In article , Mike Coslo writes:

I'm an Extra too, Len. I had a hard time learning CW upto 20 wpm and don't
even use it. There are two basic ways to respond to that experience, either

somehow rationalise it as a good thing(?), or realise it was a waste of
time and an unnecessary barrier to others.

Yes, if you can also rationalize all the other parts of the test that
you don't use.

- Mike KB3EIA -

False logic, bad connections. Clean your iron, too many cold solder
joints.

Test Element 1 in the USA only involves morsemanship. Morse code
mode is the ONLY one of many - all optional - modes allowed to
U.S. amateur radio. There has never been another manual operating
test for any other mode in the 70-year history of the FCC in amateur
radio.

Morse code testing doesn't compare to any other thing but morse
code. Trying to draw analogues to other things is ridiculous...but you
knew that, didn't you?

The written part of the U.S. amateur radio test involves FCC regulations.
Those regulations include all the permissible modes and modulations
available to U.S. amateur licensees. It is logical that the written test
include something involving all those modes and modulations.

Try to remember that the FCC's test for an amateur radio license is
NOT an academic achievement test. It is NOT about how much
knowledge of radio is gained, it is all about proving the applicant to
the Commission on the Commission's standards for being licensed.

In article , Alun
writes:

I'm an Extra too, Len. I had a hard time learning CW upto 20 wpm and don't
even use it. There are two basic ways to respond to that experience, either
somehow rationalise it as a good thing(?), or realise it was a waste of
time and an unnecessary barrier to others.

The third alternative exists: Seeing morse code's faults and the
fact that all other radio services have dropped the mode for any
communications purposes. That happened to me over a half century
ago, altered my thinking about "radio."

Way back then, I'd swallowed the mythos of morse as put forth by
the radio gurus of the mighty morse league and thought it was truth.
It turned out to (rather obviously) be a falsehood of major
proportions. A sudden dose of reality has side-effects for some,
but not really to me. Just "recode" the thinking program and
continue was my way.

I find it truly remarkable that the Pro-Code Test Advocates have
this stubborn obstinacy on forcing all newcomers to test for morse
code for below-30-MHz privileges...a half century later. Other radio
services have long since discarded such a "necessity" and many
don't even require a license test to operate some HF radios (other
than the license-free CB things). [towards the first of this year I
operated a little SGC 2020 on HF and didn't require any showing of
any license to be legal about it...the 2020 is an HF SSB transceiver,
designed by Don Stoner's and Pierre Goral's company...both sadly
SK now]

As I've said before, radio amateurs should not have to have any
dispute over the code test. If it is kept, then it would be prudent
to change the name of the "service" to something as I suggested:
Archaic Radiotelegraphy Society. Or "Service" instead of Society.
Either way, the name would fit what it has become below 30 MHz.

I find it puzzling that there is still the demand for various "classes"
beyond an entry-level one. The only validity to that is that it is an
artificiality to bolster the egos of the participants. Amateur radio
is a hobby. It isn't a professional group, not a guild, not a union,
not a working craft. Why have all those "classes" that will, auto-
matically, lead to internal conflict of some "better" than others?

Tsk. Those that have made it into the "upper" ranks can afford
to be condescending (to a fault sometimes) to others. That just
furthers the resentment. [not saying you do, Alun, you don't, but
many others are that way]

In article , Alun
writes:

(N2EY) wrote in news:20040921201024.04815.00000600@mb-
m17.aol.com:

In article et, "KØHB"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote

Is the 5 wpm test really such a big deal?

Yes.

Why?

It puts people off,

So do the written tests.

especially those who have no plans to ever use CW,

How about the folks who have no plans to build their own rigs?

Which do you think are more numerous - hams using CW/Morse or hams using
homebrew rigs?

Why is so much more written testing, particularly theory testing, needed for HF
privileges (and full privileges) when a Tech license gives full amateur power
and all authorized amateur modes - just not all authorized amateur spectrum?

oh wait - NCVEC is proposing a "no homebrew" license. Is that a good thing?

and there are a lot of those.

How many? And why aren't they letting FCC know?

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Phil Kane" wrote in message
et...
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 11:52:21 GMT, Bert Craig wrote:

Heaven forbid we should teach this concept to our kids. Instead they have
a
whole generation of underachevers who would rather whine than achieve.
Remember the Regents!

Are the Regents' Exams no longer given in NY? I discovered ham
radio in HS, and wished that there was a Regents in that subject so
I could ace it.....

The Regents are still given in NY, Phil. The Debacle to which I referred
happened a year or two ago when a large percentage of NYC kids flunked it.
They (Parents included.) argued that it was unnecessarily tough and
culturally biased...in other words, they whined. The failing grades were
thrown out. (I'm not sure if they were administered an easier exam or thrown
a curve.) Had they been held back and forced to attend summer school and,
dare I say, "earn" their passing grades, some college guidance counselors
and subsequently some employers (Read: society as a whole.) would have been
grateful.

Instead, the bar was lowered. Is this what we want to do with AR? The same
AR we want to recuit youngsters into...and then teach them (by example) that
if they whine long enough, they can have what they want. "Learn to earn!"
Today privileges in an avocation, tomorrow wages to comfortably support a
family in a fierce fiscal environment. Some whould say ther's no
corrolation, but the priciples learned today will be applied tomorrow.

--
Vy 73 de Bert
WA2SI
FISTS #9384
QRP ARCI #11782

"Alun" wrote in message
...
"Bert Craig" wrote in
:

"Alun" wrote in message
...
PAMNO (N2EY) wrote in
news:20040921201024.04815.00000600@mb- m17.aol.com:

In article et,
"KØHB" writes:

"N2EY" wrote


Is the 5 wpm test really such a big deal?


Yes.

Why?

73 de Jim, N2EY


It puts people off, especially those who have no plans to ever use CW,
and there are a lot of those.

If I remember correctly, this is why the no-code Tech license was
created.

Oh, want increased "privileges?" Earn them. Sometimes earning something
(Like a degree, for example.) means "learning" a few things that you
may never use.

Heaven forbid we should teach this concept to our kids. Instead they
have a whole generation of underachevers who would rather whine than
achieve. Remember the Regents!

It "puts people off," it'd almost be funny...if it weren't so sad.


You are (deliberately) confusing the issue of having to learn more theory
to upgrade with the issue of learning to use CW in order to use HF phone.

No, Alun...I'm not deliberately confusing the issue. I'm very deliberately
offering MY take on it. I believe the question was; "Is the 5 wpm test
really such a big deal?" IMHO, no it is not! No confusion there.

This has nothing to do with teaching kids they should get something for
nothing, if that's what you are saying.

It's a lead by example thing, Alun. The principles a youngster learns in an
early avocation will likely carry over intotheir later endeavors, both
presonal and professional. Again, IMHO.

But then, if you regard CW as a
holy sacrament, your argument would make sense, which it doesn't.

Holy sacrament? Definitely not. A very cool (And challenging!) mode of
operation that lends itself very well for low power comms and sheer
simplicity? "Noboubtadoutit!" (A NYism, hi.)

And oh, BTW...it's not my argument, it's just my opinion.

--
Vy 73 de Bert
WA2SI
FISTS #9384
QRP ARCI #11782

P.S. My 3-1/2 year old lad can identify the characters A, B, C and J in
Morse code...and I'm sending the character at, at least, 15-wpm.

Mike Coslo wrote in message ...
Alun wrote:



I'm an Extra too. I had a hard time learning CW upto 20 wpm and don't
even use it. There are two basic ways to respond to that experience, either
somehow rationalise it as a good thing(?), or realise it was a waste of
time and an unnecessary barrier to others.


Yes, if you can also rationalize all the other parts of the test that
you don't use.

.. . . I wish I'd written that . . .

- Mike KB3EIA -

w3rv

"Phil Kane" wrote in message
et...
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 11:52:21 GMT, Bert Craig wrote:

Heaven forbid we should teach this concept to our kids. Instead they have
a
whole generation of underachevers who would rather whine than achieve.
Remember the Regents!

Are the Regents' Exams no longer given in NY? I discovered ham
radio in HS, and wished that there was a Regents in that subject so
I could ace it.....

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

They still have them but a recent news article that I saw mentioned that
they are considering making the exams simpler. Not enough students are
taking them and on top of that the students' average scores have dropped
over the years.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Alun wrote:

PAMNO (N2EY) wrote in news:20040921201024.04815.00000600@mb-
m17.aol.com:


In article et, "KØHB"
writes:


"N2EY" wrote


Is the 5 wpm test really such a big deal?


Yes.


Why?

73 de Jim, N2EY



It puts people off, especially those who have no plans to ever use CW, and
there are a lot of those.

Well I could not care less if I ever used CW again. That being said, I
would like some insight on why a person would not get a ham license
simply because of a Morse code test. To me, you just do what you need to
do. What are the positive aspects of people that refuse to "get"
something that included something that they didn't want to do?

- Mike KB3EIA -

(Len Over 21) wrote in
:

In article , Alun
writes:

I'm an Extra too, Len. I had a hard time learning CW upto 20 wpm and
don't even use it. There are two basic ways to respond to that
experience, either somehow rationalise it as a good thing(?), or
realise it was a waste of time and an unnecessary barrier to others.

The third alternative exists: Seeing morse code's faults and the
fact that all other radio services have dropped the mode for any
communications purposes. That happened to me over a half century
ago, altered my thinking about "radio."

Way back then, I'd swallowed the mythos of morse as put forth by
the radio gurus of the mighty morse league and thought it was truth.
It turned out to (rather obviously) be a falsehood of major
proportions. A sudden dose of reality has side-effects for some,
but not really to me. Just "recode" the thinking program and
continue was my way.

I find it truly remarkable that the Pro-Code Test Advocates have
this stubborn obstinacy on forcing all newcomers to test for morse
code for below-30-MHz privileges...a half century later. Other
radio services have long since discarded such a "necessity" and many
don't even require a license test to operate some HF radios (other
than the license-free CB things). [towards the first of this year
I operated a little SGC 2020 on HF and didn't require any showing of
any license to be legal about it...the 2020 is an HF SSB
transceiver, designed by Don Stoner's and Pierre Goral's
company...both sadly SK now]

As I've said before, radio amateurs should not have to have any
dispute over the code test. If it is kept, then it would be prudent
to change the name of the "service" to something as I suggested:
Archaic Radiotelegraphy Society. Or "Service" instead of Society.
Either way, the name would fit what it has become below 30 MHz.

I find it puzzling that there is still the demand for various
"classes" beyond an entry-level one. The only validity to that is
that it is an artificiality to bolster the egos of the participants.
Amateur radio is a hobby. It isn't a professional group, not a
guild, not a union, not a working craft. Why have all those
"classes" that will, auto- matically, lead to internal conflict of
some "better" than others?

Tsk. Those that have made it into the "upper" ranks can afford
to be condescending (to a fault sometimes) to others. That just
furthers the resentment. [not saying you do, Alun, you don't, but
many others are that way]




I tend to think that a single class of licence would be a good idea,
although many people argue that there should also be a beginner's licence,
and I am not totally opposed to that. I don't see a genuine need for more
than two licences, though. Also, I don't think subband restrictions by
licence class make any sense whatsoever, as the propagation is the same for
the whole band.

Ideally, I would give an entry level licence very restricted power on the
whole extent of a limited number of bands in different parts of the
spectrum. Needless to say, I wouldn't have a code test for any licence. The
problem would be the transition from the present situation to such a
scheme. The vested interests of those currently licenced probably make this
idea impracticable.

In article , Alun
writes:

(Len Over 21) wrote in
:

In article , Alun
writes:

I'm an Extra too, Len. I had a hard time learning CW upto 20 wpm and
don't even use it. There are two basic ways to respond to that
experience, either somehow rationalise it as a good thing(?), or
realise it was a waste of time and an unnecessary barrier to others.

The third alternative exists: Seeing morse code's faults and the
fact that all other radio services have dropped the mode for any
communications purposes. That happened to me over a half century
ago, altered my thinking about "radio."

Way back then, I'd swallowed the mythos of morse as put forth by
the radio gurus of the mighty morse league and thought it was truth.
It turned out to (rather obviously) be a falsehood of major
proportions. A sudden dose of reality has side-effects for some,
but not really to me. Just "recode" the thinking program and
continue was my way.

I find it truly remarkable that the Pro-Code Test Advocates have
this stubborn obstinacy on forcing all newcomers to test for morse
code for below-30-MHz privileges...a half century later. Other
radio services have long since discarded such a "necessity" and many
don't even require a license test to operate some HF radios (other
than the license-free CB things). [towards the first of this year
I operated a little SGC 2020 on HF and didn't require any showing of
any license to be legal about it...the 2020 is an HF SSB
transceiver, designed by Don Stoner's and Pierre Goral's
company...both sadly SK now]

As I've said before, radio amateurs should not have to have any
dispute over the code test. If it is kept, then it would be prudent
to change the name of the "service" to something as I suggested:
Archaic Radiotelegraphy Society. Or "Service" instead of Society.
Either way, the name would fit what it has become below 30 MHz.

I find it puzzling that there is still the demand for various
"classes" beyond an entry-level one. The only validity to that is
that it is an artificiality to bolster the egos of the participants.
Amateur radio is a hobby. It isn't a professional group, not a
guild, not a union, not a working craft. Why have all those
"classes" that will, auto- matically, lead to internal conflict of
some "better" than others?

Tsk. Those that have made it into the "upper" ranks can afford
to be condescending (to a fault sometimes) to others. That just
furthers the resentment. [not saying you do, Alun, you don't, but
many others are that way]




I tend to think that a single class of licence would be a good idea,
although many people argue that there should also be a beginner's licence,
and I am not totally opposed to that. I don't see a genuine need for more
than two licences, though. Also, I don't think subband restrictions by
licence class make any sense whatsoever, as the propagation is the same for
the whole band.

All those subbands are simply for "staking out territory."

None of that elaborate U.S. subdivision would be possible without
the modern frequency synthesizers that were NOT developed for
amateur radio but adopted for that particular market.

I doubt that even the most ivy-decorated in here could explain
how to make a PLL subsystem that achieves 10 Hz resolution
using 10 KHz references for their PFD. I wouldn't even bother
asking them if they knew how a DDS works... :-)


Ideally, I would give an entry level licence very restricted power on the
whole extent of a limited number of bands in different parts of the
spectrum. Needless to say, I wouldn't have a code test for any licence. The
problem would be the transition from the present situation to such a
scheme. The vested interests of those currently licenced probably make this
idea impracticable.

Those vests (of the ones in here) are over-stuffed...