"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.


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


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? 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.


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?


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?


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.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"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

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

"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/

"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

"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/

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

Ryan, KC8PMX wrote:
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??


I know what you're saying Ryan, but there is a huge difference between
the Internet and Ham radio:

Ham radio does not allow a person to download Porn, do business online,
or find cool software.

Ham radio would like a person to have a certain technical acumen, while
the internet demands clicking on links.

Wheras may who are interested in Ham radio find the internet a useful
tool and entertaining, the converse is only true in a very few cases.
It's really not the same group of people.

If the internet were to suddenly dissapear, very few of the people using
it would decide to migrate to Ham radio (conjecture, for sure - but do
you want to refute that?)




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.


Good work, man!

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Ryan, KC8PMX wrote:
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??


I know what you're saying Ryan, but there is a huge difference between
the Internet and Ham radio:

Ham radio does not allow a person to download Porn, do business online,
or find cool software.

Ham radio would like a person to have a certain technical acumen, while
the internet demands clicking on links.


If you look at it from that perspective, yes. But, just as in ham radio,
even the "internet" provides for opportunity if you look and are interested
beyond the basics. There's networking environments that can be
"home-brewed" that will provide faster access, more efficient use of hard
and soft storage; there's machine specific solutions to better connection
speeds and more efficient use of BPS and MPS, etc. See? In my world, you
look at the "internet" like I look at ham radio. BUT, you won't hear me
saying that you aren't interested, or that you are "dumbed-down" or that you
aren't equal [or not], or any of those other childish arguments one uses for
self-gratification. Know why? Because, in the end, we are all on the
internet...and why would I care why or how you approach the task?


Wheras may who are interested in Ham radio find the internet a useful
tool and entertaining, the converse is only true in a very few cases.
It's really not the same group of people.


Once again, that is from your perspective.


If the internet were to suddenly dissapear, very few of the people using
it would decide to migrate to Ham radio (conjecture, for sure - but do
you want to refute that?)


Whereas, if ham radio went away today...well, there'd be no difference in
internet usage because most hams are already there... And, I daresay that
most hams would be "inventive" enough to create some pretty fantastical ways
to employ the technologies VOIP, etc., to using the internet for "fun"
communication.


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.

Good work, man!

- Mike KB3EIA -


Kim W5TIT

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Ryan, KC8PMX wrote:
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??


I know what you're saying Ryan, but there is a huge difference between
the Internet and Ham radio:

Ham radio does not allow a person to download Porn, do business online,
or find cool software.

Ham radio would like a person to have a certain technical acumen, while
the internet demands clicking on links.


Right. No argument there.


Wheras may who are interested in Ham radio find the internet a useful
tool and entertaining, the converse is only true in a very few cases.
It's really not the same group of people.

Sometimes it is, sometimes not.


If the internet were to suddenly dissapear, very few of the people using
it would decide to migrate to Ham radio (conjecture, for sure - but do
you want to refute that?)

Sure, and I will say it again...... An alternative is only an alternative if
it is involved as a possibility in the equation in the first place. Like I
said in the quoted text above which is a mantra of some here, stating that
of course kids run to the internet. Of course, ham radio is not an
alternative for the kids, as they are not aware of it as an alternative.

People in their 50's, 60's, and older have a different view of radio, as it
was more of an important part of their lives that it is today for people.
Back then for them, radio was more of a primary entertainment and/or
information source than it is now, be it listening only or transcieving.






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.


Good work, man!

- Mike KB3EIA -


I have been pushing the group to look more into events like this, especially
working better with the Scout leadership in this area. We had at least one
kid (about 13-14) who definitely showed alot of interest, and who knows,
possibly a new ham in the future??



--
Ryan, KC8PMX
"Symbolism is for the simple minded....."