(N2EY) wrote in message . com...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ...
"Brian" wrote in message
om...
(N2EY) wrote in message
...

Morse code testing was implemented for a number of reasons, but limiting
the number of hams wasn't one of them. And in 1968, when the requirements
for full amateur privileges were increased in both the written and code
tests, the number of hams began to grow again after at least 5 years of
stagnation at the quarter-million mark.

A direct quote from the pages of QST was posted on here several years
back.

It's also in "200 Meters And Down"

Oh, really? You acted as if you had never heard of such an idea just
one short post ago.

I really can't trust anything you say.

It was during the Aaron Jones Morse Myths demything era. I
don't think Aaron posted it, though.

The Morse test speed for was increased to 13 wpm as a direct effort to
limit the number of hams - and the moving force was the ARRL - it's
documented in public records in the Library of Congress and was researched
by a certified archivist.

The key word is "implemented" - not increased.

You just play word games. You should have corrected that in your last
post, but no, you thought you could just play it off and keep it a big
secret.

I really can't trust anything you say.

Here's "the rest of the story":

Now you're an instant expert at something that just one post ago was a
huge mystery to you.

You didn't get away with it this time, Jim.

The year was 1936.

US amateur radio had grown faster than at any time before or since.
The number of US hams had almost tripled since 1929, despite the Great
Depression and highly restrictive new rules that went into effect in
1929.

There were serious problems with interference, poor signals,
out-of-band operation, and overcrowding of the bands, and rapid
turnover of new hams (approaching 40% per year).

The remedy was twofold: Both the written test and the code test were
revised. The written test was upgraded and the code test increased
from 10 wpm (where it had been since 1919)to 13 wpm.

ARRL asked for 12-1/2 wpm but FCC went for 13.

But no...

What about the 12-3/4 wpm plateau?

How dare the FCC not implement the ARRL plan?

There was also a big
redoing of the written tests, but somehow that fact is forgotten...

Trivia.

See the article at http://www.nocode.org/articles.html - scroll way down to
the bottom it's the 3rd article from the bottom.

That's why the code test of 67 years ago was increased by 3 wpm from
10 to 13 - but not why it was implemented in the first place.

Some folks wonder about the claim of overcrowding. In order to
appreciate what amateur radio was like back then, it's necessary to
understand what technologies and operating practices were in use by
average hams.

Consider this: The bands were crowded enough back then that as early
as 1931 some enterprising hams (W6DEI, Ray Moore, and others) built
and operated single-sideband transmitters and receivers.

But that was some 72 years ago. Cop's invention was only 40 years ago
and you discount it.

Jim, I'm beginning to see a pattern of untruths and inconsistency in
your postings. And I'll not ever refer to you as Rev. Jim again, no
matter how many swear words you snip out of other peoples posts. You
are unworthy, and definitely bear watching.

Brian wrote:



The key word is "implemented" - not increased.


You just play word games. You should have corrected that in your last
post, but no, you thought you could just play it off and keep it a big
secret.

Lets see now, the amateurs were on the air communicating with code long
before it was required they be licensed. Likely, most amateurs could
easily do 10 wpm or more. Now along comes licensing *implementing* a 10
wpm code speed (may have orginally been 5 wpm but I can't document that)
test along with a technical test. So with amateurs already being able to
copy code, just how was this 10 wpm test going to reduce the number of
amateurs? It is not a word play, the key word is *implemented*. The code
was not *implemented* to reduce the number of amateurs, it was part of
the standard to be met to be licensed. If anything the technical part
was more likely to reduce the number of amateurs from being licensed
than the code. The code may have been *increased* later to in an attempt
to limit the numbers of licensees, but it was not *implemented*
orginally for that purpose.
At the time, the thing which was thought would do the task of reducing,
even eleminating the amatures would be to relegate them to 200 meters.
Those wavelengths were thought to be of no use for communications and
the amatures would not be able to get a signal out of their back yards,
thus in time the amateurs would loose interest and amateur radio would,
for all practical purposes, die away.

"JJ" wrote in message
...
Brian wrote:



The key word is "implemented" - not increased.


You just play word games. You should have corrected that in your last
post, but no, you thought you could just play it off and keep it a big
secret.

Lets see now, the amateurs were on the air communicating with code long
before it was required they be licensed. Likely, most amateurs could
easily do 10 wpm or more. Now along comes licensing *implementing* a 10
wpm code speed (may have orginally been 5 wpm but I can't document that)
test along with a technical test. So with amateurs already being able to
copy code, just how was this 10 wpm test going to reduce the number of
amateurs? It is not a word play, the key word is *implemented*. The code
was not *implemented* to reduce the number of amateurs, it was part of
the standard to be met to be licensed. If anything the technical part
was more likely to reduce the number of amateurs from being licensed
than the code. The code may have been *increased* later to in an attempt
to limit the numbers of licensees, but it was not *implemented*
orginally for that purpose.
At the time, the thing which was thought would do the task of reducing,
even eleminating the amatures would be to relegate them to 200 meters.
Those wavelengths were thought to be of no use for communications and
the amatures would not be able to get a signal out of their back yards,
thus in time the amateurs would loose interest and amateur radio would,
for all practical purposes, die away.


What's your callsign, JJ? Just wondering...

Kim W5TIT

JJ wrote in message ...
Brian wrote:



The key word is "implemented" - not increased.


You just play word games. You should have corrected that in your last
post, but no, you thought you could just play it off and keep it a big
secret.

Lets see now, the amateurs were on the air communicating with code long
before it was required they be licensed. Likely, most amateurs could
easily do 10 wpm or more. Now along comes licensing *implementing* a 10
wpm code speed (may have orginally been 5 wpm but I can't document that)
test along with a technical test. So with amateurs already being able to
copy code, just how was this 10 wpm test going to reduce the number of
amateurs? It is not a word play, the key word is *implemented*. The code
was not *implemented* to reduce the number of amateurs, it was part of
the standard to be met to be licensed. If anything the technical part
was more likely to reduce the number of amateurs from being licensed
than the code. The code may have been *increased* later to in an attempt
to limit the numbers of licensees, but it was not *implemented*
orginally for that purpose.

He could have said as much in his earlier post. Instead he played it
off as if he had -never- heard of such a thing. That is dishonest.

I cannot trust what he says anymore.

I cannot trust what he says anymore.


BIG DEAL, no one cares what you think.

(WA8ULX) wrote in message ...
I cannot trust what he says anymore.


BIG DEAL, no one cares what you think.

Not true. If so, they wouldn't argue so vehemently against what I say.

Not true. If so, they wouldn't argue so vehemently against what I say.

Most people just like to give you hard time because they know you dont have a
Clue. Lets face it Brian, if the FCC hadnt decided to give Ham Licenses away,
you will still be on 11 Meters.

.. . n2ey & Brainiac go at it. "Entertainment is where ya find it" . .

n2ey sez:

Some folks wonder about the claim of overcrowding. In order to
appreciate what amateur radio was like back then, it's necessary to
understand what technologies and operating practices were in use by
average hams.

w3rv jumps in he

I basically agree with your contention but it needs to be expanded
(particularly sincs Brainiac is on the freq). The reason the bands
were "crowded" back then was simply because of the absolutely
ferschtink selectivity even the state-of-the-art superhet rcvrs of
those days provided. On top of the problems those folk had with their
wandering oscillators.

I daresay that if the 1931 hams had any of today's cheapest
consumer-level MF/HF xcvrs they would have, on average, found a
*whole* lot of dead space between signals in the ham bands.

Consider this: The bands were crowded enough back then that as early
as 1931 some enterprising hams (W6DEI, Ray Moore, and others) built
and operated single-sideband transmitters and receivers.

Here comes me again:

The big trick SSB brought to the game had nothing to do with bandwidth
and/or "interfernce reduction". It had and has everything to do with
the abilty of SSB to eliminate the AM carrier which sucks up power,
equipment space and money and conveys no intelligence to the listener
whatsoever.

Brainiac responds to n2ey:

But that was some 72 years ago. Cop's invention was only 40 years ago
and you discount it.

Jim, I'm beginning to see a pattern of untruths and inconsistency in
your postings. And I'll not ever refer to you as Rev. Jim again, no
matter how many swear words you snip out of other peoples posts. You
are unworthy, and definitely bear watching.

w3rv sez pffft! Pot calling kettle black again.

.. . T5 logs. Gonna toss 'em into the LoW are ya Burke? Hmmm??

w3rv

(Brian Kelly) stumbles through this message
. com...
. . n2ey & Brainiac go at it. "Entertainment is where ya find it" . .

n2ey sez:

Some folks wonder about the claim of overcrowding. In order to
appreciate what amateur radio was like back then, it's necessary to
understand what technologies and operating practices were in use by
average hams.

w3rv jumps in he

I basically agree with your contention but it needs to be expanded
(particularly sincs Brainiac is on the freq). The reason the bands
were "crowded" back then was simply because of the absolutely
ferschtink selectivity even the state-of-the-art superhet rcvrs of
those days provided. On top of the problems those folk had with their
wandering oscillators.

I daresay that if the 1931 hams had any of today's cheapest
consumer-level MF/HF xcvrs they would have, on average, found a
*whole* lot of dead space between signals in the ham bands.

So 13wpm was the solution.

Consider this: The bands were crowded enough back then that as early
as 1931 some enterprising hams (W6DEI, Ray Moore, and others) built
and operated single-sideband transmitters and receivers.

Here comes me again:

The big trick SSB brought to the game had nothing to do with bandwidth
and/or "interfernce reduction". It had and has everything to do with
the abilty of SSB to eliminate the AM carrier which sucks up power,
equipment space and money and conveys no intelligence to the listener
whatsoever.

So 13wpm was the answer?

Brainiac responds to n2ey:

But that was some 72 years ago. Cop's invention was only 40 years ago
and you discount it.

Jim, I'm beginning to see a pattern of untruths and inconsistency in
your postings. And I'll not ever refer to you as Rev. Jim again, no
matter how many swear words you snip out of other peoples posts. You
are unworthy, and definitely bear watching.

w3rv sez pffft! Pot calling kettle black again.

Do you still think I'm going to put up an antenna in your back yard?

Your village is starting to grumble ... time for you to go home.

. . T5 logs. Gonna toss 'em into the LoW are ya Burke? Hmmm??

What's it to you? You're not in my logs. You're not going to get my
card no matter how often you bring it up.

But you divert the thread from a proposed change in the rules.

Jim has proposed that we eliminate all classes except Extra, and roll
all of the question pools together.

What is your comment?