LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #9   Report Post  
Old April 28th 04, 01:34 AM
Jack Twilley
 
Posts: n/a
Default

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

"Mike" == Mike Coslo writes:


Mike With the likely demise of Morse code testing, is there any
Mike reason to have contests give double the points for Morse code
Mike contacts?

Jack How is the presence or absence of Morse code testing related to
Jack the point multiplier for Morse code contacts? They're
Jack orthogonal, as far as I can tell.

Mike I was always told that the increased points offered was an
Mike encouragement to work CW.

That doesn't really answer the question. A Technician can send CW on
certain HF bands, even without a higher-class license-holder present.
A ham with any other license can work phone contacts. Therefore,
whether or not an amateur has passed a Morse code test has nothing to
do with woether or not they can use Morse code. Even if the
multiplier is to provide encouragement to use Morse code, it still
doesn't have anything to do with whether or not hams are tested.

Now, if you're going to assert that the potential end to Morse code
testing will eventually cause hams to stop learning and/or using Morse
code, and that therefore the multiplier is akin to the "marriage
penalty" [1], well, I'm not sure that's true. If it is, NCI should be
raising holy hell about the pro-code conspiracy behind all these
contests, right?

[...]

Mike I've seen a number of cases where a phone operator has worked
Mike hard and logged a lot of QSO's, only to be beaten by a CW op
Mike with little more than half that number.

Jack And how hard did that CW op work?

Mike I doubt twice as hard as the Phone person.

You could measure it yourself, you know. Work two similar contests
(say, two of the QSO parties coming up soon). Operate solely in phone
for the first contest. Score your points and keep track of your
experience with notes or something. Operate solely in CW for the
second contest. Do the same sort of scoring and note-taking. Report
back to the group with your personal experience.

When I know the code, I'll do the same thing, if only to satisfy my
own curiosity.

Mike - Mike KB3EIA -

Jack.

[1] For those who are unfamiliar with this concept, for some time the
tax structure in the US was such that married couples with two similar
incomes paid more tax than married couples with one income, or with
two very dissimilar incomes, even when the total number of dollars
earned is the same. The common theory behind this is that it is
designed to encourage married couples to have one working spouse and
one non-working spouse. Whether or not this is moral, ethical, or
even a good idea is a different question.
- --
Jack Twilley
jmt at twilley dot org
http colon slash slash www dot twilley dot org slash tilde jmt slash
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFAju4UGPFSfAB/ezgRAvc8AKDsuo+Lf/ts2eXFq6wc6f9fJET1dwCg7/4Q
W7TwjbDIGGxQdW3cYMrHczE=
=cyRV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
FCC Assigns RM Numbers To Three New Restructuring Petitions N2EY Policy 165 April 6th 04 08:44 PM
Rev.Jim the troller (was Bootlegging in 1948?) Len Over 21 Policy 25 October 20th 03 05:31 AM
With CW gone, can the CW allocations be far behind? K0HB Policy 68 August 4th 03 03:28 PM
Ham Radio In The Post-Code Testing Era Larry Roll K3LT Policy 41 August 2nd 03 08:51 PM
With CW gone, can the CW allocations be far behind? Dee D. Flint General 18 July 25th 03 02:13 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:31 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 RadioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Radio"

 

Copyright © 2017