|
Ain't it amazing Bruce? This Texas Twit keeps sticking that foot deeper in
her mouth everytime. Hug and Chalk is going strong. Dan/W4NTI Didnt you like that comment over hers Dan, 1 of GIRL FREINDS, maybe she just has a problem with guys, you dont think she might be lite in the Loafers do you? |
In article , "Kim W5TIT"
writes: "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , "Kim W5TIT" writes: Of course not. But I can accurately say that there is no need to roll everyone who wants to see an end to the test element, into the "no CW use" minority (note I said minority), either. Agreed! Point is, however, that the "no one" statement is simply not correct. Let's recall that you are far more into definition than I am, Jim. When I say "no one" it may not mean *everyone* but it means enough to be counted as no one. Sorry, Kim, that's too much of a stretch. "No one" means "not anyone" or "not even one person". Zero people, in other words. "Almost no one" is what I think you intended to write. As in "Almost no one wants to see Morse use banned". I believe that the number of folks who wish to see an end to CW in the bands of the ARS are so miniscule that the projection of that ever being a reality is moot. I hope you are right. However, I recall a time when the same could be said of those who wished to see an end to code testing. "Never" is a very long time. How many things have you seen in your lifetime that, if someone had told you about them years ago, you would have said "That will *never* happen in my lifetime"? Look who is the new governor of California. Of course he's really just a front man for term-limited Pete Wilson, but if someone had told you when the first Conan movie came out that you were looking at the future governor of California.... Anyone, *anyone* who allows theirself (bad English) to get all in a huff about CW use going away or being legislated out of ham radio is being foolish. Not necessarily. Not after seeing the mode (not just the test) attacked the way I have. I've seen it attacked also. But I've never for a moment given it any kind of merit--the mode simply would never be banned from the ARS. "Never" is a very long time. Has any mode ever been banned? Yes. "Mode B" (spark) transmissions were banned for amateurs in 1927. Oddly enough, they were not banned for the maritime services until 1966. Amateur use of spark had just about disappeared by 1925, however. Sure, rules have changed; rules pertaining to power limits, rules pertaining to test requirements, rules pertaining even (I believe) to *where* in the bands that different modes are allowed or not. Sure. For example, once upon a time, the voice part of 80 meters was the low end. But I doubt a mode would ever be banned, once implemented and in place. I hope you are right. But MARS does not allow the use of the mode on their frequencies, by order of the military person in charge. Even if the volunteers want to use it, they're not allowed. Why? No reason given. Many MARS folks quit over that ruling. There are a few who have been proponents of seeing the end of CW; and when I see those posts, I yawn and go on. That's *you* - not everyone. I can't imagine anyone giving merit to the thought that a mode would be banned. Maybe I am being unrealistic. Using history as a perspective of measurement; I don't see it ever happening. There will never be an end to CW use, and it would never be banned from use in the ham bands...it just wouldn't. I think it would be unrealistic to think it would. I hope you are right about that. Some of us are not about to "trust to the kindness of strangers" however I think I believe it enough that I'll eat my sock (the right foot sock) if it ever happens. For your sake I hope that never becomes a necessity. And, if it was based off a majority of users of the bands, I rest assured knowing that most would not support an end to CW use. Not now, anyway. My term "most" includes those people who now and in the future have any kind of romantic thought about the ARS. And, I think most do. There are the few who would see an end to something they don't like. But, given the desire and will of most ARS folks, CW--nor any mode for that matter--will disappear. Now, if I am wrong about history just let me know and I *may* change my belief. I think those who are in the minority are there mostly for the shock value of it. Perhaps. But not too long ago, the mere suggestion of *any* class of ham license with no code test would have gathered almost no support. And the idea of the total abolition of code testing would have been discarded with the claim that *no-one* wanted all code testing to end. I can see requirements changing, etc. But, I cannot see the FCC ever saying, "OK, no more ______ as a legal mode in the ARS." I can. Not very likely, but given the changes in rules I've seen in 36 years, I don;t count anything out. They way to outlaw something is little by little. Remember your concerns about the restrictions on privacy brought about by 'homeland security' responses? Little by little.... I have never doubted that the government would do as they have done. I daresay they were doing under different guises for many years now. Nothing different there. It's all about expectation. The expectation that the FCC would ever ban a mode is minimal for me. There was a time when AM was king of the 'phone modes. Then SSB came a along and took center stage, while AM was relegated to niche status. Most folks said "No-one is against the *use* of AM".... But, did the FCC ever get anywhere close to seeing its use banned? I am not, remember, saying that a mode would become so unpopular or disliked on a scale such that it would be rare to find it openly being used. I am saying, however, that I believe the FCC would never regulate its ban. There was a docket in the 1970s that would have limited the bandwidth of all modes on HF to 3.5 kHz in the 'phone subbands. That would have effectively banned AM and any form of FM below 30 MHz. It was seriously considered. But that was not good enough for some, and proposals have arisen every so often to effectively outlaw AM from the ham bands. HF ham bands, anyway. So far, none of them have been successful. And, I don't think they ever would be. Up until 20 years ago, the amateur power limit was 1 kW DC input to the stages delivering power to the antenna. Then the rules changed to 1.5 kW PEP output. For the AM folks, this was effectively a lowering of the power limit to about half of what it had been before the change. For SSB folks, it was effectively about a 50% raise of the power limit. LIttle by little... I do see things changing in the ARS, but not related to the outlawing of a mode. Lots of ways to outlaw something. Take away the spectrum where it can be used, reduce the power level, etc. Little by little... 73 de Jim, N2EY My first amateur license, a Novice, was dated October 12, 1967. It arrived October 14. |
"N2EY" wrote in message
... In article , "Kim W5TIT" writes: But I doubt a mode would ever be banned, once implemented and in place. I hope you are right. But MARS does not allow the use of the mode on their frequencies, by order of the military person in charge. Even if the volunteers want to use it, they're not allowed. Why? No reason given. Many MARS folks quit over that ruling. We are discussing ARS frequencies, to use your firmness of interpretation. :) I think I believe it enough that I'll eat my sock (the right foot sock) if it ever happens. For your sake I hope that never becomes a necessity. I'm pretty certain. I can see requirements changing, etc. But, I cannot see the FCC ever saying, "OK, no more ______ as a legal mode in the ARS." I can. Not very likely, but given the changes in rules I've seen in 36 years, I don;t count anything out. Well, you mentioned that "spark" was banned. Hmmmm, so there's been a ban on a mode. However, would the ban have been a response to bandwidth usage? I mean would spark violate the spirit of the R&R as they exist today? But, did the FCC ever get anywhere close to seeing its use banned? I am not, remember, saying that a mode would become so unpopular or disliked on a scale such that it would be rare to find it openly being used. I am saying, however, that I believe the FCC would never regulate its ban. There was a docket in the 1970s that would have limited the bandwidth of all modes on HF to 3.5 kHz in the 'phone subbands. That would have effectively banned AM and any form of FM below 30 MHz. It was seriously considered. That's like my almost, Jim. Are we going to speak in almost terms or not? :) 73 de Jim, N2EY Kim W5TIT |
"Kim W5TIT" wrote
But, did the FCC ever get anywhere close to seeing its use banned? I am not, remember, saying that a mode would become so unpopular or disliked on a scale such that it would be rare to find it openly being used. I am saying, however, that I believe the FCC would never regulate its ban. Spark transmissions were outlawed (as well they should have been) so the precedent exists. On a more immediate note, as relates to your discussion on AM phone, I'd have to dig out some old material to get all the facts exactly in order, but there was a petition (in the 70's?) which the I ***believe*** the FCC had moved to the stage of an NPRM to outlaw AM transmissions on the HF amateur bands. The rationale was that AM was (is?) wasteful of spectrum because SSB can convey the same message in half the bandwidth oF DSB AM phone and without those awful sounding hetrodyning carriers. The proposal narrowly missed being adopted, only because of a huge hue and cry from thousands of AM-forever hams (who drew ARRL into the fight on their side). Today you're hard pressed to find any remaining AM-ers on the band, and if the petition were re-introduced it might well be adopted due to lack of organized opposition. Most of the AM-forever crowd has moved to "forever". 73, de Hans, K0HB |
In article k.net, "Bill
Sohl" writes: Another problem is that some (many?) that favor code testing suggest that by ending that testing it will lead to an end to code use. I don't belive that at all and there are hundreds of examples of older technology and skills that are still practiced today in other fields even though such technology/skill is recognized as no longer generally used/needed (e.g. archery, manual transmission autos, etc.) Cheers, Bill K2UNK Bill: One year ago, I traded in a perfectly good 2001 Toyota Corolla LE with a 5-speed manual gearbox for a new 2003 model with an automatic transmission. However, I still see the need for code testing in the ARS. I own a few rifles and handguns, but wouldn't want to bet my life on my proficiency with a compound bow. However, I still see the need for code testing in the ARS. How do you explain that? 73 de Larry, K3LT |
In article , Dick Carroll
writes: Hw about morse fallicies, morse inaccuracies, erronious morse claims? Which of these do you find acceptable? It's easy enough to accept that those of you who have never had any use for radiotelegraphy would view its stated attributes as mythical, and for the lot of you that is indeed a proper description. You couldn't communciate your way out of an emergency using Morse if the fate of the planet DID depend on it! Dick: More realistically, they couldn't use CW to communicate their way out of an emergency even if the life of one person depended on it! That is a much more likely scenario than any sort of "planetary" disaster. 73 de Larry, K3LT |
In article k.net, "Bill
Sohl" writes: And you're the commercial-grade Vulcan stove with all eight burners, both ovens, and the grill turned up high. No wonder all your pots and kettles are black. Your gas bill must be enormous, but nobody's buying what you're cooking. ROTFLMAO... The sale seems to have been made already to the only buyer that counts...the FCC and, more recently, the ITU. Cheers, Bill K2UNK Bill: In that case, they must have a taste for the carbonized remains of what could have been a tasty and nourishing meal. My condolences to the dishwasher who must now deal with your blackened pots and kettles. 73 de Larry, K3LT |
In article , Dick Carroll
writes: Jim: Indeed. And more often than not, it's usually good, 'ole fashion Morse/CW which is getting through. And just to crown their ignorarance of it all, when I found a dead-band morning where there was group of very weak Europeans coming in on 20 meter PSK31 that wouldn't print, but their CW ID's were completely good copy, Carl and his little lid buddy Brain Burke accuse me of "not being able to make PSK31 work!" Dick: LOL! I've had that experience many times on PSK-31. I think it's a fantastic mode, but it has it's own built-in feature which serves to prove the value of CW! Can you believe the clowns? I had only been working PSK31 for the past 6 or 8 months! I know, the reason for the failure of PSK31 in that case was likely polar phase shift, but that seems to be meaningless to our technical genius and his pals! Polar phase shift, eh? Seems to be a lot of that going around on PSK-31 these days! Like I said, I think it's a great mode, but it hasn't caused me to toss my CW keys in the trash -- yet! "Too many clowns and not enough ringmasters!" *They're already here!" So it would seem. 73 de Larry, K3LT |
In article , Dick Carroll
writes: As for the fate of the planet, when is the sequal coming out to ID4? Whatever it is, I didn't see the first three and have similar lack of interest in the fourth. Dick: "ID4" is the production company's short name for the film which was released under the name "Independence Day." It was only one film and had no sequels. However, I really do suggest that you do see it. It shows what happens when our planet is invaded by No-code Techs. They get beat by those who know how to use Morse/CW. 73 de Larry, K3LT |
In article , "Kim W5TIT"
writes: Kim: Code testing has always been the thing which generated code use. In the absence of a code testing requirement, there will be progressively fewer hams who have never been exposed to learning the code as a result of the requirement. Since the requirement was the principle motivation to learn the code, code use *will* decline once code testing is abolished. Therefore, testing and use are two closely interrelated concepts. 1) To use the test element as a reason to proliferate CW users is not acceptable to me. The reason is because the test requirement is a government sponsored requirement. If we use your expectation for the requirement above, then I respond that the continuance of the mode of CW is not the responsiblity of the government, nor should it be. The FCC, the government, has decided that CW is no longer needed for its expectation and interpretation of what the ARS is about. To argue with that is merely spinning our wheels at this point--it's a done deal. So, if your basic support of the CW test as a requirement for ham radio is that it will keep people learning and using the mode, then I would wholehertedly disagree. 2) Using the statement you make, above: would you not also agree then, that the choice by some people to stop short of HF privileges, simply because of a CW test requirement, depletes the overall supply of HF, therefore CW, users anyway? I'd rather dismiss the test requirement for CW and have HF thrive and active for the ARS. In article , "Kim W5TIT" writes: Kim: Code testing has always been the thing which generated code use. In the absence of a code testing requirement, there will be progressively fewer hams who have never been exposed to learning the code as a result of the requirement. Since the requirement was the principle motivation to learn the code, code use *will* decline once code testing is abolished. Therefore, testing and use are two closely interrelated concepts. 1) To use the test element as a reason to proliferate CW users is not acceptable to me. The reason is because the test requirement is a government sponsored requirement. Kim: The written exams required by the FAA for one to obtain a pilot's license is a "government sponsored requirement." If we use your expectation for the requirement above, then I respond that the continuance of the mode of CW is not the responsiblity of the government, nor should it be. Why should the government have the responsibility to "force" people to take exams in order to obtain a pilot's license? Where is the government's "responsibility" to create a growing number of licensed aircraft pilots? The FCC, the government, has decided that CW is no longer needed for its expectation and interpretation of what the ARS is about. To argue with that is merely spinning our wheels at this point--it's a done deal. So, if your basic support of the CW test as a requirement for ham radio is that it will keep people learning and using the mode, then I would wholehertedly disagree. Well, you have a right to that disagreement, Kim. That doesn't mean you are correct in your thinking, however. 2) Using the statement you make, above: would you not also agree then, that the choice by some people to stop short of HF privileges, simply because of a CW test requirement, depletes the overall supply of HF, therefore CW, users anyway? I've never had any problem with hams who decide to stop themselves at the Technician class, unless and until they begin to whine about code testing, and make insulting inferences about those who support code testing. I'd rather dismiss the test requirement for CW and have HF thrive and active for the ARS. There was never a problem with HF use "thriving" even when we had code testing up to 20 WPM, Kim, so what will be the difference in the ECTA? The influence of good amateur radio operators who appreciate the value, tradition, and history of CW will always be a positive effect on the maintenance of the population of CW users. A lot of those CW users only became CW users because of the requirement to be tested in Morse code proficiency. How does "history" and "tradition" play a role in causing prospective licensed pilots to learn and master a wide variety of knowledge necessary for the safe operation of an aircraft? Again, it is not up the government to be the arm of CW continuance. Again, why is it up to government to be the arm of the continuance of aviation -- and how do the FAA's pilot licensing requirements meet that need? Until, (UNTIL, *until*) it is clearly understood that seeking the end of the CW test is not the equivalent of seeking the end of CW as a mode, this debate will never fall within the realm of "friendly" debate at all. I think it's even hazardous to use the PCTA/NCTA labels. PCTA = Pro-Code Testing Agenda; NCTA = Anti-Code Testing Agenda. Those terms are accurately descriptive of the intent of their respective groups. Where is the "hazard" in honesty? 73 de Larry, K3LT The hazard, Larry, is in the derogatory slams that have been bantered back and forth while using those terms. The term "******" (excuse me, to anyone who is offended by that word--me included) I am offended by that word, Kim -- and if you are yourself, why did you use it? I personally have sanitized that word from my vocabulary, both spoken and in writing. I never mention it even in jest or as an example. isn't derogatory until some bigoted person uses it against another person, either. No hazard, at all, in being honest. That word is always derogatory because it is calculated to be demeaning to people who happen to be of the Negro (Latin for black) race. The fact that you use it even in an attempt to prove some nebulous point about honesty suggests that you are, indeed, prejudiced and bigoted. 73 de Larry, K3LT |
In article , "Kim W5TIT"
writes: "Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message ... I have always presented well-reasoned, factual, and unemotional arguments in support of code testing. *Cough* WHAT?????!!!!! Sure, Larry. That is why you are so endeared by many in this newsgroup, alone. Sure. Why, Kim, I thought you were ignoring me because I don't post anything here worthy of your response. Where did I go wrong this time? Please don't hold me up to the same light as those who may have transgressed in the manner which you refer to above. PHULEEZE. You are the *BEACON* to those whom Carl depicted, Larry! Forget about being held up to any light. You *ARE* the light. Sorry, Kim, not me. Jesus is the "light." Above all, please remember that by far, the largest portion of the QRM in the code/no-code debate has been from the NCTA side. Also remember that as one who has never used the Morse/CW mode to an extent which would have allowed you to gain useful proficiency in the mode, you are not qualified to judge the value of this mode at all. I'm not sitting here trying to argue technical topics with you, so don't you try to tell me that the Morse/CW mode and testing aren't of value to the ARS. We are not on each other's respective levels of expertise. Since I'm more than willing to respect your technical expertise, don't presume to challenge my qualifications to make judgments about CW and code testing, because you don't know what your talking about. 73 de Larry, K3LT And, you obviously think that what you just said, above, is well-reasoned, factual, and unemotional??!! I've broken my own rule and just responded to a post from you that was none of the above. Well, Kim, please feel free to go back to following your "rule." In fact, I must insist that you do. I wouldn't want you to do anything that would cause you any inconvenience. 73 de Larry, K3LT |
In article , "Kim W5TIT"
writes: How do you know it was polar phase shift, DICK? Did you get enough information to see that they were transmitting from their home locations as well? How do you know they weren't visiting somewhere? Did you get enough copy to tell all that? Kim W5TIT Just what *is* polar phase shift, Kim? Please give us the benefit of your obviously superior technical knowledge. 73 de Larry, K3LT |
In article , "Kim W5TIT"
writes: Carl - wk3c ROFLMAO!!!!! Kim W5TIT Not to mention Kim's! 73 de Larry, K3LT |
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes: Kim: Code testing has always been the thing which generated code use. I would assert that being forced to learn code to gain access to HF "soured" more people on code use than it encouraged Carl: Yeah, you *would* assert that, all right. However, I am singularly unconcerned with those who may have been "soured" on code by being "forced" to learn it. ... of course, some percentage of folks decided they liked code and continued to use it, but MANY simply endured something they had no interest in to get past the test, then "threw away the key." Let's say that as many as 80% of hams who were "forced" to learn the code subsequently "threw away the key." That leaves 20% (I believe my figures are close to reality, anyway, I believe in Pareto's Principle) of hams who subsequently became active CW operators with increasing levels of proficiency as they gained OTA experience. I find that to be quite acceptable. Remember the old adage "honey is better than vinegar." Well, even those who "threw away the key" got the "honey" in the form of increased HF operating privileges. No harm, no foul. In the absence of a code testing requirement, there will be progressively fewer hams who have never been exposed to learning the code as a result of the requirement. Since the requirement was the principle motivation to learn the code, code use *will* decline once code testing is abolished. Therefore, testing and use are two closely interrelated concepts. Translation: Larry and his "kindred spirits" are either unwilling to expend the effort to (or incapable of *politely*) encourage people to "give the code a try and see if you like it." Carl, I have, on many occasions, very patiently, politely, and enthusiastically explained all of the fun and operating satisfaction that I and other hams have derived from using CW. I have offered all the encouragement I can to anyone willing to give it a try. The one thing that I can't do is learn it for them. That they have to do for themselves, if they *want* to do so. In the past, the thing that made them want to learn the code was to gain HF operating privileges. Now, it would seem that even that incentive will be given away, and soon. If the use of CW declines in the ECTA, it will not be my fault, as much as you would like it to be. And, they are apparently unwilling to take "No thanks, not interested" for an answer. I've always been willing to take this answer, for it is they who had to bear the consequences of no HF privileges. Now, that will no longer be the case...and phone users like yourself will have a lot more company on the phone bands in the near future. I just hope it's the kind of company you appreciate. Thus, they continue to seek to have the FCC mandate an arguably counter-productive "recruiting program" for them ... I see nothing "counter-productive" in the requirement to learn and gain greater proficiency in a useful communications skill. What I don't understand is why you apparently do. 73 de Larry, K3LT |
|
"Hans K0HB" wrote in message om... "Kim W5TIT" wrote But, did the FCC ever get anywhere close to seeing its use banned? I am not, remember, saying that a mode would become so unpopular or disliked on a scale such that it would be rare to find it openly being used. I am saying, however, that I believe the FCC would never regulate its ban. Spark transmissions were outlawed (as well they should have been) so the precedent exists. But spark was a transmission technology, not a mode. On a more immediate note, as relates to your discussion on AM phone, I'd have to dig out some old material to get all the facts exactly in order, but there was a petition (in the 70's?) which the I ***believe*** the FCC had moved to the stage of an NPRM to outlaw AM transmissions on the HF amateur bands. The rationale was that AM was (is?) wasteful of spectrum because SSB can convey the same message in half the bandwidth oF DSB AM phone and without those awful sounding hetrodyning carriers. The proposal narrowly missed being adopted, only because of a huge hue and cry from thousands of AM-forever hams (who drew ARRL into the fight on their side). Today you're hard pressed to find any remaining AM-ers on the band, and if the petition were re-introduced it might well be adopted due to lack of organized opposition. Most of the AM-forever crowd has moved to "forever". Yet AM is still allowed. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message ... In article k.net, "Bill Sohl" writes: Another problem is that some (many?) that favor code testing suggest that by ending that testing it will lead to an end to code use. I don't belive that at all and there are hundreds of examples of older technology and skills that are still practiced today in other fields even though such technology/skill is recognized as no longer generally used/needed (e.g. archery, manual transmission autos, etc.) Cheers, Bill K2UNK Bill: One year ago, I traded in a perfectly good 2001 Toyota Corolla LE with a 5-speed manual gearbox for a new 2003 model with an automatic transmission. However, I still see the need for code testing in the ARS. I own a few rifles and handguns, but wouldn't want to bet my life on my proficiency with a compound bow. However, I still see the need for code testing in the ARS. How do you explain that? 73 de Larry, K3LT Bad judgement? Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
In article , Dick Carroll
writes: Bill Sohl wrote: "Dick Carroll" wrote in message ... Bill Sohl wrote: "Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message ... In article , "Carl R. Stevenson" writes: Now, I wouldn't expect to be able to have that sort of a relationship with you, Dick ... you're not open-minded enough to accept that others see things different than you. (You see, I accept that you like and use CW ... I disagree only with your propatation of the "Morse myths" and your insistence that everyone should have Morse forced on them in exchange for HF privs ... fortunately, most of the rest of the world doesn't agree with you.) Carl - wk3c Carl: I consider the use of the term "Morse myths" to be derogatory and inflammatory. Thus, you have also failed to meet Mike's challenge. 73 de Larry, K3LT Hw about morse fallicies, morse inaccuracies, erronious morse claims? Which of these do you find acceptable? It's easy enough to accept that those of you who have never had any use for radiotelegraphy would view its stated attributes as mythical, and for the lot of you that is indeed a proper description. You couldn't communciate your way out of an emergency using Morse if the fate of the planet DID depend on it! I stand a better chance of helping someone else in life as a ham without knowing any code than waiting for that unlikly need for CW to actually be used. And should the time come when CW is caleld for, you and "someone" both suffer the consequences of your lack. We'll all keep that in mind, big beeper. Now you take off your aluminum foil hat and quit browsing the National Enquirer at the market newsstand. Odds are always against it happening. So were the odds against planes being flown into WTC. But it happened. Love that stretch of the imagination! Gosh, if you go back into the FAA reports to the public, at least one of the terrorists used a civil aviation band radio with voice! Gasp. I have perxonally seen the need arise for emergency communications where there were NO communications available and when HF CW could have easily been used, if it had been planned for. That was during the big earthquake in Missouri, senior? I wasn't making the plans. Maybe you should have been...assert yourself, senior, DEMAND that "CW" be available for EVERY emergency! As for the fate of the planet, when is the sequal coming out to ID4? Whatever it is, I didn't see the first three and have similar lack of interest in the fourth. No? Tsk, tsk. Saving the planet is very important. Them pesky space aliens might be hiding behind the moon right now, waiting to attack! Ya gotta be able to Save All Mankind with your trusty code key and that super secret Morsemanship! LHA |
In article .net, "Dan/W4NTI"
w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com writes: Carl: I consider the use of the term "Morse myths" to be derogatory and inflammatory. Thus, you have also failed to meet Mike's challenge. 73 de Larry, K3LT Larry, I don't recall Mike appointing your the judge and arbiter ... Carl: In that case, consider my services to have been donated out of my own generosity. I guess I got what I paid for :-) "Morse Myths" is, as you well know by now, simply a term that refers to all of the patently false, old wives' tales, such as "Morse gets through when nothing else will.", This one is true. Bluntly - baloney ... there ARE modes that will get through at s/n ratios where Morse would be totally undetectable, let alone decodable ... ignore the facts if it preserves your fantasy world where Morse is all-important (the "legend in your own mind"), but the rest of the world will pass you by without your even understanding why ... "Morse is essential for emergency communications.", Who said that? Provide correctly attributed quote. Read any number of absurd pro-code-testing comments filed with the FCC ... "Morse acts as a 'lid filter' to keep us from being overrun by the "mongul hordes' of CBers who are lurking in the wings waiting to take over the ham bands." etc. I've never said that whatsoever -- in fact, on many occasions, I've gone out of my way to note that a lot of the problems on HF phone are being caused by 20-WPM code tested Extras. I didn't say that YOU necessarily said that ... though you HAVE refered to the "knuckle-draggers" and other terms that fall into a similar category. I reject your claim that the term "Morse Myths" is derogatory and inflamatory. Reject all you want, Carl, but the fact remains that it is. You have taken the low road, while claiming the opposite. It is simply a term that refers in "shorthand" form to a panoply of falacies that are often cited as "reasons why we MUST keep Morse testing" ... none of which hold water and all of which have been rejected by the FCC. I have always presented well-reasoned, factual, and unemotional arguments in support of code testing. RTFLMAO!!! Please don't hold me up to the same light as those who may have transgressed in the manner which you refer to above. Above all, please remember that by far, the largest portion of the QRM in the code/no-code debate has been from the NCTA side. ROTFLMAO some more ... Also remember that as one who has never used the Morse/CW mode to an extent which would have allowed you to gain useful proficiency in the mode, you are not qualified to judge the value of this mode at all. You are totally wrong on this assertion ... I know the code, had "useful proficiency" (nearly 20 wpm at my peak), but haven't used it in a long time ... I am certainly qualified to judge the value of the mode (at least for my purposes, and also in more general terms). I'm not sitting here trying to argue technical topics with you, so don't you try to tell me that the Morse/CW mode and testing aren't of value to the ARS. We are not on each other's respective levels of expertise. Since I'm more than willing to respect your technical expertise, don't presume to challenge my qualifications to make judgments about CW and code testing, because you don't know what your talking about. Larry, I don't demean your "real ham-ness" because you are not my equal on the technical plane, but you demean the "real ham-ness" of anyone who is up to your "standards" of Morse prowess ... I think you're arrogance and narrow-mindedness are showing again. Carl - wk3c One major problem that is being ignored is that these alleged 20 wpm Extras are the multiple guess guys. Probably doing good to make it to ten WPM. Just hunt, peck and hope. One other 'minor' detail, is that they ALL were taught on 11 meters. Tsk, tsk, tsk... :-) Did you mean the 11 meter HAM band or what it was reallocated to in 1958 and afterwards? :-) I learned to communicate on HF over 5 years before 1958. :-) How many real hams. Say those that were not infected by the CB crap do these things? Dang few I would venture. "Real hams" again, big tuff guy? Working for the FDA now? Unless they were like Polly and Billy Jack....Conditionals that were Grandfathered in back in the early 60s. Lets see some real figures. Not conjecture. Let's see more of that "definition and purpose" of Real Hams as in 97.1, you know, the part about "spreading goodwill" and all that... :-) LHA |
In article .net, "Dan/W4NTI"
w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com writes: Spark was banned. Were you very sad when that happened, Dan? Gosh, on-off keying morse was the ONLY way that sparkies could communicate anything back in the "good old days." Wide band FM was banned from HF. For decades all we could do was talk and do CW. It was years fighting to get SSTV allowed. Then digital, other than RTTY was another long road. Tell us all about "losing all those ham bands" after WARC-79... :-) Most of the time the FCC simply didn't bother to authorize a new mode. Nah...everything is beeping and voice yakking just on HF, right? No problem, you probably think "spread spectrum" is an obscene phrase. :-) Thats how it works Hug and Chalk. "Hugging and a Chalking" was a little ditty composed by a black radio pianist on a Chicago radio station about 1950, had his own quarter hour program. It was briefly popular in the midwest. You were listening to Chicago radio stations back then, senior? :-) LHA |
Bill Sohl wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message I'm alomost confused here Bill! I'm saying there is no direct relationship between being Pro-Code and technical ability. OK, I agree. My point is that the arguments should and can be made without regard to personal aspects of either side. And how! I'm a bit dissapointed that this turned into another little donnybrook. It was an attempt at getting something else besides the usual rancor here. - Mike KB3EIA - |
Jim: The truth is, only hams who know the Morse code have the capability to fall back on the CW mode when other modes are unavailable. Why do hams know the Morse code? Because they had to learn it to pass the code tests to become licensed or obtain upgrades. In the absence of a code testing requirement, why will they learn it? If the people, like you, that do love it, it will live on through proper promotion of it. It's just that simple. Of all the "coded hams" out there, not ALL of them are code lovers, and I would place a bet that some couldn't pass the current 5wpm test as they have not used it since their examinations. But in the same turn there are some that love it and will pass it on. As long as it is mentored properly. How will we convince new hams to invest the time and effort to learn this useful communications skill when they are not offered the incentive of increased operating privileges? Gee, if it is so useful, then why bribe them?? It should be sooooo damned good as you say, they should automatically want to flock right to it. People will invest the time and effort if they see value and usefullness in it. I'm asking you because I don't have the answers. I'm one of those hams who learned the code because I wanted to be a ham, and the requirement was there. Ony *after* learning the code and becoming a reasonably proficient CW operator did I become aware of it's benefits and advantages. Personally, I'm grateful that the code testing requirement existed when I became a ham. Had it not, I never would have become a CW operator...and neither will most hams in the ECTA (Era of Code Test Abolition). Oh jeesh Larry, add more to the alphabet soup eh? :) (PCTA, NCTA, ECTA, etc.) -- Ryan, KC8PMX FF1-FF2-MFR-(pending NREMT-B!) --. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-. ... --. .... - . .-. ... |
"Hans K0HB" wrote in message om... "Kim W5TIT" wrote The term "******" (excuse me, to anyone who is offended by that word--me included) isn't derogatory until some bigoted person uses it against another person, either. No hazard, at all, in being honest. Of course it's derogatory, no matter who uses the word. Pure BS....... words mean nothing!!! It's the racist asshole behind the words you need to be concerned with. Remember the phrase "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me?" I am more concerned with the sticks and stones!!!!! :) -- Ryan, KC8PMX "Symbolism is for the simple minded....." |
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
. net... Bill Sohl wrote: "Mike Coslo" wrote in message I'm alomost confused here Bill! I'm saying there is no direct relationship between being Pro-Code and technical ability. OK, I agree. My point is that the arguments should and can be made without regard to personal aspects of either side. And how! I'm a bit dissapointed that this turned into another little donnybrook. It was an attempt at getting something else besides the usual rancor here. - Mike KB3EIA - Yeah. Uh huh. Well, spend some time to see "what side" began degrading it, Mike. And, as far as I can see, "that side" is the far more agressive and offending one, even now... Kim W5TIT |
"Hans K0HB" wrote in message
om... "Kim W5TIT" wrote But, did the FCC ever get anywhere close to seeing its use banned? I am not, remember, saying that a mode would become so unpopular or disliked on a scale such that it would be rare to find it openly being used. I am saying, however, that I believe the FCC would never regulate its ban. Spark transmissions were outlawed (as well they should have been) so the precedent exists. Hmmmm, Jim/N2EY made that observation also. Then, I see the comment that spark was a transmission method--not a mode. I think that's splitting hairs, isn't it? I'm asking--I wasn't around for spark ;) On a more immediate note, as relates to your discussion on AM phone, I'd have to dig out some old material to get all the facts exactly in order, but there was a petition (in the 70's?) which the I ***believe*** the FCC had moved to the stage of an NPRM to outlaw AM transmissions on the HF amateur bands. The rationale was that AM was (is?) wasteful of spectrum because SSB can convey the same message in half the bandwidth oF DSB AM phone and without those awful sounding hetrodyning carriers. The proposal narrowly missed being adopted, only because of a huge hue and cry from thousands of AM-forever hams (who drew ARRL into the fight on their side). Well, I would expect the same would happen if it came up again--*and* there were enough people to bear pressure on the FCC to retain the mode. However, if a mode is within current standards of technology (i.e., with respect to the FCC R&R) would there really be a reason the FCC would entertain the thought of banning it? I just don't see them doing that--but then I am an ultimate optimist. Today you're hard pressed to find any remaining AM-ers on the band, and if the petition were re-introduced it might well be adopted due to lack of organized opposition. Most of the AM-forever crowd has moved to "forever". 73, de Hans, K0HB Whoooohooooo, I know a few of those "forever" gang down here--and they are as passionate about AM as any ardent CW fan! Dems would be fightin' words in this neck 'o the woods. At any rate, so you're bringing up the scenario that someone outside the FCC would bring up a petition to ban a mode. Hmmmmmm, hadn't thought of that--but why? Why would anyone want to have a mode banned? I mean, seriously, what would be gained? Kim W5TIT |
By my review, it took 3 posts to have the slamming and insults begin. And,
DICK wins the prize: "Dick Carroll" wrote in message ... Carl R. Stevenson wrote: "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... I just saw another accusation of Pro-Coders as technically backwards. Yet some of the most progressive RF Engineers and Technicians I know (who are Hams) are really enamored of Morse CW. That would be those engineers who understood the real value of simple, effective, easily implemented baseline communications which can be used from almost anywhere with the least amount of simple equipment imaginable. Carl never did understand any of this, and of course it doesn't match his agenda, so it has no validity to him. In over 32 years as an RF engineer, I have not had the same experience. This would be no surprise, given your OBVIOUS hatred of radiotelegraphy. The most technical folks have seemed more interested in the technical side of ham radio and there have been MANY who I could not recruit into ham radio because they had no interest in and were unwilling to waste their valuable time learing Morse to a level that would get them decent HF privs. (some have capitulated and jumped through the 5 wpm hoop since "restructuring" and are now extras, but many have refused, on principal, to jump through the hoop, saying they'll wait until they don't have to waste their time on Morse) Mygawd man, no one in his right mind, having once endured that diatribe, would be eager to have to go through it all over again. You have it programmed into your psyche, if not in a keyboard macro. Naturally they avoided any act or word which would have keyed your internal macro. Who wouldn't? I would challenge the NCTA's to show some proof that those who believe that the morse code test should be retained are in a technical backwater. That *might* be a bit difficult given that even Carl, their vaunted leader, is a SSB ratchjaw, not given to even putting a digital HF station on the air, much less doing any "amsteur digital design". Most of the avid CW ragchewers/contesters I've known over the years (remember, I'm a long-time ham) Ah, it MUST be pointed out here that your tenure as a longtime ham did not include close connection to *anyone* who was seriously involved in radiotelegraphy in any way. And I know that how? By your actions here! It's completely safe to say that no one would tolarate your attitude as a friend, not likely as even a casual acquaintance, given the lever of vituperation you have always shown toward CW. So what would anyone expect your experience to be?? have been more interested in the operating activity (ragchewing, contesting, paper-chasing) than the technical side. My experience has been that they have been less technically inclined than a lot of the no-code techs I've met, less inclined to participate in public service/emergency communications, and more inclined to just being "users" rather than tinkerers ... Same old, same old... Make the CW supporters appear to be Luddites-an accusation you have repeated many times here on rrap=-Go googling for the facts if anyone doubts it. The FACTS are that the CW suppoorters are far most often the users of advanced digital modes. I'd wager that Carl has never been on the air using CLOVER II. I have. |
I think Jim was stretching it a little far to decide to be offended by the
phrase "jump through the hoop" and "waste their valuable time." But, that's my opinion... "N2EY" wrote in message om... "Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ... "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... I just saw another accusation of Pro-Coders as technically backwards. Yet some of the most progressive RF Engineers and Technicians I know (who are Hams) are really enamored of Morse CW. In over 32 years as an RF engineer, I have not had the same experience. The most technical folks have seemed more interested in the technical side of ham radio and there have been MANY who I could not recruit into ham radio because they had no interest in and were unwilling to waste their valuable time learing Morse to a level that would get them decent HF privs. (some have capitulated and jumped through the 5 wpm hoop since "restructuring" and are now extras, but many have refused, on principal, to jump through the hoop, saying they'll wait until they don't have to waste their time on Morse) My experience has been different. But let's talk about yours. First off, with all due respect, I would submit that Carl is perhaps not the optimum salesperson for convincing people to take code tests in order to get a license. Carl's claim, as I read it, is that he knows RF engineers who would have become hams but for the code test. Some of them have become hams in spite of that test, or since it was lowered to 5 wpm for all classes. The question I ask is this: What does it matter to amateur radio what a person's job is, unless that person actually uses their job-related skills for amateur radio? And how many RF engineers will put that experience to work in amateur radio if the code test is removed that are allegedly being stopped today? I remember back in 1990 that this same argument was being used against the Technician code test. We were told that ham radio would get lots of new technical folks to push development of the VHF/UHF spectrum, and that such folks weren't interested in taking code tests. Yet here it is a dozen years later and there hasn't been any techno-revolution in amateur VHF/UHF. That doesn't mean there hasn't been progress, just that there hasn't been massive changes. Indeed, consider the recent developments in 24 GHz EME. Several enterprising hams have built stations for that band capable of EME QSOs (USA to Czech Republic is the current record, IIRC) using only small (~ 2 meter diameter) dishes and less than 100 watts output from the TWTs. And the mode used? I would challenge the NCTA's to show some proof that those who believe that the morse code test should be retained are in a technical backwater. Most of the avid CW ragchewers/contesters I've known over the years (remember, I'm a long-time ham) have been more interested in the operating activity (ragchewing, contesting, paper-chasing) than the technical side. My experience has been that they have been less technically inclined than a lot of the no-code techs I've met, less inclined to participate in public service/emergency communications, and more inclined to just being "users" rather than tinkerers ... I've found more homebrewers among CW ops than any other part of ham radio. Remember, this is my personal experience, and since it seems to differ from yours, YMMV ... Of course. I would also challenge them to do it without being abrasive or insulting. I think I've met the challenge ... Almost. You wrote: "were unwilling to waste their valuable time lear[n]ing Morse" and "jumped through the 5 wpm hoop" which some folks would take as abrasive and/or insulting. Why not just say: "were unwilling to spend the time and effort" and "passed the 5 wpm test simply to meet the requirement" ? Is an RF engineer's time more valuable than, say, a doctor's or lawyer's? Suppose a doctor or lawyer wants to be a ham, but doesn't want to spend the time learning all the material in the written tests just to use a manufactured rig to chase DX. Would you say such a person did not want to waste their valuable time learning the theory needed for the Extra test? Or, perhaps, did not want to jump through the written test hoop? Just facts or intelligent informed opinions. Since there are no authortative, scientific statistics (and probably never will be), I think that all you can expect to get are peoples accounting of their own personal experiences. Agreed. Mine are admitedly coming from the fact that I'm "in the business" of RF engineering ... but through local clubs and ARES/RACES participation over the past 25+ years, my observations seem to hold, even amongst contacts/acquaintences/friends who are not "in the profession." Remember, YMMV ... Of course. Pro coders can help by refraining from name calling too. We shall see ... I think I've done that. My statement is that there is no direct relationship. The evidence is anecdotal will, as I point out, vary from person to person, depending on their location, profession, the "slant" of the local club(s) they belong to, etc. One can find anecdotes for almost any position. Anyone ready for a real discussion without the barbs? Can we do it? First person to start throwing insults only makes it look bad for his/her side. I think I've taken the high ground ... Except for the "waste their valuable time" and "hoop" stuff, I'd agree. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
And here, on Post #7, it pretty much goes South between Carl and DICK...
However, no surprise there... "Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ... "Dick Carroll" wrote in message ... [snip] That *might* be a bit difficult given that even Carl, their vaunted leader, is a SSB ratchjaw, not given to even putting a digital HF station on the air, much less doing any "amsteur digital design". Gee, Dick your hatred of SSB is showing again ... and you failed Mike's "test" because you resorted to insults. Besides, I'm active on digital ... how the hell do you profess to know what modes I'm capable of/equipped for/using????? At least I can get PSK31 to work ... Most of the avid CW ragchewers/contesters I've known over the years (remember, I'm a long-time ham) Ah, it MUST be pointed out here that your tenure as a longtime ham did not include close connection to *anyone* who was seriously involved in radiotelegraphy in any way. And I know that how? By your actions here! It's completely safe to say that no one would tolarate your attitude as a friend, not likely as even a casual acquaintance, given the lever of vituperation you have always shown toward CW. So what would anyone expect your experience to be?? One of my best friends, now SK unfortuantely, was a CW op ... worked as radio officer on ships, was a LL telegrapher when he was a kid. 60 wpm in his head, while drunk, smoking, and playing poker was no problem for him. HE understood that CW "wasn't my thing" and we still were friends, enjoyed other aspects of ham radio together, and had a good time. Now, I wouldn't expect to be able to have that sort of a relationship with you, Dick ... you're not open-minded enough to accept that others see things different than you. (You see, I accept that you like and use CW ... I disagree only with your propatation of the "Morse myths" and your insistence that everyone should have Morse forced on them in exchange for HF privs ... fortunately, most of the rest of the world doesn't agree with you.) Carl - wk3c |
Kim W5TIT wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message . net... Bill Sohl wrote: "Mike Coslo" wrote in message I'm alomost confused here Bill! I'm saying there is no direct relationship between being Pro-Code and technical ability. OK, I agree. My point is that the arguments should and can be made without regard to personal aspects of either side. And how! I'm a bit dissapointed that this turned into another little donnybrook. It was an attempt at getting something else besides the usual rancor here. - Mike KB3EIA - Yeah. Uh huh. Yeah. Well, spend some time to see "what side" began degrading it, Mike. And, as far as I can see, "that side" is the far more agressive and offending one, even now... What it tells me is that not many here care to have a "non-degraded "discussion. And that goes for both sides. It didn't take long at all for that to happen. And I noted that it wouldn't look good for the side that started things rolling downhill. Dale Carnegie courses for everyone! - Mike KB3EIA - |
Kim W5TIT wrote: Hmmmm, Jim/N2EY made that observation also. Then, I see the comment that spark was a transmission method--not a mode. I think that's splitting hairs, isn't it? I'm asking--I wasn't around for spark ;) and Whoooohooooo, I know a few of those "forever" gang down here--and they are as passionate about AM as any ardent CW fan! Dems would be fightin' words in this neck 'o the woods. At any rate, so you're bringing up the scenario that someone outside the FCC would bring up a petition to ban a mode. Hmmmmmm, hadn't thought of that--but why? Why would anyone want to have a mode banned? I mean, seriously, what would be gained? Spark is very, very wideband. This was probably a good thing in th early days of radio, since the transmitter and reciever didn't have to be tuned too closely to each other. A modern day example might be a failing transformer on a power line. If something is arcing inside it or to a connection, it can put out a lot of rf noise that extends over a lot of bandwidth. It would mess with almost any rf device in the house. That's why spark was banned. As for AM, I have no problem with it. It does use more bandwidth though, and that is why some hams and others don't like it. But to me it's a cool "retro" mode. Not very efficient, but who says it has to be? - Mike KB3EIA - |
"Kim W5TIT" wrote
At any rate, so you're bringing up the scenario that someone outside the FCC would bring up a petition to ban a mode. Hmmmmmm, hadn't thought of that--but why? Why would anyone want to have a mode banned? I mean, seriously, what would be gained? As to "what would be gained", that obviously depends on who is advancing the petition and what their agenda might be. There's another more contemporary example than the AM situation. On 20M there is a small group of experimenters who are playing with something they call "enhanced SSB". This is regular old SSB, but these guys are enamored of excellent audio quality and spend a great deal of time (and money) modifying their radios and microphone/audio systems to gain the very best audio fidelity that they can manage. This results in bandwidth usage greater than typical SSB (nominally 3KHz) but less than AM (nominally 6KHz). This operation, although it consists of only a small number of enthusiasts (perhaps less than 20 stations) and is situated on only one small segment of the HF bands, has been the subject of many complaints to the FCC (for occupying more bandwidth than necessary), and Hollingsworth has gone so far as to make note of it in a speech at a hamfest last winter. He warned that such use of the spectrum might lead to FCC rule changes. Now mind you, this "mode" uses less space than an AM signal conveying the same information. It logically follows that if this "mode" is banned for being spectrum-inefficient, then the even-more-spectrum-inefficient DSB AM mode probably would fall to the same regulatory action. (I'm not suggesting that FCC is always logical, however grin.) So back to your "Why would anyone want to have a mode banned?" question. Ask yourself why people have targeted a few stations on "enhanced SSB" (perhaps 4.5KHz wide), but do not complain about many more DSB AM stations on the bands (perhaps 6KHz wide)? Could it be that they simply have a personal agenda which is not evident from the facts? Now look at the persistent demeaning language here against Morse code users, and it doesn't take much imagination to expect that a "no more CW use" petition might show up at the Commission some day soon. As you know, I don't think Morse testing is any longer a regulatory necessity, but I am very much a CW-lover and have a low-level (but growing) concern that the end of Morse testing is only a first step on some peoples agenda. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
"Bill Sohl" wrote
Yet AM is still allowed. Yes, it certainly is. But for how long? Riley Hollingsworth told a Richmond, Virginia hamfest last spring (speaking of "enhanced SSB") that deliberately operating a wideband mode in a crowded spectrum is "shortsighted and rude," may be ignoring the "minimum bandwidth necessary" rule. Now if 4.5KHz-wide signals are shortsighted and rude, then it logically follows that 6KHz-wide AM signals containing the same information are even more shortsighted and rude. He also hinted that continued complaints "WILL (my emphasis) lead to pressure on the FCC to revise the Amateur Service rules." Would you expect DSB AM to survive such revision? Cheers to you too, de Hans, K0HB |
"WA8ULX" wrote in message ... Ain't it amazing Bruce? This Texas Twit keeps sticking that foot deeper in her mouth everytime. Hug and Chalk is going strong. Dan/W4NTI Didnt you like that comment over hers Dan, 1 of GIRL FREINDS, maybe she just has a problem with guys, you dont think she might be lite in the Loafers do you? Could be....one thing I do know is she certainly has 'issues'.. Dan/W4NTI |
"Hans K0HB" wrote in message om... "Kim W5TIT" wrote But, did the FCC ever get anywhere close to seeing its use banned? I am not, remember, saying that a mode would become so unpopular or disliked on a scale such that it would be rare to find it openly being used. I am saying, however, that I believe the FCC would never regulate its ban. Spark transmissions were outlawed (as well they should have been) so the precedent exists. On a more immediate note, as relates to your discussion on AM phone, I'd have to dig out some old material to get all the facts exactly in order, but there was a petition (in the 70's?) which the I ***believe*** the FCC had moved to the stage of an NPRM to outlaw AM transmissions on the HF amateur bands. The rationale was that AM was (is?) wasteful of spectrum because SSB can convey the same message in half the bandwidth oF DSB AM phone and without those awful sounding hetrodyning carriers. The proposal narrowly missed being adopted, only because of a huge hue and cry from thousands of AM-forever hams (who drew ARRL into the fight on their side). Today you're hard pressed to find any remaining AM-ers on the band, and if the petition were re-introduced it might well be adopted due to lack of organized opposition. Most of the AM-forever crowd has moved to "forever". 73, de Hans, K0HB Sorry Hans, the AM forever crowd is still well represented, by not only old guys, but a lot of new guys using rice boxes. Go to Google and do a search of AM phone. You will be amazed. Dan/W4NTI |
In article , Mike Coslo writes:
Kim wrote: Hmmmm, Jim/N2EY made that observation also. Then, I see the comment that spark was a transmission method--not a mode. I think that's splitting hairs, isn't it? I'm asking--I wasn't around for spark ;) They called it "Mode B". And there were also arc transmitters - not the same thing. and Whoooohooooo, I know a few of those "forever" gang down here--and they are as passionate about AM as any ardent CW fan! Dems would be fightin' words in this neck 'o the woods. At any rate, so you're bringing up the scenario that someone outside the FCC would bring up a petition to ban a mode. Hmmmmmm, hadn't thought of that--but why? Why would anyone want to have a mode banned? I mean, seriously, what would be gained? Spark is very, very wideband. This was probably a good thing in th early days of radio, since the transmitter and reciever didn't have to be tuned too closely to each other. Some receivers were not even tuned at all. A modern day example might be a failing transformer on a power line. If something is arcing inside it or to a connection, it can put out a lot of rf noise that extends over a lot of bandwidth. It would mess with almost any rf device in the house. That's why spark was banned. That's one reason. Another was that almost nobody was using it after about 1924-5, but there was concern about folks looking at "old" books and thinking they could still use it. Consider how fast the change came. When hams got back on the air after WW1, spark was undisputed king. Five years later, it was a memory. The difference between a "state of the art" 1919 ham station and a similar one in 1939 is simply amazing. Almost nothing from the former would still be in the latter. As for AM, I have no problem with it. It does use more bandwidth though, and that is why some hams and others don't like it. But to me it's a cool "retro" mode. Not very efficient, but who says it has to be? Depends how you define efficiency. AM operations tend to be roundtables where many hams gather on one freq. So the number of "Hz used per ham on the air" can be pretty low. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"Bill Sohl" wrote
We (NCI) have no problem with code USE. I believe that is the official position of NCI, but sometimes "body language" gives a different perception. For example, on our web home page, NCI goes to some length to make it's position "crystal clear" that "2. Manual radiotelegraphy communications has been superceded by more modern, reliable, accurate, faster and efficient means of communication. " That "crystal clear" statement doesn't speak to TESTING at all. It speaks to things like reliability, accuracy, speed, and efficiency of communications. In other words, issues surrounding the USE of the mode. That sort of official statement, along with the propensity of the Executive Director to publicly portray Morse USERS in a less-than-favorable light, creates impressions which run counter to your assertion above. I have separately petitioned the Board of Directors to make a single simple organizational change which would go MILES toward reinforcing your statement above. I'll await with interest the report of the next quarterly meeting of the Board of Directors. 73, de Hans, K0HB NCI # 4303 http://www.nocode.org |
"Hans K0HB" wrote in message om... As you know, I don't think Morse testing is any longer a regulatory necessity, but I am very much a CW-lover and have a low-level (but growing) concern that the end of Morse testing is only a first step on some peoples agenda. 73, de Hans, K0HB Not mine, not NCI's, Hans ... Carl - wk3c |
That "crystal clear" statement doesn't speak to TESTING at all. It
speaks to things like reliability, accuracy, speed, and efficiency of communications. In other words, issues surrounding the USE of the mode. That sort of official statement, along with the propensity of the Executive Director to publicly portray Morse USERS in a less-than-favorable light, creates impressions which run counter to your assertion above. I have separately petitioned the Board of Directors to make a single simple organizational change which would go MILES toward reinforcing your statement above. I'll await with interest the report of the next quarterly meeting of the Board of Directors. 73, de Hans, K0HB NCI # 4303 http://www.nocode.org Oh no your in trouble now, I ll bet you as we speak, your member number is being discarded. If you had gotten permission to make the above statements with Karls permission, you would have probably been OK. |
As you know, I don't think Morse testing is any longer a regulatory
necessity, but I am very much a CW-lover and have a low-level (but growing) concern that the end of Morse testing is only a first step on some peoples agenda. 73, de Hans, K0HB Not mine, not NCI's, Hans ... Carl - wk3c You finally got the picture. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:13 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com