|
From: "bb" on Tues,Apr 19 2005 6:06 pm
wrote: From: "cl" on Sun,Apr 17 2005 11:33 pm Eh - I had the code down in 2 weeks for the Novice exam. AND I'm now an Extra. Been licensed since the early 80s. Yeah, I probably could have learned it in under a week, if I pushed myself. Most anyone will tell you - it isn't good to do such. Sorry, according to many in here you have to approach it as THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IN YOUR LIFE!!! :-) I've heard that, too. Everybody wants to be Coach!! [I rode First Class...] Besides, at that time, I was chasing rug rats - so study time was premium. Excuses, excuses, excuses! :-) I've heard that, too. Perhaps there was a lack of a medical certificate presented to the VEs at the test showing a sufficient sperm count to demonstrate "manhood." :-) Most recommendations are 15 minutes to a half hour a day. That hardly makes it possible in a week. I used the words " "AT LEAST" 2 WEEKS". Some are faster learners than others, that is a given. BUT my point was, you have to get started to learn ANYTHING. You can't absorb it through osmosis. Back to the timing thing, I hope someone from the military can step in to tell us how much time they were given to get the code down. I think they had to "Cram". "Caveat," I was in the military, the United States Army, voluntary enlistment beginning 13 March 1952. Went from Basic to Signal School at Fort Monmouth, NJ. Amount of Signal School time spent on morse code? ZERO! NO class, NO "cramming." That can't be right. Why there's a war museum in Canada that has a code key... Hi, hi! Mythology seems to be graven in stone images for some of the morsemen zealots. At that time the ONLY military occupation specialty in the Army requiring morsemanship was Field Radio. Just like Field Day, I'll bet. A picnic in da park it wasn't. Big HUT on the bed of a deuce and a half, towing a PE-95 motor generator on a trailer. Enough poles and wire under the single operator bench (a low cabinet with "cushions" on it) to make a small wire rhombic antenna. Smelly Model 19 TTY clattering away on the bench-desk and the venerable BC-610 400 Watt transmitter near the door. A couple fans to "cool" everything so it was miserable in the heat of summer and uncomformtable in winter. "5-packs" of canned/dry rations instead of hot dogs and soda. Nobody "kept score" in any competition...other than the competition of not being destroyed (literally) by any enemy. Field Radio circa 1950s, USA. Field Radio then required passing 20 WPM, was taught at Camp Gordon (later Fort Gordon, now the home of the Signal Corps). Fort Gordon? Where was Fort Farnsworth? Next to Camp Fessenden. Drop-out rate was roughly a quarter of all starting...that I know about. Those that didn't make it, but had some apitude for electronics, got to go to Inside Plant Telephone, Outside Plant Telephone, Carrier, Teleprinter Operator, Field Wireman...or the Infantry. :-) "Incoming!" Well, infantry is better than adultery... My Signal School classes taught Microwave Radio Relay (at a time when there was little of such operational). Radar was also taught at Fort Monmouth, had the same basic electronics as Microwave. I got assigned to a Fixed Station Transmitter site in Japan. Got all of about a day's worth of on-site "training" to operate one of three dozen HF transmitters having a minimum of 1 KW output. NO MORSEMANSHIP NEEDED THERE. Not even to open and close circuits? Nah...we were a close bunch but always open for suggestion. NO MORSE USED at the third-largest station in the Army Command and Administrative Network. That's when the US Army started it's downward slide and people now have to go to Canadian war museums to get "thier" morse code fixes. I know. The "shame" of it all... Probably the same age bracket as me. I do listen to call signs now and then on the scanner to pick out the services they represent - if I don't immediately know who the service is. I do listen some times to code on the H.F. Bands. ...or what you think is morse. :-) There's very LITTLE morse code on HF nowadays...EXCEPT inside the ham bands. With the RF Gain on maximum and AGC disabled, BFO on, one will eventually start "hearing morse code" on "the bands." :-) The discordant thrumming-whistling of old commercial muliti- channel SSB is less now than it was a quarter century ago. All kinds of OTHER weird sounds ARE there, but those are various forms of data that very few hams use (or can use) and ON HF but NOT in the ham bands. Once in a rare while one might catch an ALE burst from one of the 2500 gubmint radios of SHARES. There are many things you learn in life and may never use again, unless you plan to play on Jeopardy. Tell that to Ken Jennings! :-) That guy could probably copy psk31. He's a machine. Nah. He's just an ordinary programmer, a regular young guy, a Mormon. He just happens to have gunfighter reflexes in his brain...and about $2.5 million extra now. :-) Jeopardy is now coming up on the FINALS in a sort of mental championship on ABC-TV. Fun programming to watch...and try to match wits with the various contestants and their amazing memories. My wife and I are regular viewers after supper...with a bit of friendly competition between us and the contestants. Meanwhile, the cardinals are gathering in Newington to elect a new poop to lead the morsemen into the righteous path of the true hamreligion...via the "history" of radio as only they have sterilized it. |
wrote: From: Paul W. Schleck on Tues,Apr 19 2005 12:38 pm Oy beggin' yer lardship's pardon...(SNIP) Tsk. Judge Schleck is carrying on like his real name is Roy Bean and he be in the olde West and wanting to hang anyone high...(SNIP) As usual, someone made the mistake of thinking they could engage Lennie in meaniningful, adult "debate". Lennie couldn't stand a toe-to-toe "debate", so he starts in on the cute "endearments" and making analogies that are no where near the mark. And Lennie wonders why I call him a "putz" and no one renders to him the honors he feels he is due. Thanks, Lennie. I never have to wait long for YOU to provide me with even MORE proof of all my assertions about you. But don't worry...You've impressed Todd! Steve, K4YZ |
wrote:
With the RF Gain on maximum and AGC disabled, BFO on, one will eventually start "hearing morse code" on "the bands." :-) Wrong, Len. With the AGC disabled and BFO on, the *AF* gain should be at maximum and the RF gain used for volume control. For both SSB and CW/Morse reception |
|
Dave Heil wrote: wrote: wrote: With the RF Gain on maximum and AGC disabled, BFO on, one will eventually start "hearing morse code" on "the bands." :-) Wrong, Len. With the AGC disabled and BFO on, the *AF* gain should be at maximum and the RF gain used for volume control. For both SSB and CW/Morse reception ...and for RTTY. Well, that depends on the type of RTTY operation and equipment. While we hams usually use "SSB" detection of RTTY signals, and then an audio TU, there are other ways. There was a QST article in the late 1950s or so, showing an adapter that used 'real' FM demodulation of the IF signal. Built around a BC-453 Command set. Had a 'scope built-in, IIRC. Complete receiving setup in a rack mountable unit, just feed the IF signal (190-550 kHz) from almost any superhet to it. I'm sure there were manufactured equivalents. I'd have thought the old boy would have known all that with his decades of experience. "It's a trap"... With the BFO injection of most old boatanchor receivers, (like the R-70?) he'd likely hear little or no beat note at all using the method he advocates. Maybe that's the point... 73 de Jim, N2EY |
wrote:
Dave Heil wrote: wrote: wrote: With the RF Gain on maximum and AGC disabled, BFO on, one will eventually start "hearing morse code" on "the bands." :-) Wrong, Len. With the AGC disabled and BFO on, the *AF* gain should be at maximum and the RF gain used for volume control. For both SSB and CW/Morse reception ...and for RTTY. Well, that depends on the type of RTTY operation and equipment. While we hams usually use "SSB" detection of RTTY signals, and then an audio TU, there are other ways. While hams have used pure AFSK with FM at VHF, a BFO or product detector in the SSB mode is the traditional of RTTY reception. It was also the method used by USG agencies at HF. There was a QST article in the late 1950s or so, showing an adapter that used 'real' FM demodulation of the IF signal. Built around a BC-453 Command set. Had a 'scope built-in, IIRC. Complete receiving setup in a rack mountable unit, just feed the IF signal (190-550 kHz) from almost any superhet to it. I'm sure there were manufactured equivalents. I'd have thought the old boy would have known all that with his decades of experience. "It's a trap"... I suppose we're doomed to another "I meant to do that". With the BFO injection of most old boatanchor receivers, (like the R-70?) Naw, Len's relic has a good product detector. He could almost use the method he described except he would have no need to switch the AGC to the "off" position--just switch it to the "fast" position. he'd likely hear little or no beat note at all using the method he advocates. Maybe that's the point... If he couldn't copy it either way, what's the diff? Dave K8MN |
Dave Heil wrote: wrote: Dave Heil wrote: With the BFO injection of most old boatanchor receivers, (like the R-70?) Naw, Len's relic has a good product detector. He could almost use the method he described except he would have no need to switch the AGC to the "off" position--just switch it to the "fast" position. You'd think he'd be quick to put up some pics of "see...I've a radio station too...", but no...Lennie doesn't seem to have mastered getting pics onto AOL yet... (At least not ones that don't show another man's bottom...) Brag not got not, eh, Guys...??? Steve, K4YZ |
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote: Dave Heil wrote: wrote: wrote: With the RF Gain on maximum and AGC disabled, BFO on, one will eventually start "hearing morse code" on "the bands." :-) Wrong, Len. With the AGC disabled and BFO on, the *AF* gain should be at maximum and the RF gain used for volume control. For both SSB and CW/Morse reception ...and for RTTY. Well, that depends on the type of RTTY operation and equipment. While we hams usually use "SSB" detection of RTTY signals, and then an audio TU, there are other ways. While hams have used pure AFSK with FM at VHF, a BFO or product detector in the SSB mode is the traditional of RTTY reception. It was also the method used by USG agencies at HF. Still, it could be done other ways. There was a QST article in the late 1950s or so, showing an adapter that used 'real' FM demodulation of the IF signal. Built around a BC-453 Command set. Had a 'scope built-in, IIRC. Complete receiving setup in a rack mountable unit, just feed the IF signal (190-550 kHz) from almost any superhet to it. I'm sure there were manufactured equivalents. A really good use for a Q5er, too. Selectivity was about right for the 850 shift that was common in those days. Plus it was a complete unit in one package. I'd have thought the old boy would have known all that with his decades of experience. "It's a trap"... I suppose we're doomed to another "I meant to do that". Yup. With the BFO injection of most old boatanchor receivers, (like the R-70?) Naw, Len's relic has a good product detector. He could almost use the method he described except he would have no need to switch the AGC to the "off" position--just switch it to the "fast" position. Point is, somebody who didn't know Len might read what he advised and think it was the right way. he'd likely hear little or no beat note at all using the method he advocates. Maybe that's the point... If he couldn't copy it either way, what's the diff? Simple: One of the arguments for keeping some sort of code test is that hams do, indeed, use Morse Code. And on HF, they use it *a lot*. Now whether that constitutes enough reason to keep the test is purely a matter of opinion - but it *is* a reason. As we have often seen, Len constantly minimizes and ignores the role Morse Code plays and has played in radio communication. So it's natural that he'd want to minimize reception of the mode.. Just a guess. But I don't see him thanking me for pointing out his error, or even acknowledging it. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
From: on Thurs,Apr 21 2005 2:35 pm
Dave Heil wrote: wrote: Dave Heil wrote: wrote: wrote: With the RF Gain on maximum and AGC disabled, BFO on, one will eventually start "hearing morse code" on "the bands." :-) Wrong, Len. With the AGC disabled and BFO on, the *AF* gain should be at maximum and the RF gain used for volume control. For both SSB and CW/Morse reception ...and for RTTY. etc., :-) Oh my how the LITERALISTS hop in with FALSE "corrections" in order to attempt making nasty to "opponents." Notice the little smiley I originally wrote? You two didn't? Tsk, tsk, tsk, tsk... :-) With maximum gain, almost ANYTHING will be "heard" on a radio with NO signals present. If someone WANTS to hear morse, then, listening to noise, they eventually will. :-) Note: Check one of Cecil Moore's early postings about how he (in humor) said he "could hear morse from his car tires when traveling on rough highways." :-) Now let's turn back to the good old ARC-5 Command receivers...which DID have BFOs and thus morse code beeping capability in the audio output. Look again at their circuitry. See any "A.F.gain" control in there? What, couldn't find it? You couldn't, the thousands of them were NEVER made with any "A.F. gain" or "volume" control! Amazing! Only ONE "volume" control, better known as an "R.F.gain" that changed input amplifier bias. That even included the original "Q-Fiver," the LF band version of the ARC-5 receiver. Well, that depends on the type of RTTY operation and equipment. While we hams usually use "SSB" detection of RTTY signals, and then an audio TU, there are other ways. While hams have used pure AFSK with FM at VHF, a BFO or product detector in the SSB mode is the traditional of RTTY reception. It was also the method used by USG agencies at HF. Oh, dear, here comes the Department of State, equating amateur radio with "U.S. Government agencies!" :-) Tsk, tsk, then whatever you TWO know suddenly becomes what "ALL hams" do!! Marvelous. Commercial and Government users of TTY reception NORMALLY use "converters" outboard of the receivers. Those are specifically tailored to detect the FSK (Frequency-Shift Keying) that is COMMON in RTTY communications. Those converters (in the generic sense, NOT as "what hams know" as "converters" to down-frequency-convert VHF or UHF to HF) usually have (in older days) some mild analog signal processing to both clean up the demodulated TTY Mark and Space for less distortion and to limit interfering signal amplitude in between Mark and Space as well as above and below them. One of the arguments for keeping some sort of code test is that hams do, indeed, use Morse Code. And on HF, they use it *a lot*. Hams use morse code to sell real estate? :-) Now whether that constitutes enough reason to keep the test is purely a matter of opinion - but it *is* a reason. A vapid "reason" considering that the government does NOT *REQUIRE* any class ham to specifically USE morse code over and above other OPTIONAL modes. As Hans Brakob pointed out in another thread, ANY U.S. class radio amateur CAN use morse code...but they are NOT REQUIRED to do so. As we have often seen, Len constantly minimizes and ignores the role Morse Code plays and has played in radio communication. Oh, oh! Jimmie done said a WRONG THING there! I've repeatedly pointed out that On-Off Keying, as by morse code, was THE ONLY METHOD OF USING EARLY RADIO AS A COMMUNICATIONS MEDIUM! As the ONLY way to communicate by early radio, I'd say - and HAVE SAID - that the ONLY way is IT. As such, it would intrinsically BE the "great part" of early radio! :-) Tsk, tsk, tsk, I don't see (and hardly anyone else "can see") Jimmie maximizing the early SPARK transmissions as having been a "role" as great as morse code...:-) So it's natural that he'd want to minimize reception of the mode.. Poor baby...can't understand simple HUMOR, can you? You MUST be the LITERALIST, taking EVERYTHING EXACTLY as its written!! No possibility of exaggeration as an essential part of humor. To you two, all things ham are SERIOUS BUSINESS (even if amateur means not to gain monetarily from the activity). :-) Just a guess. But I don't see him thanking me for pointing out his error, or even acknowledging it. Tsk, tsk, I "acknowledge" only that you wrote what you THOUGHT was a "correction." It was NOT a "correction." The "correction" (as it was portrayed with an example of the original "Q-Fiver" out of an LF Command Set receiver) was WRONG. There is NO "A.F.gain" on any of those receivers. With NO such control it is impossible to "set gain" of it. :-) What "thanks" does Jimmie Noserve "deserve" in here? Come back when you've learned to get along with non- morsemen, general. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:21 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com