"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

In article ,
(N2EY) writes:

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
nk.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?

Whatever happened to the beloved Elecraft kit? Fail to work?

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?

A used 10 meter transceiver developed from a CB rig.

Push-to-talk, release to listen, only voice needed (no hours and hours
of practice at morse). Lots of jargon and phrases to learn to avoid the
catcalls from the traditionalists in hamlingo.

Such transceivers have a two-decade maturity of existance, are fairly
standard in structure/architecture.

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.

Lots of KITS on the market still, aren't there?

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?

$100 at what year's earnings? Have you priced vacuum tube replacements
these days?

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".

I do wish you PCTA would get your acts together. The status quo
traditionalist and resident mysoginist Roll says it is "all about
operating!. You say it's all about "technical building."

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

From any sort of inspection of the photographs of various amateur
radio "shacks" of the last three decades, the vast majority use
ready-built equipment.

Solid-state radios don't need their tubes changed.

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?

What's your problem? I thought you said yesterday you were this
big mentor in ham radio. Why aren't you out there TEACHING all
these newcomers all about the radio technical arts?

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.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. At age 20 I was made responsible for operating and
maintaining top-of-the-line (for 1953) high-power HF transmitters (three
dozen of them) that DID NOT USE any morse code modes.

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?

Why are you so FIXATED on the ONLY WAY a newcmer can get
started in ham radio is to be a young teenager?

Are you afraid that those older than teen years will realize what a farce
the start-simple-at-CW thinking of the 1930s is in the year 2003?

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?

Feel free. I'd like to see those myself.

I've not seen any "petition" having "chapter and verse." Sounds like
you are very disturbed at some heretical ideas replacing the morse
religion of pre-WW2 times (as published in the hymals of the Church
of St.Hiram.

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".

Well, SOMEONE had to mention had to mention technical advances
in amateur radio by other than the USERS of ready-built gear.

Lord knows there were NOT a lot of "cutting edge" stuff from the old-
timers carrying on their love affairs with on-off keying codes.

Yes, Dan Tayloe did a very good advancement in one small sliver
of low-powe radio technology and HE deserves the credit, not "CW."

When used with a polyphase audio network it works excellently as a
very high IP3 direct-conversion QRP SSB receiver. NO morse code
required.

But, you state that the Tayloe mixer was coneived JUST for morse
code reception. That's patently false (Dan has his patent application
in and waiting...which can sometimes be 3 years).

We ALL KNOW in here that you are a code fanatic, Sheriff Jimmie.
All the proselyte text is clogging everyone's HD. Try to remove the
blinders and realize that all DO NOT think as you do of the "excellency
of morsemanship" a la the 1930s standards and practices.

LHA

"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/