Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article , Leo
writes: An excellent idea. I for one would be very interested in seeing the logic and rationale that folks have for keeping or retiring the code test. By removing the emotion, personal opinion and bias from the discussion, some quite interesting points may well be raised. Unfortunately, it is pretty much impossible to remove personal opinion from the discussion. That's because every reason for keeping or removing the test ultimately comes down to an opinion question. For example, take the "Morse is needed for emergencies" reason. On the one hand, Morse is not used very much in emergency communication. On the other hand, it *is* still used occasionally, by hams, in emergency communications. More important, there *are* times when it when it is the only available mode that would get through in the situation. (Note that phrase "only available mode") All of the above are documented facts. The problem is, does the occasional use of Morse in emergencies mean that *all* hams *must* be tested on the mode? Some say yes, some say no, some say it's a piece of the reason. All based on personal opinion, nothing more. Boil down any of the arguments on either side, and what you wind up with is personal opinion. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , ospam (Larry Roll K3LT) writes: In article , (N2EY) writes: On the one hand, Morse is not used very much in emergency communication. On the other hand, it *is* still used occasionally, by hams, in emergency communications. More important, there *are* times when it when it is the only available mode that would get through in the situation. (Note that phrase "only available mode") All of the above are documented facts. The problem is, does the occasional use of Morse in emergencies mean that *all* hams *must* be tested on the mode? Some say yes, some say no, some say it's a piece of the reason. All based on personal opinion, nothing more. Boil down any of the arguments on either side, and what you wind up with is personal opinion. 73 de Jim, N2EY 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. Absolutely true. But whether that is a reason to make every ham pass a code test is a matter of opinion - some say yes, others say no. Why do hams know the Morse code? Because they had to learn it to pass the code tests to become licensed or obtain upgrades. That's one reason. In the absence of a code testing requirement, why will they learn it? Here are some reasons: - Morse is fun for many thousands of hams - Lots of interesting DX on Morse only - Morse gets through better than any analog voice mode and better than many TOR modes - Morse equipment for a given performance level costs less and is simpler than any other mode - Morse is usually aural, not visual, but doesn't require talking. It's a unique way of communicating - Morse takes up less, or far less, spectrum than almost all other modes. - There is much less objectionable stuff to deal with in the parts of the bands where Morse is usually used. 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? Through the incentives of: - improved performance of a given radio setup - less crowded spectrum space - a unique communications experience not available elsewhere - rare DX - spectrum conservation There is also the element of putting the mode out there for others to see. As in demonstrations at club meetings, hamfests, conventions, Field Day, etc. "Sell" the mode the way the FM/repeater, PSK-31, APRS, packet and other folks have been selling their modes for years. If all a new ham ever sees is other, more experienced hams talking into mikes and tapping keyboards, that's all the newbie will think exists. Look at what the AM and vintage/military radio folks have done. They set up demos at hamfests and other venues to show what it's all about. Why not the same thing with Morse? Show 'em how it's done - plant the seed. Or consider the QRP/homebrew/hiker folks. What's the most effective mode to bring along on a backpack trip? Elecraft has a new rig - the KX1. Amazing little box the size of a stack of QSLs. Is there *any* non-CW rig of equivalent size/weight/power requirement that will perform anywhere near as well? You should see the looks on their faces at FD when they see the CW station making QSOs at a rate better than the 'phone folks, yet using a more modest setup and expending far *less* effort. When well over half the points earned by a 4A+free VHF FD setup come from one fulltime and one part time setup running CW, serious selling is happening. 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. That's you. It's not everybody. Some will be sold on the mode regardless of whether or not there's a test. Some will never be sold no matter what you do. And some will be sold if approached in the right way. 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). How do we know that for sure? Maybe you would have seen the light after getting frustrated with other modes. Here's an experience I had recently (post-restructuring): Relatively new ham got started via the Tech route. Decided he wanted HF and passed the required elements, including code, which was learned from CDs and computer software. But then he discovered that learning enough code to pass the test was a far different thing from copying and sending live on the air in a real QSO. Now remember, this ham had already passed all the code tests he'd ever need to pass. He had all bands and modes open to him, and a nice HF station set up. There was absolutely no requirement that he ever do any Morse code operating at all, ever. Nor was there any requirement to spend more time and effort learning to send and copy real-world off-the-air Morse. But this ham *wanted* to use the mode, based on its merits alone. With a small amount of help and encouragement, he learned the skills of on-air copy, sending, abbreviations, procedure, etc. I had the privilege and honor of being his first CW QSO. Since then he's had many more, his skills have improved, and he's on the way. CW SS is a few weekends away......... And this ham is the kind who will share what he has learned with others and repeat the cycle. Test or no test. -- Sure, not every new or old ham will be "sold". But we don't need every ham. Just enough hams. And a positve image. Does that answer the question? 73 de Jim, N2EY Jim, I think you have said it better here than any other that I have seen so far! Ryan KC8PMX |
#5
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
(N2EY) wrote in message ...
In article , ospam (Larry Roll K3LT) writes: In article , (N2EY) writes: On the one hand, Morse is not used very much in emergency communication. On the other hand, it *is* still used occasionally, by hams, in emergency communications. More important, there *are* times when it when it is the only available mode that would get through in the situation. (Note that phrase "only available mode") All of the above are documented facts. The problem is, does the occasional use of Morse in emergencies mean that *all* hams *must* be tested on the mode? Some say yes, some say no, some say it's a piece of the reason. All based on personal opinion, nothing more. Boil down any of the arguments on either side, and what you wind up with is personal opinion. 73 de Jim, N2EY 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. Absolutely true. But whether that is a reason to make every ham pass a code test is a matter of opinion - some say yes, others say no. Then its a good thing that the Germans and Japanese only captured dittyboppers in WWII, otherwise these POWs would not have been able to tap out messages. You guys are rediculous. Absolutely. |
#6
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#7
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() 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? ![]() etc.) -- Ryan, KC8PMX FF1-FF2-MFR-(pending NREMT-B!) --. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-. ... --. .... - . .-. ... |
#8
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article , "Ryan, KC8PMX"
writes: Oh jeesh Larry, add more to the alphabet soup eh? ![]() etc.) Ryan: Y knot? 73 de Larry, K3LT |
#9
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() 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. True. Now explain why hams know how to use "other modes" when there isn't a profeciency test to MAKE them do it in the first place. Clint |
#10
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Clint" rattlehead at computron dot net wrote in message ...
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. True. Now explain why hams know how to use "other modes" when there isn't a profeciency test to MAKE them do it in the first place. Clint Some forgot where they put their microphones. |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Amateur Radio Newslineâ„¢ Report 1402 Â June 25, 2004 | General | |||
Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1402  June 25, 2004 | Dx | |||
Low reenlistment rate | Policy | |||
Some comments on the NCVEC petition | Policy | |||
NCVEC NPRM for elimination of horse and buggy morse code requirement. | Policy |