed low-sodium diet. 73 de Larry, K3LT |
|
In article , Radio Amateur KC2HMZ
writes: If it seems to you that I am drawing a parallel between this fistfight between two schoolboys and the behavior of some of the participants in this debate, it's because I am...and matters are compounded by the fact that this is not an isolated incident between two boys in a suburban city in the Northeastern U.S., it's right out here on the Internet for the whole world to see...and smell. 73 DE John, KC2HMZ Tonawanda, New York John: I find your story quite illuminating, and I don't necessarily disagree with the point you're making. However, it is the nature of human beings, who are prone to having a passionate reaction to issues of concern to them, to seek to engage those who offer an equally passionate response. If and when this trait ceases to be a part of the human conditon, we will be way beyond any concern for things like code testing, or amateur radio itself, for that matter. We'll probably be building flying saucers and travelling to planets in far away galaxies. 73 de Larry, K3LT |
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 |
"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 |
|
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
ink.net... "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 - |
"Bert Craig" wrote:
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.) But to do so would require the FCC to change the way it has viewed Amateur Radio almost since its creation. If we argue that we're just another radio service (like CB), with no connection to anything outside Amateur Radio (other radio services, etc), then the argument supporting our massive frequencies is sharply weakened. The emergency communications aspect is not enough to support that because we can do that with far less frequencies (a few frequencies on each band, with perhaps far less bands). We have to be very careful here that we don't cut our leg off in the process of trying to save the foot (or, in this case, CW testing). 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. We took this apartment (paid for by the VA) to allow my wife to easily attend school just down the street. Sadly, there is enough metal in this building to build a few dozen Army tanks. Even worse, the apartment is directly above the owner's apartment and he likes to spend a great amount of time outdoors on the patios out back (the front is directly above the office entrance). I've tried several homebrew internal antennas, but none of them would allow me to consistently hit a repeater just a few miles away. We're hoping that, once the owner gets used to us, he'll eventually allow a small antenna. But, as it is now, the only way to talk on the radio at home is to walk out onto the balcony (and the metal in the building even effects that). Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
|
"WA8ULX" wrote:
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. Perhaps that's what you did, Bruce. But just because you did it that way doesn't mean others did. I studied for the test, fully understood the concepts, and took the test with the confidence of knowing and understanding the material presented. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
We have to be
very careful here that we don't cut our leg off in the process of trying to save the foot (or, in this case, CW testing). Its to late the legs are already gone. |
"Dee D. Flint" wrote:
The same argument can be used for Smith charts since Techs are not required to learn that either. Its not an argument about whether one is required to learn something. The issue is what makes one person "more qualified" or "more experienced" AS A HAM RADIO OPERATOR than another person. Now, unless the Smith charts become the sole criterior for that judgement, the total sum of what it takes to be a ham radio operator, the premise that one person is "more qualified" or "more experienced" as a ham radio operator simply because he knows the Smith charts is flatly wrong. 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. Likewise, Morse code is not the sole criterior for juding whether a person is "more qualified" or "more experienced" as a ham radio operator either. Therefore, the very premise behind your statement is fundamentally flawed. Since Morse Code is no longer required to be a ham radio operator (note the 200,000 Techs), it is absurd to judge someone as "less qualified" or "less experienced" as a ham radio operator simply because that person doesn't know Morse code. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"N2EY" wrote: 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. You're "all else being equal" disclaimer is silly, Jim. When talking about human beings, there is never a time when all else is equal. Regardless, by your logic, all else being equal, since I've posted more messages in this ham radio-related newsgroup than most (perhaps even you), and computers are used in connection with ham radio to send similar messages, that alone makes me "more qualified" and "more experienced" AS A HAM RADIO OPERATOR than most (perhaps even you). Of course, that very premise is absurd, isn't it? And your premise is equally absurd. In my opinion, only a truly desperate person would grasp at a tiny thread like this to support a claim that they're "more experienced" or "more qualified" than someone else. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:
"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. 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. Are those "*entry-level* amateur radio operators" something other than Amateur Radio Operators, Larry? If not, my statement is correct - Morse code is not required to be an Amateur Radio Operator. 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. No, it simply means the FCC is responding properly to the realities of the world around us. Larry. "We are persuaded that because the amateur service is fundamentally a technical service, the emphasis on Morse code proficiency as a licensing requirement does not comport with the basis and purpose of the service. We note, moreover, that the design of modern communications systems, including personal communication services, satellite, fiber optic, and high definition television systems, are based on digital communication technologies. We also note that no communication system has been designed in many years that depends on hand-keyed telegraphy or the ability to receive messages in Morse code by ear. In contrast, modern communication systems are designed to be automated systems. Given the changes that have occurred in communications in the last fifty years, we believe that reducing the emphasis on telegraphy proficiency as a licensing requirement will allow the amateur service to, as it has in the past, attract technically inclined persons, particularly the youth of our country, and encourage them to learn and to prepare themselves in the areas where the United States needs expertise." - FCC WT Docket No. 98-143 RM-9148 RM-9150 RM-9196 The exact same arguments could be made when talking about the elimination of the Element 1(a) code test. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"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. No, Dee. Jim's premise is not politically incorrect - it's simply incorrect. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Dee D. Flint" wrote:
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. (snip) The FCC, myself, thousands of other Amateur Operators, and the entire rest of the radio world outside Amateur Radio, disagrees. 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. You can count me in. I strongly support and promote the use of Amateur Radio in every form. CW is a fine operating mode and should be promoted right along with the rest of the operating modes available to us. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"N2EY" wrote:
"Dwight Stewart" wrote" 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. Excuse me? I'm not a member of, nor do I represent, NCI or NCVEC. Again, I've never made such a claim. If you have a problem with something those groups have said, take it up with them. I have no accountability whatsoever for anything they've said or done. 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? In its 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review, the FCC said... "Given the changes that have occurred in communications in the last fifty years, we believe that reducing the emphasis on telegraphy proficiency as a licensing requirement will allow the amateur service to, as it has in the past, attract technically inclined persons, particularly the youth of our country, and encourage them to learn and to prepare themselves in the areas where the United States needs expertise." I don't see anything in there about a technical revolution, Jim. Instead, I see an effort to attact "technically inclined persons" and "encourage them to learn and to prepare themselves in the areas where the United States needs expertise." I fully agree with that position. If someone has said something different, that is not my position, nor the position of the FCC. By the way, I also agree with that as it applies to the elimination of the code testing requirement. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:26 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com