|
KØHB wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote And how are we going to take care of the "shack on a belt" crowd. A awful lot of hams are quite happy with their Technician licenses. And under my plan they are free to keep their Technician license. And new people that intend to operate in this fashiion will have a very different set up. A forced upgrade with absolutely no advantage for a person that only does public events, and uses the local repeater once in a while is not going to be very popular with them. I don't propose to force them to upgrade. Technicians are perfectly free to renew their current license. So you are saying that present licenses will continue with the ten year operating cycle? This is beginning to look like there will be 5 classes of license in the end. And of course, how ya gonna enforce that 50 watt limit? Enacting unenforceable laws is a great way to breed disrespect for laws. There are currently many examples of limited power in the rules. How do we enforce the current 50W limit which exists for EVERYONE on some HF frequencies? How do we enforce the current 200W limit in the Novice sub-bands? How did we enforce the old 75W limit for Novices? How did we enforce the old 50W limits on 160 meters? How do we enforce the current 200W limit on 30 meters? How do we enforce the 50W PEP limit on 219-220MHz? How do we enforce the current Novice 5W limit on 23 cm? How do we enforce the current 25W limit for Novices on 1.25 cm? As a matter of fact, how do we enforce the current 1.5KW limit? Are you suggesting that FCC discard all these limits because they breed disrespect? What a 'novel' idea!!!! (I quit using the word 'stupid'.) Just because an idea is bad, doesn't mean it isn't repeated, eh? BTW, you forgot ro add the ERP power limit on 60 meters. Rolling back the output power to 50 watts when most HF transcievers will do 100 watts is simply not going to work (if you want it to work that is) Perhaps it is just as easy to detect someone running at 100 watts as it is at 3kilowatts? But okay, perhaps you have the evidence of all the Technicians that have been injured by using 100 watts of RF power? What is the basis for 50 watts? Is it safety? Or is it arbitrary? - Mike KB3EIA - |
Hans K0HB wrote:
My proposal would allow them a transition period to do just that. Then they could continue to renew their no-code General test until they assumed room temperature. So we'll have Novice, General, Technician, Extra, Advanced, and Class A and B. Simplification by complication. - Mike KB3EIA - |
"Bert Craig" wrote in message
et... "Dee D. Flint" wrote in message gy.com... "Alun" wrote in message ... It just so happens that I don't like CW, in the sense of I have no desire to use it. That should be OK too, but for some reason it bothers you. Why? No it does not bother me that someone who has learned it chooses not to use it. They have made that decision from a position of knowledge and experience. This is radically different from a person judging it and saying they will never use it when they do not have that knowledge and experience to draw on. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Right on the money, Dee. Larry pointed this out earlier, but not as eloquently as you. 73 de Bert WA2SI It fascinates me that you won't accept someone's plain and simple truth that they don't like CW--even if they don't have experience with it--because you reason that they need to have "knowledge and experience" with it. Well, I know people who are quite well-versed in CW who don't like it, people who haven't ever even tried it and don't like it, and people who have taken and passed a 5wpm test and don't like it. I also know people from those same three categories that do like CW operation. It's pretty much as simple as folks who do or don't like most other things in life. Either ya like it or ya don't. Kim W5TIT |
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message thlink.net...
"N2EY" wrote: "Dwight Stewart" writes: Considering the power levels, the number of frequencies and bands, the overall safety considerations, (snip) You're avoiding my question, Dwight. No, you just don't like the answer given. Would you accept "it's obvious" as an answer to "why a code test"? Didn't think so. If anything, I'm ignoring a fanciful, long-winded, exchange that cannot add anything of real substance to the discussion about Morse code testing (see below). Since you keep asking this, do you have a point to make, Jim? Yes. The point is that some folks apply a double standard when deciding which tests to keep and which to get rid of. The only double standard that exists is not having the same testing for all operating modes. Unless there is a justification to do otherwise, either have skill testing for all modes or no skill testing for any mode. I disagree. Would you have skill testing for modes that few hams use, like EME or TV, on an equal par with those that are widely used, like voice and Morse? There is no longer any justification today for a unique test solely for Morse code. I disagree. YMMV. In the end, it's simply an opinion question. That opinion is consistent with recent FCC published statements. Does that mean FCC is always right? Was FCC right when they required 20 wpm for full privs and no waivers? As such, the unique Morse code test should be eliminated. And perhaps it will be - someday. Not willing to accept that, you ignore the obvious double standard and instead try conjure up an imaginary double standard relating to the written tests. Nope. I simply point out that the same arguments used against the code test can be used against most of the written tests. But most people support the written tests as they are for opinion reasons, nothing more. No such double standard exists. Those written tests, and their contents, serve a valid purpose today. What valid purpose do the General and Extra written tests serve? Why is *all* of their content necessary to operate HF beyond the small sample of privileges granted to Novices and Tech Pluses? None here, including you, have said otherwise. I've simply used the same arguments against them as are used against the code test. The same cannot be said about the Morse code test. Sure it can. I've done it. With all that in mind, I have no desire to engage in a fanciful discussion about the contents of the written tests, especially when that discussion cannot possibly lead to a valid point - no conflict or double standard exists concerning the written tests. As such, I've ignored the rest of your message and have instead addressed the specific point you've acknowledged trying to make. You choose to ignore it because you don't have a definitive counterargument. You cannot prove that most of the content of the writtens, particularly the General and Extra writtens, are *necessary*. IOW, you know that if the same criteria of "is it necessary?" were applied to most of the written questions, the answer would be the same as you get for the code test. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message gy.com... "Bill Sohl" wrote in message hlink.net... "Dee D. Flint" wrote in message gy.com... [snip] The same can be said for morse...unless you want to operate at other than a basic level. For some reason, this discussion always seems to presume one must be code literate at speeds well above even 5 wpm for code to be useful to anyone. If one can "hunt & peck" via a keyboard, the same can be done for morse using a "cheat sheet" to send and receive morse at slow speeds. No 5wpm is useful just a tedious for the listener. Learning it to a higher speed simply makes it easier to communicate and increases the probability that the person will not forget his/her code over time. However, using a "cheat sheet" won't even let you go 5wpm as it takes too long to look up the letters. So what? The point is that anyone could use a cheat sheet to send and recieve morse. I never claimed it could be done at 5wpm. In reality, there is NO minimum code speed required for on-the-air use of the mode. The test requirement is only that...a test requirement. If two non-code hams decide to QSO on 2 meter simplex sometime, there is NO FCC rule requiring any specific minimum sending speed be used. I've operated both RTTY and packet and other digital modes and found them totally boring but I have had experience with them and there simply is no specific skill required. Even "hunt & peck" requires an ability to use the keyboard at a very minimal level. You may not think that it is any skill level at all, but it is. In today's world, most people have to learn that skill at a minimmal anyway whether or not they wish to be radio Amateurs so do not include that as something unique to Amateur Radio. And the converse is true for morse. There is no longer any international treaty requirement and the FCC has already stated they see no rational for code testing to be retained. Ergo... no need for specific amateur testing of morse for HF licensning...IMHO Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
"N2EY" wrote in message ... In article k.net, "Dwight Stewart" writes: "N2EY" wrote: Why is such a written test necessary? The use of any of those modes is entirely optional. Considering the power levels, the number of frequencies and bands, the overall safety considerations, the desirability of proper operation when using the various operating modes, and the importance of the rules associated with all that, the necessity of the written exams is clearly obvious. No, it isn't. You're avoiding my question, Dwight. Why must hams be forced to learn about *any* modes and technologies whose use is strictly optional? Indeed, someone who cannot speak and is totally deaf cannot use voice modes - yet the written exams are full of questions on AM, SSB, FM, etc. Why are such tests *necessary*? Why is *any* written test beyond the basics of rules, regulations and safety *necessary*? BUT none of these other modes has its own separate pass/fail test. Not any specific subject area either. Miss all the questions on RTTY and you can still pass the test. Or consider this: Techs are permitted to use all authorized (amateur) modes and frequencies above 30 MHz - at full authorized power. This authorization is based on the successful passing of a single 35 question written test. FCC says so - in fact, almost four years ago they drastically reduced the written testing needed to get a Tech license. Additiionally, those same techs can use Morse even if they never passed a morse test. Yet to have full privileges, a ham must pass additional written tests. Sure, the addtional tests include rules and regs a Tech doesn't need to know, as well as some things like HF/MF propagation. Buty those tests go far beyond the additional regs and propagation. Why is that sort of thing *necessary*, since a Tech has already shown that he/she is qualified on all authorized modes at full authorized power? I have previously agreed that the alignment of privileges vs license class makes little sense these days. Can you establish a similar necessity for the Morse code test? Sure. Here goes: Considering the many advantages of Morse code, the number of frequencies and bands on which it is used, the number of amateurs who use it on the air and their exemplary conformance to the rules, regulations and operating procedures of the ARS, the necessity of the Morse code exam is clearly obvious. There you go. So how come the FCC didn't buy it in 98-143. How come no-code techs are NOT forbidden from using morse even though hey never passed a morse test. By the way..."their exemplary conformance to the rulkes" is a real stretch since most rule breakers seem to be coded hams anyway. Cheers, Bill |
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in
gy.com: "Alun" wrote in message ... "Dee D. Flint" wrote in gy.com: "Alun" wrote in message ... "Dee D. Flint" wrote in gy.com: "Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ... I personally don't have the desire to "take advantage of" CW. I haven't been interested in CW since I was first introduced to it and found it nothing more than a necessary evil--a means to an end--to licensing in amateur radio. I also found it uniquely lacking in any pertinent application to the process of amateur radio, overall. I believe you have previously stated that once you tried HF, you did not care for it and have since stayed primarily with VHF FM. There's nothing wrong with that. However, those who work a lot of HF are really shortchanging themselves if they are unable to use CW. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE I work a lot of HF, relatively speaking, and I have considered wiring up a key from time to time, but decided against it. Shortchanging myself? I don't think so. I'm happy to stay on phone. Now, I have met people who don't like phone, and I'm fine with that. It just so happens that I don't like CW, in the sense of I have no desire to use it. That should be OK too, but for some reason it bothers you. Why? No it does not bother me that someone who has learned it chooses not to use it. They have made that decision from a position of knowledge and experience. This is radically different from a person judging it and saying they will never use it when they do not have that knowledge and experience to draw on. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE And yet you say code is "necessary"? As an unqualified blanket statement that is laughable. Nope it is not laughable. There are many necessary things in life that people do not do. They choose for reasons of their own to omit them. Annual physicals are a "necessary" item for people of middle age and older but I know quite a few people who do not get them. Keeping one's weight under control is "necessary" but there's a lot of us carrying more weight than we should. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE So, let me get this straight, you are saying it's necessary for me to use CW, and comparing not doing it with failing to get a physical. I don't think that argument will hold water. The consequences of not using CW are what, exactly? |
Mike Coslo wrote in
: N2EY wrote: In article , Mike Coslo writes: KØHB wrote: On the contrary, my plan puts newcomers dead center in the mainstream of amateur radio, with all the same privileges of EVERY other licensee, just at a more modest power level of 50watts. How are you going to enforce that? Same way all the other power limits are enforced. I imagine you're being a bit glib about that. If a ham is running way too much power at the KW end of the scale, there will be possibilities of TVI or RFI. There will be a local discernable problem with other hams too. But the difference between 50 and 100 watts? Not all that much that is detectable. For this plan to work, (work means compliance) the equipment manufacturers will have to throttle their transcievers to 50 watts. - Mike KB3EIA - It would be a better plan to make the limit 100W, i.e. base it on the equipment, not vicea versa. |
In article om, "Dee D.
Flint" writes: "Alun" wrote in message .. . "Dee D. Flint" wrote in gy.com: And yet you say code is "necessary"? As an unqualified blanket statement that is laughable. Nope it is not laughable. There are many necessary things in life that people do not do. They choose for reasons of their own to omit them. Annual physicals are a "necessary" item for people of middle age and older but I know quite a few people who do not get them. Keeping one's weight under control is "necessary" but there's a lot of us carrying more weight than we should. Okay, so now morse code skill makes one "healthy?!?" :-) Yes, morse code skill is absolutely necessary to get rid of invading space aliens. [see movie "Independence Day"] Morse code skill is absolutely necessary to aid the survivors of the next Titanic sinking or get away from icebergs. [see movie "Titanic"] Morse code skill is absolutely necessary for ALL emergency and disaster communications...and that is why all the public safety folks depend on morse code skill for all their communications involving life and death situations. Right. LHA |
"Bert Craig" wrote in
et: "Alun" wrote in message ... What is annoying is that a skill test is foisted on those who don't have the desire to use the skill. Alan, I'm gonna let you in on a secret...although I know that you're already aware of it. Preparing for and passing the 5-wpm Elemnt 1 test does NOT leave one ready to use the skill OTA. It only gives one a taste so that one may make an educated choice as to whether or not they wish to persue CW any further. 5 wpm is certainly too slow to prove much, but it only still exists at that level as a residual requirement to meet the old s25.5, which has since been changed so that no code test is required atall. If the FCC truly thought that a CW test was necessary, the speed would be higher. The majority of newbies I've worked sent at approx. 8 to 10-wpm. (That's right, just below the plateau.) We seem to gravitate to one another. Ok, the Novice/Tech"+" sub-bands help bring us together. My point is that those who actually get OTA are putting in more effort than needed just to pass Element 1. Those who pass Element 1 and wish to go no further with CW have made a truly educated dicision because they now have a little "practical" experience with the mode under their belt on which to base their decision...and are not just simply talking from their @$$! Learning the theory of modes you don't want to use is not too onerous, but having to pass a typing test to use phone would be just as annoying and stupid as having to pass a code test to use phone, for example. Besides, having to know about other modes is reasonable, but actually learning to use them is another matter. As I mentioned in another post, the mode is really not the issue...the having to really learn it is. Do away with the published Q&A pools and watch the whining escalate. Well, I think that the real issue is that it's a different kind of test. Also, if I hear CW on my frequency I may be able to read it with some difficulty, but if I hear RTTY or PSK31 there is no chance. You may have just touched on a selling point for CW. 73 de Bert WA2SI Whilst that is true, the point I was making is actually that since I can't read RTTY or PSK by ear, and they are legal modes, it doesn't help all that much that I can read CW (albeit not terribly well, since I never use it). 73 de Alun, N3KIP |
"Kim W5TIT" wrote in
: "Bert Craig" wrote in message et... "Dee D. Flint" wrote in message gy.com... "Alun" wrote in message ... It just so happens that I don't like CW, in the sense of I have no desire to use it. That should be OK too, but for some reason it bothers you. Why? No it does not bother me that someone who has learned it chooses not to use it. They have made that decision from a position of knowledge and experience. This is radically different from a person judging it and saying they will never use it when they do not have that knowledge and experience to draw on. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Right on the money, Dee. Larry pointed this out earlier, but not as eloquently as you. 73 de Bert WA2SI It fascinates me that you won't accept someone's plain and simple truth that they don't like CW--even if they don't have experience with it--because you reason that they need to have "knowledge and experience" with it. Well, I know people who are quite well-versed in CW who don't like it, people who haven't ever even tried it and don't like it, and people who have taken and passed a 5wpm test and don't like it. I also know people from those same three categories that do like CW operation. It's pretty much as simple as folks who do or don't like most other things in life. Either ya like it or ya don't. Kim W5TIT I think that you have hit upon a very important point there, Kim. A good analogy might be not liking an item of food that you haven't tried, because it looks disgusting on your plate. If you eat some you might like it, or not, but there are probably all kinds of other things that contain the same nutrition. These guys are like a parent telling a child that they have to eat their brocolli. But they aren't my parents and I don't like brocolli, or CW. I take vitamins, and work phone. |
"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ... Well, I know people who are quite well-versed in CW who don't like it, people who haven't ever even tried it and don't like it, and people who have taken and passed a 5wpm test and don't like it. I also know people from those same three categories that do like CW operation. It is impossible to tell if you like CW if you've never tried. Reading the ingredients on a recipe will not tell you how it tastes. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"Alun" wrote in message ... "Dee D. Flint" wrote in gy.com: And yet you say code is "necessary"? As an unqualified blanket statement that is laughable. Nope it is not laughable. There are many necessary things in life that people do not do. They choose for reasons of their own to omit them. Annual physicals are a "necessary" item for people of middle age and older but I know quite a few people who do not get them. Keeping one's weight under control is "necessary" but there's a lot of us carrying more weight than we should. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE So, let me get this straight, you are saying it's necessary for me to use CW, and comparing not doing it with failing to get a physical. I don't think that argument will hold water. The consequences of not using CW are what, exactly? No I did not say it is necessary for you to use code only necessary for people to learn it before deciding its usefulness for them. If one doesn't know it, one can't make an enlightened decision. Thus it is a necessary part of amateur radio whether or not it is used by any particular individual. The consequences of not using code are simple and that is having to cease HF communications earlier than those who do use code when propagation falls off. Regardless of the relative magnitude of this consequence it is nevertheless a consequence. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
Alun wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote in : N2EY wrote: In article , Mike Coslo writes: KØHB wrote: On the contrary, my plan puts newcomers dead center in the mainstream of amateur radio, with all the same privileges of EVERY other licensee, just at a more modest power level of 50watts. How are you going to enforce that? Same way all the other power limits are enforced. I imagine you're being a bit glib about that. If a ham is running way too much power at the KW end of the scale, there will be possibilities of TVI or RFI. There will be a local discernable problem with other hams too. But the difference between 50 and 100 watts? Not all that much that is detectable. For this plan to work, (work means compliance) the equipment manufacturers will have to throttle their transcievers to 50 watts. - Mike KB3EIA - It would be a better plan to make the limit 100W, i.e. base it on the equipment, not vicea versa. BINGO! All plans have to incorporate some history and what is going on at the moment. If a new ARS was to be made from nothing starting right now, there would be no problem whatsoever dictating that the maximum power for the so called class B license is to be 50 watts, or 48.7654 watts for that matter. But for years now, the standard max power for most HF rigs has been 100 watts. - Mike KB3EIA - |
In article , Alun
writes: "Dee D. Flint" wrote in igy.com: "Alun" wrote in message ... "Dee D. Flint" wrote in gy.com: "Alun" wrote in message ... "Dee D. Flint" wrote in gy.com: "Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ... I personally don't have the desire to "take advantage of" CW. I haven't been interested in CW since I was first introduced to it and found it nothing more than a necessary evil--a means to an end--to licensing in amateur radio. I also found it uniquely lacking in any pertinent application to the process of amateur radio, overall. I believe you have previously stated that once you tried HF, you did not care for it and have since stayed primarily with VHF FM. There's nothing wrong with that. However, those who work a lot of HF are really shortchanging themselves if they are unable to use CW. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE I work a lot of HF, relatively speaking, and I have considered wiring up a key from time to time, but decided against it. Shortchanging myself? I don't think so. I'm happy to stay on phone. Now, I have met people who don't like phone, and I'm fine with that. It just so happens that I don't like CW, in the sense of I have no desire to use it. That should be OK too, but for some reason it bothers you. Why? No it does not bother me that someone who has learned it chooses not to use it. They have made that decision from a position of knowledge and experience. This is radically different from a person judging it and saying they will never use it when they do not have that knowledge and experience to draw on. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE And yet you say code is "necessary"? As an unqualified blanket statement that is laughable. Nope it is not laughable. There are many necessary things in life that people do not do. They choose for reasons of their own to omit them. Annual physicals are a "necessary" item for people of middle age and older but I know quite a few people who do not get them. Keeping one's weight under control is "necessary" but there's a lot of us carrying more weight than we should. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE So, let me get this straight, you are saying it's necessary for me to use CW, and comparing not doing it with failing to get a physical. I don't think that argument will hold water. The consequences of not using CW are what, exactly? It is unhealthy for Dee's state of mind not to love CW. :-) LHA |
|
In article , Mike Coslo
writes: KØHB wrote: "Mike Coslo" wrote And how are we going to take care of the "shack on a belt" crowd. A awful lot of hams are quite happy with their Technician licenses. And under my plan they are free to keep their Technician license. And new people that intend to operate in this fashiion will have a very different set up. A forced upgrade with absolutely no advantage for a person that only does public events, and uses the local repeater once in a while is not going to be very popular with them. I don't propose to force them to upgrade. Technicians are perfectly free to renew their current license. So you are saying that present licenses will continue with the ten year operating cycle? This is beginning to look like there will be 5 classes of license in the end. And of course, how ya gonna enforce that 50 watt limit? Enacting unenforceable laws is a great way to breed disrespect for laws. There are currently many examples of limited power in the rules. How do we enforce the current 50W limit which exists for EVERYONE on some HF frequencies? How do we enforce the current 200W limit in the Novice sub-bands? How did we enforce the old 75W limit for Novices? How did we enforce the old 50W limits on 160 meters? How do we enforce the current 200W limit on 30 meters? How do we enforce the 50W PEP limit on 219-220MHz? How do we enforce the current Novice 5W limit on 23 cm? How do we enforce the current 25W limit for Novices on 1.25 cm? As a matter of fact, how do we enforce the current 1.5KW limit? Are you suggesting that FCC discard all these limits because they breed disrespect? What a 'novel' idea!!!! (I quit using the word 'stupid'.) Just because an idea is bad, doesn't mean it isn't repeated, eh? BTW, you forgot ro add the ERP power limit on 60 meters. Rolling back the output power to 50 watts when most HF transcievers will do 100 watts is simply not going to work (if you want it to work that is) Perhaps it is just as easy to detect someone running at 100 watts as it is at 3kilowatts? But okay, perhaps you have the evidence of all the Technicians that have been injured by using 100 watts of RF power? What is the basis for 50 watts? Is it safety? Or is it arbitrary? It is all about injury to Hans' pride that all don't rush over and celebrate his Grande Plan. :-) LHA |
In article .net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes: "Dee D. Flint" wrote: (snip) Again keep in mind that I have said Morse is necessary. While I happen to believe that testing should be maintained that is NOT the point I am debating at this time and you keep trying to drag it back to testing. I am stating that Morse code itself is necessary. We wouldn't be having this discussion if it were not for the code testing debate, Dee. That is why this mode is being discussed as opposed to some other mode or discussions about the weather. I've acknowledged that Morse code is enjoyable, entertaining, useful, and perhaps even necessary for you to make some of the contacts you want to make. But we're not just talking about you or the contacts you want to make. Your communications are recreational or avocational in nature, not a necessity. And, as long as your communications are not necessary, your use of Morse code in those communications is not necessary. Dwight, amateur radio is a SERVICE...to the nation in times of need and "everyone knows" that ONLY morse code can get through when nothing else can, ergo it is "necessary" to have it. That's why all the other public safety and distress-emergency communications users and providers still use morse code. This brings us back to the code testing debate. If Morse code is not necessary to meet the goals and purposes of the Amateur Radio Service today, Morse code testing should be eliminated. The _use_ of Morse code not an issue here. You will still be able to use that mode when you find it necessary to make the contacts you want. Others will still be able to learn code if they want. But the test itself, as a license requirement, should end. The TEST and the USE cannot be separated, Dwight. It is "necessary" to keep the test forever and ever so that there will be this "pool of trained operators (in CW)" to help earth survive on the next invasion of spacefaring aliens. :-) LHA |
"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
... "Bert Craig" wrote in message et... "Dee D. Flint" wrote in message gy.com... "Alun" wrote in message ... It just so happens that I don't like CW, in the sense of I have no desire to use it. That should be OK too, but for some reason it bothers you. Why? No it does not bother me that someone who has learned it chooses not to use it. They have made that decision from a position of knowledge and experience. This is radically different from a person judging it and saying they will never use it when they do not have that knowledge and experience to draw on. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Right on the money, Dee. Larry pointed this out earlier, but not as eloquently as you. 73 de Bert WA2SI It fascinates me that you won't accept someone's plain and simple truth that they don't like CW--even if they don't have experience with it--because you reason that they need to have "knowledge and experience" with it. I don't know what's so fascinating about it, Kim. It stands to reason that to make an "educated" decision regarding anything, one should be...well, somewhat educated on the subject. That includes some practical experience. One certainly need not be an expert, and appropriately, the 5-wpm Element 1 test is not an expert level test. Well, I know people who are quite well-versed in CW who don't like it, Educated decision. people who haven't ever even tried it and don't like it, That's why we have the no-code Techician license. and people who have taken and passed a 5wpm test and don't like it. Again, an educated decision. What's the point? I also know people from those same three categories that do like CW operation. I seem to have found them...on the bottom of 40. Interestingly enough, I've even heard interested folks who've yet to pass Element 1 practice their code (Legally) on CB ch. 14 using 100mW Part 15 devices. It's pretty much as simple as folks who do or don't like most other things in life. Either ya like it or ya don't. ....And that's certainly fine by me, Kim. However, many of these anti-code folks are about to diminish the value (As a whole.) of a hobby I dearly love...despite having a very generous chunk of no-code RF real estate. I've had the advantage of seeing this whole code vs. no-code debacle unfold before me through the eyes of a relatively unbiased newbie. If you remove the passion and whining from both sides of the equation, it becomes very clear what the issue is really about...because it damn sure ain't that 5-wpm code exam. Kim W5TIT 73 de Bert WA2SI |
In article om, "Dee D.
Flint" writes: "Alun" wrote in message .. . "Dee D. Flint" wrote in gy.com: And yet you say code is "necessary"? As an unqualified blanket statement that is laughable. Nope it is not laughable. There are many necessary things in life that people do not do. They choose for reasons of their own to omit them. Annual physicals are a "necessary" item for people of middle age and older but I know quite a few people who do not get them. Keeping one's weight under control is "necessary" but there's a lot of us carrying more weight than we should. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE So, let me get this straight, you are saying it's necessary for me to use CW, and comparing not doing it with failing to get a physical. I don't think that argument will hold water. The consequences of not using CW are what, exactly? No I did not say it is necessary for you to use code only necessary for people to learn it before deciding its usefulness for them. If one doesn't know it, one can't make an enlightened decision. Thus it is a necessary part of amateur radio whether or not it is used by any particular individual. Wow, a Morseodist Believer! Morse code is NECESSARY!!!! Can anyone spell "Archaic Radiotelegraphy Society?" :-) The consequences of not using code are simple and that is having to cease HF communications earlier than those who do use code when propagation falls off. Regardless of the relative magnitude of this consequence it is nevertheless a consequence. Really? You should have channeled the U.S. military and, in particular, the Army Command and Administrative Network (ACAN) way back in 1943 or so when it was formed. I had three years of direct experience on HF at ACAN's station ADA back a half century ago. It did ALL its long-distance communications (over 200 thousand messages a month) on HF, trans-Pacific. Only ONE time (late 1955) was there ever a total radio blackout for three hours...which disrupted everyone on HF radio in middle Pacific due to a solar storm. Otherwise ADA was on-the-air 24 hours a day, 7 days a week on HF. Not one circuit was "CW" or used morse code. Maybe today's sunspots are ever so much "stronger" than they used to was? :-) There's lots of ham bands on HF, Dee. You and anyone else are all free to use whatever band you want if your license privileges allow. "QSY" is the trick...or are you rock-bound on only one band? beep, beep LHA |
In article , Alun
writes: "Kim W5TIT" wrote in : "Bert Craig" wrote in message et... "Dee D. Flint" wrote in message gy.com... "Alun" wrote in message ... It just so happens that I don't like CW, in the sense of I have no desire to use it. That should be OK too, but for some reason it bothers you. Why? No it does not bother me that someone who has learned it chooses not to use it. They have made that decision from a position of knowledge and experience. This is radically different from a person judging it and saying they will never use it when they do not have that knowledge and experience to draw on. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Right on the money, Dee. Larry pointed this out earlier, but not as eloquently as you. 73 de Bert WA2SI It fascinates me that you won't accept someone's plain and simple truth that they don't like CW--even if they don't have experience with it--because you reason that they need to have "knowledge and experience" with it. Well, I know people who are quite well-versed in CW who don't like it, people who haven't ever even tried it and don't like it, and people who have taken and passed a 5wpm test and don't like it. I also know people from those same three categories that do like CW operation. It's pretty much as simple as folks who do or don't like most other things in life. Either ya like it or ya don't. Kim W5TIT I think that you have hit upon a very important point there, Kim. A good analogy might be not liking an item of food that you haven't tried, because it looks disgusting on your plate. If you eat some you might like it, or not, but there are probably all kinds of other things that contain the same nutrition. These guys are like a parent telling a child that they have to eat their brocolli. But they aren't my parents and I don't like brocolli, or CW. I take vitamins, and work phone. Excellent analogy, Kim and Alun! [...shades of "Mommie Dearest" I used some months ago... :-) ] Morse code is 159 years old. It was first used in COMMERCIAL messaging back in 1844. It has quite a lot of history of use to base an effectiveness of communications. That base and history is why morse code is only used in amateur radio today. All the commercial and military users have dropped morse code use in the rest of the radio world. Morse just isn't as effective as its believers think. Dee insists that "enlightened" folks "have to experience something" before stating an opinion on it. Okay, so all the obstetricians have to be female and parents before being allowed to supervise birthing? All gynecologists have to be female in order to treat women patients? Same logic. Catholic priests will have to have been married at one time in order to advise engaged couples about to marry. Military people will have to go out and engage in combat, killing someone FIRST before they can state an "enlightened" opinion on war. Absolutely NO ONE can voice any "enlightened" opinion on politics, foreign policy, economics, or homosexuality unless they have DONE any of those things... :-) Absolutely nothing NEW can be done because no one has any experience in doing it. The ONLY way to stay "enlightened" is to remain in status quo forever. :-) Was Thomas Edison "enlightened?" :-) Some of these pro-coders are a little too enlighted in the head. LHA |
"Alun" wrote
It would be a better plan to make the limit 100W, i.e. base it on the equipment, not vicea versa. That's a 'novel' idea! In that case the power limit should be 2.5KW, because that's how much output my homebrew linear will produce if I supply enough drive. If I build an even bigger linear, will FCC raise my power limit? (Or will they expect me to obey the regulations?) And we should make the speed limits in my town 140MPH, because that's how fast my supercharged Ssei will run. (Try that one in front of the judge!) Sunuvagun! 73, de Hans, K0HB |
"Alun" wrote in message
... "Bert Craig" wrote in et: "Alun" wrote in message ... What is annoying is that a skill test is foisted on those who don't have the desire to use the skill. Alan, I'm gonna let you in on a secret...although I know that you're already aware of it. Preparing for and passing the 5-wpm Elemnt 1 test does NOT leave one ready to use the skill OTA. It only gives one a taste so that one may make an educated choice as to whether or not they wish to persue CW any further. 5 wpm is certainly too slow to prove much, but it only still exists at that level as a residual requirement to meet the old s25.5, which has since been changed so that no code test is required atall. If the FCC truly thought that a CW test was necessary, the speed would be higher. Agreed, I was pointing out a very beneficial secondary benefit. It "requires" one to place themselves in a position from which to make an educated decision. As I mentioned in another post, the mode is really not the issue...the having to really learn it is. Do away with the published Q&A pools and watch the whining escalate. Well, I think that the real issue is that it's a different kind of test. Exactly. Also, if I hear CW on my frequency I may be able to read it with some difficulty, but if I hear RTTY or PSK31 there is no chance. You may have just touched on a selling point for CW. 73 de Bert WA2SI Whilst that is true, the point I was making is actually that since I can't read RTTY or PSK by ear, and they are legal modes, it doesn't help all that much that I can read CW (albeit not terribly well, since I never use it). 73 de Alun, N3KIP I understand the point you were making. If I could just ask you why you bothered to take the code test(s)? 73 de Bert WA2SI |
"Alun" wrote in message
... "Kim W5TIT" wrote in : "Bert Craig" wrote in message et... "Dee D. Flint" wrote in message gy.com... "Alun" wrote in message ... It just so happens that I don't like CW, in the sense of I have no desire to use it. That should be OK too, but for some reason it bothers you. Why? No it does not bother me that someone who has learned it chooses not to use it. They have made that decision from a position of knowledge and experience. This is radically different from a person judging it and saying they will never use it when they do not have that knowledge and experience to draw on. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Right on the money, Dee. Larry pointed this out earlier, but not as eloquently as you. 73 de Bert WA2SI It fascinates me that you won't accept someone's plain and simple truth that they don't like CW--even if they don't have experience with it--because you reason that they need to have "knowledge and experience" with it. Well, I know people who are quite well-versed in CW who don't like it, people who haven't ever even tried it and don't like it, and people who have taken and passed a 5wpm test and don't like it. I also know people from those same three categories that do like CW operation. It's pretty much as simple as folks who do or don't like most other things in life. Either ya like it or ya don't. Kim W5TIT I think that you have hit upon a very important point there, Kim. A good analogy might be not liking an item of food that you haven't tried, because it looks disgusting on your plate. If you eat some you might like it, or not, but there are probably all kinds of other things that contain the same nutrition. These guys are like a parent telling a child that they have to eat their brocolli. But they aren't my parents and I don't like brocolli, or CW. I take vitamins, and work phone. Slight difference, Alun. Nobody's forcing anybody to learn code. There exists a no-code Technician license for those who do not wish to have to pass the 5-wpm code exam. 73 de Bert WA2SI |
In article , "Bert Craig"
writes: Slight difference, Alun. Nobody's forcing anybody to learn code. There exists a no-code Technician license for those who do not wish to have to pass the 5-wpm code exam. Slight difference, Egbert. Nobody's forcing you to ride in the front of the bus. Get back in the back, all you heretic infidels who don't love morse! You have any more "enlightened" reasoning to offer? LHA |
In article . net, "KØHB"
writes: And we should make the speed limits in my town 140MPH, because that's how fast my supercharged Ssei will run. Your speed is too slow for Daytona. Get more supercharging.. LHA |
"Mike Coslo" wrote'
But for years now, the standard max power for most HF rigs has been 100 watts. In Japan, where there is a 10W power limit on one class of HF operators, there is a plethora of 10W rigs available, most exactly the same as their 100W cousins except with a 10W final stage. As an example, the Icom 760 which is identical to the Icom 761 except it runs 10W. If the regulations created a market for 50W-max HF radios, they'd be on the shelves of HRO in time for Christmas giving. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
KØHB wrote:
"Alun" wrote It would be a better plan to make the limit 100W, i.e. base it on the equipment, not vicea versa. That's a 'novel' idea! In that case the power limit should be 2.5KW, because that's how much output my homebrew linear will produce if I supply enough drive. If I build an even bigger linear, will FCC raise my power limit? (Or will they expect me to obey the regulations?) And we should make the speed limits in my town 140MPH, because that's how fast my supercharged Ssei will run. (Try that one in front of the judge!) Are you seriously suggesting this is an appropriate reply to what Alun wrote? 1. Who cares what your homebrew amp can run? You or I can make a larger amp than that. You are arguing past people like Alun and myself. The argument isn't about how much smoke any one person can put on the air. The argument is about making a power limit that is accomodating of the way that equipment has been made for quite a while and is still made today. In fact if you were to call for a power limit of 100 watts, I would say "that's fine." 2. I've been waiting for someone to bring up the automobile power thing. That argument is completely irrelevant to this discussion. If automobiles were made that could only go the speed limit and no more, then they would have very little power. If ham transcievers were comparable in any way to cars, we would have to start our transmissiona at a high rate of power, and reduce power as we get up to whatever it is we would have to get up to. The two just aren't related. - Mike KB3EIA - |
"Mike Coslo" wrote
Are you seriously suggesting this is an appropriate reply to what Alun wrote? Yes. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
KØHB wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote Are you seriously suggesting this is an appropriate reply to what Alun wrote? Yes. That says quite a lot. - Mike KB3EIA - |
Mike Coslo wrote
What is the basis for 50 watts? NCRP Report No. 86, "Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields", Copyright 1986, National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, and ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1992, "Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz", Copyright 1992, IEEE, Inc. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
"Mike Coslo" wrote
That says quite a lot. You asked a reasonable direct question. "Yes" is a reasonable direct answer, hard for anyone to misinterpret for "No" or "Maybe" or "Depends on what 'is' means". 73, de Hans, K0HB |
Hans K0HB wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote What is the basis for 50 watts? NCRP Report No. 86, "Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields", Copyright 1986, National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, and ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1992, "Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz", Copyright 1992, IEEE, Inc. And that 50 watts affects calss A different than Class B? I seriously doubt that a person that cannot handle 100 watts shild have any license. Maybe class A shouldn't be alloed to have antennas over 10 feet off the ground either. Nasy falls. - Mike KB3EIA - |
KØHB wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote That says quite a lot. You asked a reasonable direct question. "Yes" is a reasonable direct answer, hard for anyone to misinterpret for "No" or "Maybe" or "Depends on what 'is' means". It tells me what you think is a serious answer. I though you were perhaps being facetious or obtuse. You were not, and that tells me a lot. - Mike KB3EIA - |
"Mike Coslo" wrote
And that 50 watts affects calss A different than Class B? Of course not. (This is another of those 'novel' questions.) But my intention is that the Class B (learners permit with training wheels) test be ultra simple, to allow as many applicants as possible. For that reason, requiring qualification in esoterica like "Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields" is inappropriate. Thus the 50W power level recommended by the NCRP and ANSI/IEEE ensures a modicum of safety for these beginners. In the process of preparing for Class A (without training wheels) license, the candidate would need to explore the RF-exposure safety issues which would be on the qualification test. Then we could expect that they'd have some appreciation of the hazards and how to ensure that their station is engineered in compliance with the MPE criteria mandated by 97.13(c). 73, de Hans, K0HB |
In article , Mike Coslo
writes: Hans K0HB wrote: Mike Coslo wrote What is the basis for 50 watts? NCRP Report No. 86, "Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields", Copyright 1986, National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, and ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1992, "Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz", Copyright 1992, IEEE, Inc. Hans dropped in a nice bibliographic note but did NOT say HOW he arrived at his magical 50 W limit. :-) Way too many variables in the amateur radio "station" arrangement to say with some kind of certainty that 50 W is THE limit for any class. FCC already showed that with a survey of some typical California ham stations along with measurements of fields courtesy of a couple of other government agencies and the hams who let them all prowl around their property. And that 50 watts affects calss A different than Class B? I seriously doubt that a person that cannot handle 100 watts shild have any license. Maybe class A shouldn't be alloed to have antennas over 10 feet off the ground either. Nasy falls. 100 Watts in a 50 Ohm system has an RMS RF Voltage of 70.7. That's on the verge of burning human skin tissue. 50 Watts in a 50 Ohm system has 50 V RMS RF...still on the verge of burning human skin tissue, although not as badly. 100 W of RF is little, piddly stuff to what I'm used to...like 15 KW up- close-and-personal on HF, including walking around in antenna fields of many and varied HF emitters...and 40 KW PEP HF stuff in antenna fields in 1955. Most of us being personal with such powers weren't suffering ill effects and almost all of us weren't licensed in any "classes." We got the messages through. --------- For some really in-depth looks at radio frequency radiation, go to the Brooks AFB website and the documents at the USAF School of Aerospace Medicine. The following is the cover page for one of the shorter documents released in 1996: http://www.brooks.af.mil/afrl/HED/he...uman-exposure/ cover.gif.html That document title number is AL/OE-TR-1996-0035. It was prepared in 1994. Be prepared to do a little math to find the permissible RF field strengths...not much, just a little. There's also FCC Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletins 56 and 65 available on the FCC RF Safety webpage. Only a few ANSI standards are free for download (if available), the same with the IEEE site. Maybe Hans will reveal what kind of aluminum suit he wears when he fires up his "2.5 KW with increased drive" HF amplifier. :-) LHA |
"Bert Craig" wrote in
: "Alun" wrote in message ... "Bert Craig" wrote in et: "Alun" wrote in message ... What is annoying is that a skill test is foisted on those who don't have the desire to use the skill. Alan, I'm gonna let you in on a secret...although I know that you're already aware of it. Preparing for and passing the 5-wpm Elemnt 1 test does NOT leave one ready to use the skill OTA. It only gives one a taste so that one may make an educated choice as to whether or not they wish to persue CW any further. 5 wpm is certainly too slow to prove much, but it only still exists at that level as a residual requirement to meet the old s25.5, which has since been changed so that no code test is required atall. If the FCC truly thought that a CW test was necessary, the speed would be higher. Agreed, I was pointing out a very beneficial secondary benefit. It "requires" one to place themselves in a position from which to make an educated decision. As I mentioned in another post, the mode is really not the issue...the having to really learn it is. Do away with the published Q&A pools and watch the whining escalate. Well, I think that the real issue is that it's a different kind of test. Exactly. Also, if I hear CW on my frequency I may be able to read it with some difficulty, but if I hear RTTY or PSK31 there is no chance. You may have just touched on a selling point for CW. 73 de Bert WA2SI Whilst that is true, the point I was making is actually that since I can't read RTTY or PSK by ear, and they are legal modes, it doesn't help all that much that I can read CW (albeit not terribly well, since I never use it). 73 de Alun, N3KIP I understand the point you were making. If I could just ask you why you bothered to take the code test(s)? 73 de Bert WA2SI To get all the _phone_ frequencies |
"Bert Craig" wrote in
: "Alun" wrote in message ... "Kim W5TIT" wrote in : "Bert Craig" wrote in message et... "Dee D. Flint" wrote in message gy.com... "Alun" wrote in message ... It just so happens that I don't like CW, in the sense of I have no desire to use it. That should be OK too, but for some reason it bothers you. Why? No it does not bother me that someone who has learned it chooses not to use it. They have made that decision from a position of knowledge and experience. This is radically different from a person judging it and saying they will never use it when they do not have that knowledge and experience to draw on. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Right on the money, Dee. Larry pointed this out earlier, but not as eloquently as you. 73 de Bert WA2SI It fascinates me that you won't accept someone's plain and simple truth that they don't like CW--even if they don't have experience with it--because you reason that they need to have "knowledge and experience" with it. Well, I know people who are quite well-versed in CW who don't like it, people who haven't ever even tried it and don't like it, and people who have taken and passed a 5wpm test and don't like it. I also know people from those same three categories that do like CW operation. It's pretty much as simple as folks who do or don't like most other things in life. Either ya like it or ya don't. Kim W5TIT I think that you have hit upon a very important point there, Kim. A good analogy might be not liking an item of food that you haven't tried, because it looks disgusting on your plate. If you eat some you might like it, or not, but there are probably all kinds of other things that contain the same nutrition. These guys are like a parent telling a child that they have to eat their brocolli. But they aren't my parents and I don't like brocolli, or CW. I take vitamins, and work phone. Slight difference, Alun. Nobody's forcing anybody to learn code. There exists a no-code Technician license for those who do not wish to have to pass the 5-wpm code exam. 73 de Bert WA2SI Not really true. No HF privileges with that licence, as we all know. |
KØHB wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote And that 50 watts affects calss A different than Class B? Of course not. (This is another of those 'novel' questions.) But my intention is that the Class B (learners permit with training wheels) test be ultra simple, to allow as many applicants as possible. For that reason, requiring qualification in esoterica like "Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields" is inappropriate. Thus the 50W power level recommended by the NCRP and ANSI/IEEE ensures a modicum of safety for these beginners. I would counter that it is a good idea for the initiate to know right off the blocks that RF has some potential problems associated with it. And while everyone talks about RF exposure, there are other problems associated with RF that a person should know before they are allowed to legally operate a rig. I had a problem trying to tune a longwire once, and my trusty MFJ tuner nailed me good - bad knob design - it shouldn't have the metal rim on the knob, which allows for some capacitive coupling, so it seems. RF burns hurt! Power was probably around 50 watts. I think the responsible thing to do, if safety is a concern, would be to get those safety guidelines out of the way BEFORE going to advanced licenses. I also hope that your regulations would prohibit the Class B hams from making or using a magloop antenna. I just did some calcs on a small magloop for 40 meters, and at 50 Watts there is almost 5 kV across the tuning cap. Ouch! In the process of preparing for Class A (without training wheels) license, the candidate would need to explore the RF-exposure safety issues which would be on the qualification test. Then we could expect that they'd have some appreciation of the hazards and how to ensure that their station is engineered in compliance with the MPE criteria mandated by 97.13(c). I think the candidate needs to know the safety issues long before this. If the potential ham is smart enough to learn them for class A, they should be smart enough to learn them for class B. If safety is first, they shouldn't learn it second. |
"N2EY" wrote:
(snip) The idea isn't that they'll have a high level of expertise right off, but that they'll reach that level through the 'incentive' of having to either upgrade or leave the air. (snip) To me, the entire idea is a solution seeking a problem. Since I don't think the current license holders are lacking, I don't see any real benefit (and I don't think the FCC will either). Regardless, his proposal would require a complete re-write of all the rules relating to license class, when a single sentence added to the existing rules would accomplish virtually the same thing - "All license holders, except Extra, must obtain the next higher license class within five years of obtaining their current license." Another sentence might describe what will happen if that doesn't occur. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:52 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com