|
Morse gone by summer???
"Hamguy" wrote in message
... : http://www.hamwave.com/cgi-bin/index...iewnews&id=689 That link supposes that the fcc will delete the Morse requirement. Other insiders suggest fcc will NPRM will delete Morse only for General license, and will INCREASE the test to 20WPM for renewed Extra class, downgrading all current "Extra Lite" licenses to resurrected Advanced license (the second time this license has risen from the ashes). ARRL giveaway program will be denied. M.A.N. -- "I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it." - Voltaire |
Mel A. Nomah wrote: "Hamguy" wrote in message ... : http://www.hamwave.com/cgi-bin/index...iewnews&id=689 That link supposes that the fcc will delete the Morse requirement. Other insiders suggest fcc will NPRM will delete Morse only for General license, and will INCREASE the test to 20WPM for renewed Extra class, downgrading all current "Extra Lite" licenses to resurrected Advanced license (the second time this license has risen from the ashes). ARRL giveaway program will be denied. All it really says is that the FCC is working on an NPRM that may be out as soon as next month or as late as July. That NPRM will obviously contain what FCC wants to do as a result of WRC 2003 and the 18 restructuring petitions. Once the NPRM becomes public, there will be a comment period, then a reply comment period. Couple of months at least, maybe longer. Probably the end of 2005 before comments close. Then FCC will decide what to do and formulate a Report and Order. Last time they did this it took almost a year. Which translates to fall 2006. Then a couple months before the new rules become effective - maybe end of 2006. Of course it could take even longer, or maybe a bit less. But I wouldn't expect any changes before summer 2006 - and wouldn't be surprised if it were summer 2007. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
wrote in message oups.com... Mel A. Nomah wrote: "Hamguy" wrote in message ... : http://www.hamwave.com/cgi-bin/index...iewnews&id=689 That link supposes that the fcc will delete the Morse requirement. Other insiders suggest fcc will NPRM will delete Morse only for General license, and will INCREASE the test to 20WPM for renewed Extra class, downgrading all current "Extra Lite" licenses to resurrected Advanced license (the second time this license has risen from the ashes). ARRL giveaway program will be denied. All it really says is that the FCC is working on an NPRM that may be out as soon as next month or as late as July. That NPRM will obviously contain what FCC wants to do as a result of WRC 2003 and the 18 restructuring petitions. Once the NPRM becomes public, there will be a comment period, then a reply comment period. Couple of months at least, maybe longer. Probably the end of 2005 before comments close. Then FCC will decide what to do and formulate a Report and Order. Last time they did this it took almost a year. Which translates to fall 2006. Then a couple months before the new rules become effective - maybe end of 2006. Of course it could take even longer, or maybe a bit less. But I wouldn't expect any changes before summer 2006 - and wouldn't be surprised if it were summer 2007. 73 de Jim, N2EY Those who defy wanting to learn the code jump at any chance to perpetuate rumors of code being eliminated. You're right, it will take a while, even if they were to decide to write a NPRM to do such. If these people jumped into Alligator infested waters as fast as they do rumors, the population would take a sudden drop. I'm not a "lover" of code, but I have hold a license which required code. 5 WPM is not impossible to learn. It only takes a few minutes a day and about 2 weeks at least to get enough to pass a test. 2 weeks is not long, you probably drove longer on a permit before being allowed to drive on your own. Probably studied the book longer too! It takes little effort. The biggest problem with most is "laziness". Maybe you never will use it again. There are many things you learn in life and may never use again, unless you plan to play on Jeopardy. Many people learned the skeletal system in health class, microorganisms in Biology class. It doesn't mean they use it now. Probably forgot it as soon as they graduated. But, it was "required". It's not a big deal people. Once you get past the "do I have to" and start doing it, you'll amaze yourself at how fast and easy it can be. I DO use code now and then, but not daily like many others do. Everyone has their own thing. Some are into Packet, RTTY, AMTOR, etc, I'm not... To each his own. But we all had to learn "something" about those modes to pass an exam. cl |
"cl" wrote in message .verio.net... wrote in message oups.com... Mel A. Nomah wrote: "Hamguy" wrote in message ... : http://www.hamwave.com/cgi-bin/index...iewnews&id=689 That link supposes that the fcc will delete the Morse requirement. Other insiders suggest fcc will NPRM will delete Morse only for General license, and will INCREASE the test to 20WPM for renewed Extra class, downgrading all current "Extra Lite" licenses to resurrected Advanced license (the second time this license has risen from the ashes). ARRL giveaway program will be denied. All it really says is that the FCC is working on an NPRM that may be out as soon as next month or as late as July. That NPRM will obviously contain what FCC wants to do as a result of WRC 2003 and the 18 restructuring petitions. Once the NPRM becomes public, there will be a comment period, then a reply comment period. Couple of months at least, maybe longer. Probably the end of 2005 before comments close. Then FCC will decide what to do and formulate a Report and Order. Last time they did this it took almost a year. Which translates to fall 2006. Then a couple months before the new rules become effective - maybe end of 2006. Of course it could take even longer, or maybe a bit less. But I wouldn't expect any changes before summer 2006 - and wouldn't be surprised if it were summer 2007. 73 de Jim, N2EY Those who defy wanting to learn the code jump at any chance to perpetuate rumors of code being eliminated. You're right, it will take a while, even if they were to decide to write a NPRM to do such. If these people jumped into Alligator infested waters as fast as they do rumors, the population would take a sudden drop. I'm not a "lover" of code, but I have hold a license which required code. 5 WPM is not impossible to learn. It only takes a few minutes a day and about 2 weeks at least to get enough to pass a test. 2 weeks is not long, you probably drove longer on a permit before being allowed to drive on your own. Probably studied the book longer too! It takes little effort. The biggest problem with most is "laziness". Maybe you never will use it again. There are many things you learn in life and may never use again, unless you plan to play on Jeopardy. Many people learned the skeletal system in health class, microorganisms in Biology class. It doesn't mean they use it now. Probably forgot it as soon as they graduated. But, it was "required". It's not a big deal people. Once you get past the "do I have to" and start doing it, you'll amaze yourself at how fast and easy it can be. I DO use code now and then, but not daily like many others do. Everyone has their own thing. Some are into Packet, RTTY, AMTOR, etc, I'm not... To each his own. But we all had to learn "something" about those modes to pass an exam. cl Yes indeed....basically laziness. I have been thinking back to the late 50/early 60s when I started on my trek down Morse Code lane. You know what THE MAIN reason was that I learned it? Because I was curious as to what all those beeps and bops were saying that I was hearing on my Zenith. And it has been a blast ever since. Look at it this way......how many people do you know that can talk with their fingers? Dan/W4NTI |
Dan/W4NTI wrote:
"cl" wrote in message .verio.net... wrote in message oups.com... Mel A. Nomah wrote: "Hamguy" wrote in message ... : http://www.hamwave.com/cgi-bin/index...iewnews&id=689 That link supposes that the fcc will delete the Morse requirement. Other insiders suggest fcc will NPRM will delete Morse only for General license, and will INCREASE the test to 20WPM for renewed Extra class, downgrading all current "Extra Lite" licenses to resurrected Advanced license (the second time this license has risen from the ashes). ARRL giveaway program will be denied. All it really says is that the FCC is working on an NPRM that may be out as soon as next month or as late as July. That NPRM will obviously contain what FCC wants to do as a result of WRC 2003 and the 18 restructuring petitions. Once the NPRM becomes public, there will be a comment period, then a reply comment period. Couple of months at least, maybe longer. Probably the end of 2005 before comments close. Then FCC will decide what to do and formulate a Report and Order. Last time they did this it took almost a year. Which translates to fall 2006. Then a couple months before the new rules become effective - maybe end of 2006. Of course it could take even longer, or maybe a bit less. But I wouldn't expect any changes before summer 2006 - and wouldn't be surprised if it were summer 2007. 73 de Jim, N2EY Those who defy wanting to learn the code jump at any chance to perpetuate rumors of code being eliminated. You're right, it will take a while, even if they were to decide to write a NPRM to do such. If these people jumped into Alligator infested waters as fast as they do rumors, the population would take a sudden drop. I'm not a "lover" of code, but I have hold a license which required code. 5 WPM is not impossible to learn. It only takes a few minutes a day and about 2 weeks at least to get enough to pass a test. 2 weeks is not long, you probably drove longer on a permit before being allowed to drive on your own. Probably studied the book longer too! It takes little effort. The biggest problem with most is "laziness". Maybe you never will use it again. There are many things you learn in life and may never use again, unless you plan to play on Jeopardy. Many people learned the skeletal system in health class, microorganisms in Biology class. It doesn't mean they use it now. Probably forgot it as soon as they graduated. But, it was "required". It's not a big deal people. Once you get past the "do I have to" and start doing it, you'll amaze yourself at how fast and easy it can be. I DO use code now and then, but not daily like many others do. Everyone has their own thing. Some are into Packet, RTTY, AMTOR, etc, I'm not... To each his own. But we all had to learn "something" about those modes to pass an exam. cl Yes indeed....basically laziness. I have been thinking back to the late 50/early 60s when I started on my trek down Morse Code lane. You know what THE MAIN reason was that I learned it? Because I was curious as to what all those beeps and bops were saying that I was hearing on my Zenith. And it has been a blast ever since. Look at it this way......how many people do you know that can talk with their fingers? Dan/W4NTI Anyone who can type a message on a keyboard? -- Former professional electron wrangler. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida |
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
... Dan/W4NTI wrote: "cl" wrote in message .verio.net... wrote in message oups.com... Mel A. Nomah wrote: "Hamguy" wrote in message ... : http://www.hamwave.com/cgi-bin/index...iewnews&id=689 That link supposes that the fcc will delete the Morse requirement. Other insiders suggest fcc will NPRM will delete Morse only for General license, and will INCREASE the test to 20WPM for renewed Extra class, downgrading all current "Extra Lite" licenses to resurrected Advanced license (the second time this license has risen from the ashes). ARRL giveaway program will be denied. All it really says is that the FCC is working on an NPRM that may be out as soon as next month or as late as July. That NPRM will obviously contain what FCC wants to do as a result of WRC 2003 and the 18 restructuring petitions. Once the NPRM becomes public, there will be a comment period, then a reply comment period. Couple of months at least, maybe longer. Probably the end of 2005 before comments close. Then FCC will decide what to do and formulate a Report and Order. Last time they did this it took almost a year. Which translates to fall 2006. Then a couple months before the new rules become effective - maybe end of 2006. Of course it could take even longer, or maybe a bit less. But I wouldn't expect any changes before summer 2006 - and wouldn't be surprised if it were summer 2007. 73 de Jim, N2EY Those who defy wanting to learn the code jump at any chance to perpetuate rumors of code being eliminated. You're right, it will take a while, even if they were to decide to write a NPRM to do such. If these people jumped into Alligator infested waters as fast as they do rumors, the population would take a sudden drop. I'm not a "lover" of code, but I have hold a license which required code. 5 WPM is not impossible to learn. It only takes a few minutes a day and about 2 weeks at least to get enough to pass a test. 2 weeks is not long, you probably drove longer on a permit before being allowed to drive on your own. Probably studied the book longer too! It takes little effort. The biggest problem with most is "laziness". Maybe you never will use it again. There are many things you learn in life and may never use again, unless you plan to play on Jeopardy. Many people learned the skeletal system in health class, microorganisms in Biology class. It doesn't mean they use it now. Probably forgot it as soon as they graduated. But, it was "required". It's not a big deal people. Once you get past the "do I have to" and start doing it, you'll amaze yourself at how fast and easy it can be. I DO use code now and then, but not daily like many others do. Everyone has their own thing. Some are into Packet, RTTY, AMTOR, etc, I'm not... To each his own. But we all had to learn "something" about those modes to pass an exam. cl Yes indeed....basically laziness. I have been thinking back to the late 50/early 60s when I started on my trek down Morse Code lane. You know what THE MAIN reason was that I learned it? Because I was curious as to what all those beeps and bops were saying that I was hearing on my Zenith. And it has been a blast ever since. Look at it this way......how many people do you know that can talk with their fingers? Dan/W4NTI Anyone who can type a message on a keyboard? -- Former professional electron wrangler. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida Speaking of keyboards, that is a perfect example. MANY who are online now - otherwise would never know how to type. BUT to own a computer and/or get online, they "had" to learn - OR - at least they're in the process of learning. It becomes "automatic" after so many hours of use. Same with code.... All it takes is the application of it. Sure, just in computers, many may not become proficient in computer programming, etc (just like not "wanting" to use the code), but they're still learning at some point along the way. cl |
The biggest problem with most is "laziness". Maybe you never will use it again. There are many things you learn in life and may never use again, unless you plan to play on Jeopardy. Many people learned the skeletal system in health class, microorganisms in Biology class. It doesn't mean they use it now. Probably forgot it as soon as they graduated. Guess that explains Creationism. They either forgot or just never did get biology class. And get upset when science contradicts a trivial off topic section of the Bible. But there is hope that some people will "get it" and be able to do something with it. Of course the school or FCC has to pick and choose what the kids should try to learn. Spending less time on European medieval kings and more on Vietnam would make sense, as modern governments are no longer kings sitting around in castles getting bored and deciding to have wars for the fun of it. Well, today kings are called "dictators" anyway. Now to bring this back to ham radio, is requiring code worth the time prospective hams would have to spend on it, or maybe more theory should be asked for today? I seriously doubt that the FCC would increase code speed for extras. The medical wavier issue would crop up again, and the FCC found that to be a PITA. Besides it would be hard for the FCC to tell old extras from newer extras as IIRC they didn't keep track of who was who as old extras came up for renewal. |
"robert casey" wrote in message
ink.net... The biggest problem with most is "laziness". Maybe you never will use it again. There are many things you learn in life and may never use again, unless you plan to play on Jeopardy. Many people learned the skeletal system in health class, microorganisms in Biology class. It doesn't mean they use it now. Probably forgot it as soon as they graduated. Guess that explains Creationism. They either forgot or just never did get biology class. And get upset when science contradicts a trivial off topic section of the Bible. But there is hope that some people will "get it" and be able to do something with it. Of course the school or FCC has to pick and choose what the kids should try to learn. Spending less time on European medieval kings and more on Vietnam would make sense, as modern governments are no longer kings sitting around in castles getting bored and deciding to have wars for the fun of it. Well, today kings are called "dictators" anyway. Now to bring this back to ham radio, is requiring code worth the time prospective hams would have to spend on it, or maybe more theory should be asked for today? I seriously doubt that the FCC would increase code speed for extras. The medical wavier issue would crop up again, and the FCC found that to be a PITA. Besides it would be hard for the FCC to tell old extras from newer extras as IIRC they didn't keep track of who was who as old extras came up for renewal. I'm not so sure "more" theory is the answer either. Used to be, you HAD to know electronics when you went for the exams. NO ONE told you what was on the exams. Then some lazy ******* got some political pull and they started to dumb down the theory and put "ALL" possible questions and answers in a book - for someone to read and recall. That isn't teaching anyone - anything. Any idiot can learn that way, to the extent needed. It doesn't do anything to reinforce it in their heads as to what to do with it after. IF they make it more theory, then they'll just make the "idiot" books cover it, and again, you'll have a bunch of people who learned A, B, C or D, not the real meat and potatoes of Electronics. I've seen them come away and not know what a fuse does or some of simplest of schematic symbols they "should" know. Give me a break. Those books today teach them NOTHING. They're nothing more than the sugar coating of it all. Just enough to get by and HOPE they plan to pursue it further on their own, which MOST - DO NOT. Again, due to LAZINESS. You're right about the History though, not to lay so much on the past, but work on current affairs. Past is good, but often TOO much time is spent on it. That stuff is building blocks to some extent, history does have a propensity to repeat itself, so you can't "ignore" it as a whole, but spending say a week learning about King Arthur just doesn't get it. I recall our teacher trying to drill **** in our heads about Genghis Khan (sp?). I could give a **** less what he did. What I DID come to ignore and have a need for later in life, was that stuff covered in Health class. I ended up using it a few years out of school. I wished then I had paid more attention to it. So, I had to "relearn" most of it. Some things DO have their uses. As to code, actually, it isn't so bad to know - really. Think about it. You have sign language for deaf. IF you plan to talk to a person who is deaf, you better learn it real fast. If you plan to travel - you may need to learn some foreign language, even though most can speak English now. Code "can" have benefits. We had 9 miners trapped about a year ago. They communicated that there were nine, by 9 raps on the pole stuck in the ground. Had someone in the ground and above ground knew code, a more detailed description could have been issued. It could have helped. Before they got the elevator in to get them, they had no idea what "physical" shape the guys were in or any pending dangers under the ground. Maybe you won't use code again once learned, but at some point, it may save a life with the user's intervention. If you're in an auto accident, down in a gully, you have a radio. The mic is broken, so you can't talk. You could key the radio with a key or something and send a message. Hopefully someone knowing code would hear it and be able to let others know. There are many reasons people can give to "not" learn code, but there are just as many as to it's benefits. If it saves only one life, it is worth it. cl |
In . net (rec.radio.amateur.misc), Dan/W4NTI wrote:
You know what THE MAIN reason was that I learned it? Because I was curious as to what all those beeps and bops were saying that I was hearing on my Zenith. And it has been a blast ever since. Look at it this way......how many people do you know that can talk with their fingers? A few hundred, myself: consider the people who use American Sign Language, for one set, plus all the folks who fingerspell, those who use Signed English, and so on. Not all of 'em are deaf, either: I promised my wife I would learn ASL if she passed Element 1. I'm getting a head start in my promise, because she's doing very well -- and she's working full-time and just a Master's in Education. Sleep? What's that? -- 1 Bryant (B) = 4577 books; 1 Ha'bryant = 2289 books 1 Sitter (or Room) = 1104 books; 1 Dinky = 161 books 1 Wallshelf = 23 books; 1 Bedside = 17 books -- Robert Uhl, in asr |
cl wrote: wrote in message oups.com... Mel A. Nomah wrote: "Hamguy" wrote in message ... : http://www.hamwave.com/cgi-bin/index...iewnews&id=689 That link supposes that the fcc will delete the Morse requirement. Other insiders suggest fcc will NPRM will delete Morse only for General license, and will INCREASE the test to 20WPM for renewed Extra class, downgrading all current "Extra Lite" licenses to resurrected Advanced license (the second time this license has risen from the ashes). ARRL giveaway program will be denied. All it really says is that the FCC is working on an NPRM that may be out as soon as next month or as late as July. That NPRM will obviously contain what FCC wants to do as a result of WRC 2003 and the 18 restructuring petitions. Once the NPRM becomes public, there will be a comment period, then a reply comment period. Couple of months at least, maybe longer. Probably the end of 2005 before comments close. Then FCC will decide what to do and formulate a Report and Order. Last time they did this it took almost a year. Which translates to fall 2006. Then a couple months before the new rules become effective - maybe end of 2006. Of course it could take even longer, or maybe a bit less. But I wouldn't expect any changes before summer 2006 - and wouldn't be surprised if it were summer 2007. 73 de Jim, N2EY Those who defy wanting to learn the code jump at any chance to perpetuate rumors of code being eliminated. Similarly, those who promote Morse Code will latch on to any idea, no matter how wrong, to claim the Code Exam remains valid. You're right, it will take a while, even if they were to decide to write a NPRM to do such. If these people jumped into Alligator infested waters as fast as they do rumors, the population would take a sudden drop. I'm not a "lover" of code, but I have hold a license which required code. Ditto. 5 WPM is not impossible to learn. It only takes a few minutes a day and about 2 weeks at least to get enough to pass a test. 2 weeks is not long, It may be impossible for some. I learned it over a considerably longer period of time with frequent practice. you probably drove longer on a permit before being allowed to drive on your own. Probably studied the book longer too! It takes little effort. I disagree. It took a great effort. The biggest problem with most is "laziness". Was that your problem? If you hadn't been so lazy you could have learned the code in under a week? Maybe you never will use it again. Perhaps. I've found little use for it so far. Maybe once I'm an old fart, have loads of time, and wax nostalgic for things that never were, I'll take it up and enjoy it, and demand that all learn it. There are many things you learn in life and may never use again, unless you plan to play on Jeopardy. Many people learned the skeletal system in health class, microorganisms in Biology class. It doesn't mean they use it now. Probably forgot it as soon as they graduated. But, it was "required". It's not a big deal people. Once you get past the "do I have to" and start doing it, you'll amaze yourself at how fast and easy it can be. Indeed. I never had the "do I have to?" attitude as there was no code-free license when I became a ham. Yet it took me about 9 weeks of daily practice. I DO use code now and then, but not daily like many others do. Everyone has their own thing. Some are into Packet, RTTY, AMTOR, etc, I'm not... To each his own. But we all had to learn "something" about those modes to pass an exam. cl Use it all you want. I'm against the Code Exam as an unnecessary government requirement. |
cl wrote:
For some - it may! One argument I've heard, is that those musically inclined pick it up quicker than others, yet I knew some who "were" musically inclined and claimed to have a hell of a time with it. Reason? I don't know. I can't get inside their head. I used to teach Novice classes, and I always assumed that anyone could learn the code if they really wanted to. I found that some people had difficulty telling the difference between a dit from a dah unless it was sent very slowy and the dah made a lot longer than the dit, but when sending a character that contained several dits or dahs or combinations, they simply could not tell one from the other. It wasn't that they lacked the skill to learn the code, I could right out characters in dits and dahs on the board and they could recoginize them, it was an interpertation problem with the brain of telling the sound of a dit from the sound of a dah. People with hearing aids often had a difficult time. |
"Barry OGrady" wrote in message
... Morse gone by the beginning of last year. Barry Sad that many folks will likely never give themselves the opportunity to bag some of that rare DX that seems to only show up on the bottom of the bands. Just bagged HZ1EX on 7013 kHz. 99.999% CW op and luvin' it. -- Vy 73 de Bert WA2SI FISTS #9384/CC #1736 QRP ARCI #11782 |
cl wrote:
"robert casey" wrote in message ink.net... The biggest problem with most is "laziness". Maybe you never will use it again. There are many things you learn in life and may never use again, unless you plan to play on Jeopardy. Many people learned the skeletal system in health class, microorganisms in Biology class. It doesn't mean they use it now. Probably forgot it as soon as they graduated. Guess that explains Creationism. They either forgot or just never did get biology class. And get upset when science contradicts a trivial off topic section of the Bible. But there is hope that some people will "get it" and be able to do something with it. Of course the school or FCC has to pick and choose what the kids should try to learn. Spending less time on European medieval kings and more on Vietnam would make sense, as modern governments are no longer kings sitting around in castles getting bored and deciding to have wars for the fun of it. Well, today kings are called "dictators" anyway. Now to bring this back to ham radio, is requiring code worth the time prospective hams would have to spend on it, or maybe more theory should be asked for today? I seriously doubt that the FCC would increase code speed for extras. The medical wavier issue would crop up again, and the FCC found that to be a PITA. Besides it would be hard for the FCC to tell old extras from newer extras as IIRC they didn't keep track of who was who as old extras came up for renewal. I'm not so sure "more" theory is the answer either. Used to be, you HAD to know electronics when you went for the exams. NO ONE told you what was on the exams. Then some lazy ******* got some political pull and they started to dumb down the theory and put "ALL" possible questions and answers in a book - for someone to read and recall. Almost all standardized testing is done that way these days. Actually I don't know of any that isn't That isn't teaching anyone - anything. Any idiot can learn that way, to the extent needed. It doesn't do anything to reinforce it in their heads as to what to do with it after. IF they make it more theory, then they'll just make the "idiot" books cover it, and again, you'll have a bunch of people who learned A, B, C or D, not the real meat and potatoes of Electronics. I have never been able to see the difference between reading a book that contains the answers to questions, and reading a question pool. Both are entered into my memory the same way. Did you know the answers are often scrambled, that is that the letter answer on the test is not the letter answer in the pool? I've seen them come away and not know what a fuse does or some of simplest of schematic symbols they "should" know. I've been in the field for a long time, and there are some things that slip me once in a while. Do you help these folks when they make a newbie mistake? Give me a break. Those books today teach them NOTHING. They're nothing more than the sugar coating of it all. Just enough to get by and HOPE they plan to pursue it further on their own, which MOST - DO NOT. Again, due to LAZINESS. Wow! I've got a copy of the "Now You're Talking" book. A person would have to work pretty hard do learn nothing from that. You're right about the History though, not to lay so much on the past, but work on current affairs. Past is good, but often TOO much time is spent on it. That stuff is building blocks to some extent, history does have a propensity to repeat itself, so you can't "ignore" it as a whole, but spending say a week learning about King Arthur just doesn't get it. I recall our teacher trying to drill **** in our heads about Genghis Khan (sp?). I could give a **** less what he did. What I DID come to ignore and have a need for later in life, was that stuff covered in Health class. I ended up using it a few years out of school. I wished then I had paid more attention to it. So, I had to "relearn" most of it. Some things DO have their uses. As to code, actually, it isn't so bad to know - really. Morse code is VERY good to know. Good enough that it should continue to be a part of the test. Think about it. You have sign language for deaf. IF you plan to talk to a person who is deaf, you better learn it real fast. If you plan to travel - you may need to learn some foreign language, even though most can speak English now. Code "can" have benefits. We had 9 miners trapped about a year ago. They communicated that there were nine, by 9 raps on the pole stuck in the ground. Had someone in the ground and above ground knew code, a more detailed description could have been issued. It could have helped. Before they got the elevator in to get them, they had no idea what "physical" shape the guys were in or any pending dangers under the ground. Maybe you won't use code again once learned, but at some point, it may save a life with the user's intervention. If you're in an auto accident, down in a gully, you have a radio. The mic is broken, so you can't talk. You could key the radio with a key or something and send a message. Hopefully someone knowing code would hear it and be able to let others know. There are many reasons people can give to "not" learn code, but there are just as many as to it's benefits. If it saves only one life, it is worth it. Yup, one of so many reasons that Morse code is a good thing. Hams are all about communication, and communications in all manner of situations. I love the latest technology, but that technology is sometimes fragile. Sometimes life and death, health and welfare might just come down to two skilled operators who can make an old communications method on primitive equipment sing its simple yet powerful song. - Mike KB3EIA - |
cl wrote:
which required code. 5 WPM is not impossible to learn. It only takes a few minutes a day and about 2 weeks at least to get enough to pass a test. Took me 45 minutes a day for over 6 months, plus one failed test to get to 5 wpm. I'm all in favor of Morse code testing, but you guys have to show some understanding that it isn't that easy for a lot of people. I aced the writtens, without a whole lot of study by comparison to a lot of people. I don't go around calling them retards or stupid. - Mike KB3EIA - |
"bb" wrote in message
oups.com... cl wrote: A whole bunch snipped. Those who defy wanting to learn the code jump at any chance to perpetuate rumors of code being eliminated. Similarly, those who promote Morse Code will latch on to any idea, no matter how wrong, to claim the Code Exam remains valid. Leave it in, take it out, the riff raff is already invading the bands. You're right, it will take a while, even if they were to decide to write a NPRM to do such. If these people jumped into Alligator infested waters as fast as they do rumors, the population would take a sudden drop. I'm not a "lover" of code, but I have hold a license which required code. Ditto. 5 WPM is not impossible to learn. It only takes a few minutes a day and about 2 weeks at least to get enough to pass a test. 2 weeks is not long, It may be impossible for some. I learned it over a considerably longer period of time with frequent practice. you probably drove longer on a permit before being allowed to drive on your own. Probably studied the book longer too! It takes little effort. I disagree. It took a great effort. For some - it may! One argument I've heard, is that those musically inclined pick it up quicker than others, yet I knew some who "were" musically inclined and claimed to have a hell of a time with it. Reason? I don't know. I can't get inside their head. The biggest problem with most is "laziness". Was that your problem? If you hadn't been so lazy you could have learned the code in under a week? 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. Besides, at that time, I was chasing rug rats - so study time was premium. 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". Maybe you never will use it again. Perhaps. I've found little use for it so far. Maybe once I'm an old fart, have loads of time, and wax nostalgic for things that never were, I'll take it up and enjoy it, and demand that all learn it. 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. There are many things you learn in life and may never use again, unless you plan to play on Jeopardy. Many people learned the skeletal system in health class, microorganisms in Biology class. It doesn't mean they use it now. Probably forgot it as soon as they graduated. But, it was "required". It's not a big deal people. Once you get past the "do I have to" and start doing it, you'll amaze yourself at how fast and easy it can be. Indeed. I never had the "do I have to?" attitude as there was no code-free license when I became a ham. Yet it took me about 9 weeks of daily practice. And you stuck with it!!!!!!!! You didn't quit, and it got you where you wanted to be. OR had to be - for your class of license. 2 weeks, 9 weeks, so what... you did it. A milestone to be proud of. No one can fault you for that effort. I DO use code now and then, but not daily like many others do. Everyone has their own thing. Some are into Packet, RTTY, AMTOR, etc, I'm not... To each his own. But we all had to learn "something" about those modes to pass an exam. cl Use it all you want. I'm against the Code Exam as an unnecessary government requirement. Funny thing is, we're all arguing pros and cons and in the end, it won't matter. WE do not have control. So, if we're going to debate the issues we have no control over, may as well keep it clean. Hardly any of us know the other and it isn't worth making enemies over. Certainly not worth name calling.... Whether I'm right or wrong, I do value opposing view points. Everyone has a right to his/her own opinion. It sure will be interesting to see how it all unfolds. I think in the end, we both know the answer to that. Pro or con, it is a matter of time. May be a year, may be 5, but it will come to pass. cl |
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
... cl wrote: "robert casey" wrote in message ink.net... The biggest problem with most is "laziness". Maybe you never will use it again. There are many things you learn in life and may never use again, unless you plan to play on Jeopardy. Many people learned the skeletal system in health class, microorganisms in Biology class. It doesn't mean they use it now. Probably forgot it as soon as they graduated. Guess that explains Creationism. They either forgot or just never did get biology class. And get upset when science contradicts a trivial off topic section of the Bible. But there is hope that some people will "get it" and be able to do something with it. Of course the school or FCC has to pick and choose what the kids should try to learn. Spending less time on European medieval kings and more on Vietnam would make sense, as modern governments are no longer kings sitting around in castles getting bored and deciding to have wars for the fun of it. Well, today kings are called "dictators" anyway. Now to bring this back to ham radio, is requiring code worth the time prospective hams would have to spend on it, or maybe more theory should be asked for today? I seriously doubt that the FCC would increase code speed for extras. The medical wavier issue would crop up again, and the FCC found that to be a PITA. Besides it would be hard for the FCC to tell old extras from newer extras as IIRC they didn't keep track of who was who as old extras came up for renewal. I'm not so sure "more" theory is the answer either. Used to be, you HAD to know electronics when you went for the exams. NO ONE told you what was on the exams. Then some lazy ******* got some political pull and they started to dumb down the theory and put "ALL" possible questions and answers in a book - for someone to read and recall. Almost all standardized testing is done that way these days. Actually I don't know of any that isn't Testing is one thing, "studying"' is another. Most "tests" don't give you the answers in a book. Rather it is a conglomeration of books which a person has had to read to ascertain the knowledge. IF it is coming to that, then it is no wonder this country is dumbing down. That isn't teaching anyone - anything. Any idiot can learn that way, to the extent needed. It doesn't do anything to reinforce it in their heads as to what to do with it after. IF they make it more theory, then they'll just make the "idiot" books cover it, and again, you'll have a bunch of people who learned A, B, C or D, not the real meat and potatoes of Electronics. I have never been able to see the difference between reading a book that contains the answers to questions, and reading a question pool. Both are entered into my memory the same way. Did you know the answers are often scrambled, that is that the letter answer on the test is not the letter answer in the pool? Those books do not cover electronics in great detail. They gloss over subjects. There was a time you had to "build" a working circuit - to pass. Yes, I'm well aware that the answers are mixed up in the test pools as opposed to the books. Back when Heathkit was in business, they had books for each class of license. Those books had a similar pattern, but they drilled stuff into your head. They seemed to explain things a lot better and in more detail. Maybe I'm just too used to the "learning" methods of yesteryear. I've seen them come away and not know what a fuse does or some of simplest of schematic symbols they "should" know. I've been in the field for a long time, and there are some things that slip me once in a while. Do you help these folks when they make a newbie mistake? I try to help! And yes, as we age, we do forget things. I used to have several dozen frequencies memorized and as to service. I'm lucky if I can recall 10 of them - now. I'm sure there are symbols people can forget. But my example of the fuse, it is sad when you don't know what a fuse is for! That is like the most basic principle. Give me a break. Those books today teach them NOTHING. They're nothing more than the sugar coating of it all. Just enough to get by and HOPE they plan to pursue it further on their own, which MOST - DO NOT. Again, due to LAZINESS. Wow! I've got a copy of the "Now You're Talking" book. A person would have to work pretty hard do learn nothing from that. The Now Your Talking - Book, is probably one of if not "thee" only in depth books out there at this time. I was referring - and should have been a bit more specific, to the question and answer guides with something like a 2 sentence explanation of a procedure, theory, etc. In my opinion, they don't teach a thing. They just provide the questions and answers. Study it long enough, you'll get enough memorized to pass, yes... but then you're stuck because you know little "background". I believe it used to be, if a person had the minimum of an Advanced license, he/she could use that as somewhat of a credential for a job in electronics. Now, "I" wouldn't dare think of hiring anyone with just having used the Q/A books. That is my opinion - for what it is worth. You're right about the History though, not to lay so much on the past, but work on current affairs. Past is good, but often TOO much time is spent on it. That stuff is building blocks to some extent, history does have a propensity to repeat itself, so you can't "ignore" it as a whole, but spending say a week learning about King Arthur just doesn't get it. I recall our teacher trying to drill **** in our heads about Genghis Khan (sp?). I could give a **** less what he did. What I DID come to ignore and have a need for later in life, was that stuff covered in Health class. I ended up using it a few years out of school. I wished then I had paid more attention to it. So, I had to "relearn" most of it. Some things DO have their uses. As to code, actually, it isn't so bad to know - really. Morse code is VERY good to know. Good enough that it should continue to be a part of the test. Think about it. You have sign language for deaf. IF you plan to talk to a person who is deaf, you better learn it real fast. If you plan to travel - you may need to learn some foreign language, even though most can speak English now. Code "can" have benefits. We had 9 miners trapped about a year ago. They communicated that there were nine, by 9 raps on the pole stuck in the ground. Had someone in the ground and above ground knew code, a more detailed description could have been issued. It could have helped. Before they got the elevator in to get them, they had no idea what "physical" shape the guys were in or any pending dangers under the ground. Maybe you won't use code again once learned, but at some point, it may save a life with the user's intervention. If you're in an auto accident, down in a gully, you have a radio. The mic is broken, so you can't talk. You could key the radio with a key or something and send a message. Hopefully someone knowing code would hear it and be able to let others know. There are many reasons people can give to "not" learn code, but there are just as many as to it's benefits. If it saves only one life, it is worth it. Yup, one of so many reasons that Morse code is a good thing. Hams are all about communication, and communications in all manner of situations. I love the latest technology, but that technology is sometimes fragile. Sometimes life and death, health and welfare might just come down to two skilled operators who can make an old communications method on primitive equipment sing its simple yet powerful song. - Mike KB3EIA - |
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
... : cl wrote: : : I have never been able to see the difference between reading a book : that contains the answers to questions, and reading a question pool. : Both are entered into my memory the same way. : You can't be serious! (And here I was under the impression you made you living in an educational environment.) No wonder "Johnny can't read"! The purpose of the examination is to determine if the prospective licensee understands some things about amateur rules, about elementary transmitter and receiver functions, basic electricity, amateur communications procedure, and safety. Knowing ahead of time the VERBATIM questions and VERBATIM correct answer reduces the test to a simple test of memory. The applicant need not UNDERSTAND a damned thing, but only have normally developed memorization skills. I have no problem with Q&A study aids containing sample questions which guide the student through the appropriate study material, but the actual VERBATIM examination material should NOT be available to the student (applicant), or there is no reason to UNDERSTAND the material --- just memorize the test. 73, M.A.N. -- "I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it." - Voltaire |
cl wrote:
Speaking of keyboards, that is a perfect example. MANY who are online now - otherwise would never know how to type. BUT to own a computer and/or get online, they "had" to learn - OR - at least they're in the process of learning. It becomes "automatic" after so many hours of use. Same with code.... All it takes is the application of it. Sure, just in computers, many may not become proficient in computer programming, etc (just like not "wanting" to use the code), but they're still learning at some point along the way. cl I have used computers for over 20 years and I still can't touch type. I wanted to take a typing class in high school bout "Boys" weren't allowed to take the class back in the '60s at my high school. I have to look at the keyboard while i type with two fingers. Carpal tunnel and nerve damage in my wrists doesn't help the situation either. I was interested in Amateur Radio back in the late '60s but quickly lost interest in HF. I wanted to work 144, 432 and up, where code wasn't used so I went into broadcast and CATV engineering, followed by working for a company that manufactured microwave telemetry equipment. I discovered I had more fun making equipment work than using it. Now I'm 100% disabled and I plan to spend some time restoring the old Amateur Radio receivers in my small collection. My current project is a National NC183R. I may use it to listen to some international broadcasts, but I'll probably sell it after I'm done working on it. I lose interest in most equipment after I have it working properly. -- Former professional electron wrangler. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida |
cl wrote:
Those books do not cover electronics in great detail. They gloss over subjects. There was a time you had to "build" a working circuit - to pass. Yes, I'm well aware that the answers are mixed up in the test pools as opposed to the books. Back when Heathkit was in business, they had books for each class of license. Those books had a similar pattern, but they drilled stuff into your head. They seemed to explain things a lot better and in more detail. Maybe I'm just too used to the "learning" methods of yesteryear. http://www.heathkit.com/index.html is still in business, but its changed from their old kit lineup. The Now Your Talking - Book, is probably one of if not "thee" only in depth books out there at this time. I was referring - and should have been a bit more specific, to the question and answer guides with something like a 2 sentence explanation of a procedure, theory, etc. In my opinion, they don't teach a thing. They just provide the questions and answers. Study it long enough, you'll get enough memorized to pass, yes... but then you're stuck because you know little "background". I believe it used to be, if a person had the minimum of an Advanced license, he/she could use that as somewhat of a credential for a job in electronics. Now, "I" wouldn't dare think of hiring anyone with just having used the Q/A books. That is my opinion - for what it is worth. The local ham club is looking for people to take classes with "Now Your Talking" rather than try to find people with any electronics background. I offered to help maintain their club equipment but they brushed me off because I don't have a ham ticket. I still have a half way decent RF bench, but nothing compared to the $1,000,000 plus benches of test equipment I had at Microdyne. I never had any formal electronics training, yet I ws a broadcast engineer, and a engineering tech for some products at Microdyne. I learned it because I wanted to. I went to work part time in a TV shop at 13 after school and on Saturdays. When I was drafted I was tested to prove I didn't know electronics but it backfired. I not only passed the MOS test for Broadcast Engineer at Ft Knox, I was told I had received the highest score on record for the test. These are some of the reasons for my sig file. :-) -- Former professional electron wrangler. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida |
BUT, Bert, you are among those who do recognize that--for some--other than
the public service role of amateur radio, the only reward they gain is just a real simple, real down-home QSO via phone. That's the pleasure of amateur radio; the many various ways in which people enjoy it. Kim W5TIT "Bert Craig" wrote in message ... "Barry OGrady" wrote in message ... Morse gone by the beginning of last year. Barry Sad that many folks will likely never give themselves the opportunity to bag some of that rare DX that seems to only show up on the bottom of the bands. Just bagged HZ1EX on 7013 kHz. 99.999% CW op and luvin' it. -- Vy 73 de Bert WA2SI FISTS #9384/CC #1736 QRP ARCI #11782 |
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... cl wrote: which required code. 5 WPM is not impossible to learn. It only takes a few minutes a day and about 2 weeks at least to get enough to pass a test. Took me 45 minutes a day for over 6 months, plus one failed test to get to 5 wpm. I'm all in favor of Morse code testing, but you guys have to show some understanding that it isn't that easy for a lot of people. I aced the writtens, without a whole lot of study by comparison to a lot of people. I don't go around calling them retards or stupid. - Mike KB3EIA - For some, Mike, the "code" (i.e., even just the connotation in the word "code") is all they got. Kim W5TIT |
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
... cl wrote: which required code. 5 WPM is not impossible to learn. It only takes a few minutes a day and about 2 weeks at least to get enough to pass a test. Took me 45 minutes a day for over 6 months, plus one failed test to get to 5 wpm. I'm all in favor of Morse code testing, but you guys have to show some understanding that it isn't that easy for a lot of people. I aced the writtens, without a whole lot of study by comparison to a lot of people. I don't go around calling them retards or stupid. - Mike KB3EIA - Ok.... It took "me" 2 weeks, I know others who learned it quickly, but I can't provide a time frame. Yes, code "can" be harder for others to pick up. I don't doubt that for a minute. Point is, you have to put one foot in front of the other and stick with it, to get down the path to learn it. Many don't want to start, and whine about it without ever putting forth effort. Hell, I know people who bitched about having to look at the "basic" Q/A manual! One remark was "Do I "have" to learn all this?" Another - "Do I "have" to read all these questions?" But yet they want a license. Pure laziness. Licenses should be "earned" not given away. People are least likely to respect something "given" to them. The bands are already showing signs of deterioration from people who just don't care. cl |
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
... cl wrote: Speaking of keyboards, that is a perfect example. MANY who are online now - otherwise would never know how to type. BUT to own a computer and/or get online, they "had" to learn - OR - at least they're in the process of learning. It becomes "automatic" after so many hours of use. Same with code.... All it takes is the application of it. Sure, just in computers, many may not become proficient in computer programming, etc (just like not "wanting" to use the code), but they're still learning at some point along the way. cl I have used computers for over 20 years and I still can't touch type. I wanted to take a typing class in high school bout "Boys" weren't allowed to take the class back in the '60s at my high school. I have to look at the keyboard while i type with two fingers. Carpal tunnel and nerve damage in my wrists doesn't help the situation either. I was interested in Amateur Radio back in the late '60s but quickly lost interest in HF. I wanted to work 144, 432 and up, where code wasn't used so I went into broadcast and CATV engineering, followed by working for a company that manufactured microwave telemetry equipment. I discovered I had more fun making equipment work than using it. Now I'm 100% disabled and I plan to spend some time restoring the old Amateur Radio receivers in my small collection. My current project is a National NC183R. I may use it to listen to some international broadcasts, but I'll probably sell it after I'm done working on it. I lose interest in most equipment after I have it working properly. -- Former professional electron wrangler. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida I broke into computers with a Radio Shack computer. Model III - I think it was. Anyway, I typed using hunt and peck. Given the keyboard lay out, if I had stuck with it, I may have learned to type a lot sooner. I was getting used to it. But, life changed and I had to sell it. Then later on, I got a Commodore 64 and it was a pain in the ass - to me, with all those dumb commands and keyboard functions. Though I used it quite a bit, I despised it. Then I got a desktop 386. I was still using hunt and peck, but now I felt I was in the "real" world of computers. I found the keyboard rather easy to manipulate and understand. It took about a year - maybe a little less - of hunt and peck typing. I am in positions where I do a lot of typing of letters and such. One day I was typing a letter and it suddenly dawned on me, I hadn't looked at the keyboard the whole time I was typing. I was flabbergasted. At some point, it all kicked in. When I was in high school - 9th grade I believe, I took typing, I had no choice - it was given to all. I bombed it. I couldn't type to save my ass - of course, back then, I could care less - I was into girls and other attractions. Now I type pretty well. Not as good as say some secretaries I know, but pretty damned well for how it came to be. USE is 1/2 the battle. If you want it bad enough, give it a little effort, it will come to you. cl |
Mel A. Nomah wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... : cl wrote: : : I have never been able to see the difference between reading a book : that contains the answers to questions, and reading a question pool. : Both are entered into my memory the same way. : You can't be serious! (And here I was under the impression you made you living in an educational environment.) No wonder "Johnny can't read"! Yup, I do. And sorry, but I can read the book, or read the pool, and get the same thing. The answers are just more verbose in the books. The purpose of the examination is to determine if the prospective licensee understands some things about amateur rules, about elementary transmitter and receiver functions, basic electricity, amateur communications procedure, and safety. Sure. Knowing ahead of time the VERBATIM questions and VERBATIM correct answer reduces the test to a simple test of memory. The applicant need not UNDERSTAND a damned thing, but only have normally developed memorization skills. The concept of "memorizing" the Q and A of say the Extra pool is amusing. Especially when there is a little scrambling going on for the answers. Personally, I took the on-line tests, and those questions that I missed were looked up. Mostly without reference to the question pool, except for the ones for band edges. The band edges are rote memorization anyhow. Then I went back and retook the tests until I aced them just about every time. That was a lot easier than rote memorization of 800 (IIRC) some questions. I have no problem with Q&A study aids containing sample questions which guide the student through the appropriate study material, but the actual VERBATIM examination material should NOT be available to the student (applicant), or there is no reason to UNDERSTAND the material --- just memorize the test. Well, whatchya gonna do? The tests themselves are only the beginning, be they the "super easy" tests administered today, or the "incredibly hard" tests administered under the steely glare of an F.C.C. field agent at the time when hams were real men and women. I've looked at some of the older questions. The only thing about them that is difficult is that they tend to pertain to operating with equipment and different condition than today. - Mike KB3EIA - |
Bert Craig wrote: "Barry OGrady" wrote in message ... Morse gone by the beginning of last year. Barry Sad that many folks will likely never give themselves the opportunity to bag some of that rare DX that seems to only show up on the bottom of the bands. Just bagged HZ1EX on 7013 kHz. 99.999% CW op and luvin' it. 'Way to go Bert! That's a tough one, there aren't a whole lot of HZs on the air. "Back when" the only HZ on the air for years was HZ1HZ. He was only on 40M CW and usually only in the major DX contests so he was a real "catch". Problem with him was that he had about the worst bug swing most of us have ever heard, absolutely indecipherable. Thank God he wasn't a ragchewer. But that was OK because that swing was his immediate "identifier" and ya knew who it had to be even if ya could hardly copy him in the piles. I have no idea what their rules are today but back then only members of the royal family were allowed to get on the ham bands. Serious HF dxers aren't serious unless they work both phone and CW, ya have to do both or else yer shooting yerself in the foot. -- Vy 73 de Bert WA2SI FISTS #9384/CC #1736 QRP ARCI #11782 w3rv |
Michael Coslo wrote: Mel A. Nomah wrote: Well, whatchya gonna do? The tests themselves are only the beginning, be they the "super easy" tests administered today, or the "incredibly hard" tests administered under the steely glare of an F.C.C. field agent at the time when hams were real men and women. I've looked at some of the older questions. The only thing about them that is difficult is that they tend to pertain to operating with equipment and different condition than today. Hey, wait a minnit here . . we also had to walk uphill both ways to the FCC offices in raging blizzards. Ya WEENIES . . . grumble . . - Mike KB3EIA - w3rv |
In (rec.radio.amateur.misc), Cmd Buzz Corey wrote:
I used to teach Novice classes, and I always assumed that anyone could learn the code if they really wanted to. I found that some people had difficulty telling the difference between a dit from a dah unless it was sent very slowy and the dah made a lot longer than the dit, but when sending a character that contained several dits or dahs or combinations, they simply could not tell one from the other. It wasn't that they lacked the skill to learn the code, I could right out characters in dits and dahs on the board and they could recoginize them, it was an interpertation problem with the brain of telling the sound of a dit from the sound of a dah. People with hearing aids often had a difficult time. You hit that part right on the head. My XYL has a deep notch in her hearing response curve, from about 400 Hz to about 2 KHz, due to playing viola in a symphony orchestra for 15 years, sitting right in front of the brass section[1]. She's having the very devil of a time with Morse, mostly because she has problems distinguishing between dit and dah. She has learned not to trust her ears, and now she's trying to learn to read with them. The deep notch right where most people tune to read CW and where the various tapes, CDs, and tutor programs all put the tone, also makes it very difficult for her. When she passes Element 1, I have to go learn American Sign Language and pass a proficiency test. [1] I'll bet most people don't think much about hearing damage in people playing in symphony orchestras. It's fairly common. -- Mike Andrews W5EGO 5WPM Extra Tired old sysadmin working on his code speed |
"Michael Coslo" wrote in message ... : : I've looked at some of the older questions. The only thing about them : that is difficult is that they tend to pertain to operating with : equipment and different condition than today. : No, the only thing harder was that those were just samples, and you had to actually understand the underlying material because the question on the examination would be different. From your description of "take the online test until I can pass it, then rush down to the VE session", I expect that you'd be another Len Anderson under those conditions, on the outside looking in. M.A.N. -- "I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it." - Voltaire |
"Mel A. Nomah" wrote in message link.net... "Michael Coslo" wrote in message ... : : I've looked at some of the older questions. The only thing about them : that is difficult is that they tend to pertain to operating with : equipment and different condition than today. : No, the only thing harder was that those were just samples, and you had to actually understand the underlying material because the question on the examination would be different. From your description of "take the online test until I can pass it, then rush down to the VE session", I expect that you'd be another Len Anderson under those conditions, on the outside looking in. M.A.N. -- "I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it." - Voltaire I have yet, a couple samples of the "FCC" study guides from days gone by. They told you what areas "may" be covered on their exams and a "typical" question. For the most part, for each class, they were one side - of a 8.5 x 11 sheet. Not looking at them, I think one or two may have been 2 sides. They did NOT divulge "actual" test content. You "had" to know electronics and any rules and regulations when you went there or else you wasted a trip, pure and simple. One class builds on the other, but back then, the tests got a hell of a lot harder as you climbed the ladder. They were in some cases, as tough as the Commercial exams. You couldn't get away with just memorizing a bunch of answers in a Q/A guide. You were only fooling yourself if you thought you could get away with that. cl |
In rec.radio.amateur.misc Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Dan/W4NTI wrote: Look at it this way......how many people do you know that can talk with their fingers? Dan/W4NTI Anyone who can type a message on a keyboard? Quite a few drivers! -- Chris Cox, N0UK/G4JEC NIC Handle: CC345 If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you. |
In rec.radio.amateur.misc Michael A. Terrell wrote:
I was interested in Amateur Radio back in the late '60s but quickly lost interest in HF. I wanted to work 144, 432 and up, where code wasn't used so I went into broadcast and CATV engineering, followed by Not used by whom? I frequently use CW on the VHF, UHF, and microwave bands - perhaps moreso than SSB and certainly at least as much. -- Chris Cox, N0UK/G4JEC NIC Handle: CC345 If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you. |
wrote in message
oups.com... 'Way to go Bert! That's a tough one, there aren't a whole lot of HZs on the air. "Back when" the only HZ on the air for years was HZ1HZ. He was only on 40M CW and usually only in the major DX contests so he was a real "catch". Problem with him was that he had about the worst bug swing most of us have ever heard, absolutely indecipherable. Thank God he wasn't a ragchewer. But that was OK because that swing was his immediate "identifier" and ya knew who it had to be even if ya could hardly copy him in the piles. I have no idea what their rules are today but back then only members of the royal family were allowed to get on the ham bands. Serious HF dxers aren't serious unless they work both phone and CW, ya have to do both or else yer shooting yerself in the foot. Thanks Brian. I'm havin' gobs of fun and have broken out the K2/100 running approx. 70 Watts. I'm about a third of the way through toward DXCC and need an Asian contact for WAC. I will heed your advice re. using both phone and CW. I do hop on 10 using phone while commuting to and from work, but in the shack, well... ;-) To be honest, I suppose I just find the CW itself fun. I'm also a big WW II buff and was quite honored to work W5E over the weekend, who was operating from a Boeing B-17 bomber. The op was using the vintage onboard gear. It's humbling to think of the transmissions that have traveled through that gear. Tnx agn es hpe c u ota. Take care es... -- Vy 73 de Bert WA2SI FISTS #9384/CC #1736 QRP ARCI #11782 |
From: "cl" on Sun,Apr 17 2005 11:33 pm
"bb" wrote in message roups.com... cl wrote: The biggest problem with most is "laziness". Was that your problem? If you hadn't been so lazy you could have learned the code in under a week? 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!!! :-) Besides, at that time, I was chasing rug rats - so study time was premium. Excuses, excuses, excuses! :-) 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 1953. Went from Basic to Signal School at Fort Monmouth, NJ. Amount of Signal School time spent on morse code? ZERO! NO class, NO "cramming." At that time the ONLY military occupation specialty in the Army requiring morsemanship was Field Radio. Field Radio then required passing 20 WPM, was taught at Camp Gordon (later Fort Gordon, now the home of the Signal Corps). 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. :-) 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. NO MORSE USED at the third-largest station in the Army Command and Administrative Network. Maybe you never will use it again. Perhaps. I've found little use for it so far. Maybe once I'm an old fart, have loads of time, and wax nostalgic for things that never were, I'll take it up and enjoy it, and demand that all learn it. 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. 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! :-) Many people learned the skeletal system in health class, microorganisms in Biology class. It doesn't mean they use it now. Probably forgot it as soon as they graduated. But, it was "required". It's not a big deal people. Once you get past the "do I have to" and start doing it, you'll amaze yourself at how fast and easy it can be. Indeed. I never had the "do I have to?" attitude as there was no code-free license when I became a ham. Yet it took me about 9 weeks of daily practice. And you stuck with it!!!!!!!! You didn't quit, and it got you where you wanted to be. OR had to be - for your class of license. 2 weeks, 9 weeks, so what... you did it. A milestone to be proud of. No one can fault you for that effort. Riiiight, Coach Lector. :-) After my release from active duty in 1956, I thought it good to get a Commercial Radiotelephone License. Lots of job opportunities with that then. Couldn't find a Q&A book in town but I got a copy of the entire FCC regulations from a good guy at a local broadcast station, studied that and got my First 'Phone on the first sitting in Chicago, 90 miles away (didn't walk, rode the train, kept my shoes on even if there was no snow). Moved to L.A. at the end of '56, started at Art Center School of Design to become an illustrator. Worked during the day at Hughes Aircraft, found out that illustrators didn't make much money, liked electronics (already spent three years in Army communications) and switched to Electronics Engineering. Took me 15 years to complete that due to job requirements making me miss whole semesters. Got engineering responsibility, title, and pay before any "certificate" (suitable for framing) awarded (sheep did not sacrifice their skins for graduates, regardless of what is said). In between semesters, I thought it a neat thing to learn this morse code stuff, get a fancy callsign to "sign after my name" (youth can be misleading on what is important). Got to roughly 8 WPM clean copy using practice tapes (magnetic, reel-to-reel, cassettes had not yet been invented in those 60s days). Stopped after that plateau, wondered "whatinhell am I doing spending all this time on morse?" I'd already spent three full years on Army communications at a major station (220 thousand messages a month in 1955), had become a supervisor, did finally work on microwave radio relay operations in the service, was now an employee of Ramo- Wooldridge Corp. in electronic warfare group, and the Class D CBs had already started. I'd gotten the First 'Phone, worked on HF, was now working on more of the EM spectrum than any ham of today can use, already had a good home workshop and was coming along on professional design. I didn't "NEED MORSE" to GET ON THE AIR. I had already done that, perfectly legal, without fault. I had tossed the idea of getting a "title" (the callsign) since there was MUCH MORE electronics coming along. The first of the ICs had already hit the market and some of us were tinkering with the first personal computers, rolling our own without benefit of MITs or Apple or SwTP kits (hadn't come out yet). PLENTY of fun and games in electronics AND radio to be interested in. I DO use code now and then, but not daily like many others do. Everyone has their own thing. Some are into Packet, RTTY, AMTOR, etc, I'm not...To each his own. But we all had to learn "something" about those modes to pass an exam. Oooooo! "PASS THE (code) EXAM!" Geez, poor babies, like an amateur exam is "Nobel Laureate" material? Like "rocket science?" Yeah... a "life accomplishment!" :-) I used to "pass a test" every week...on payday. If I didn't KNOW what was needed on the job, to do the things my bosses had given me responsibility for, I wouldn't "pass that exam." No paycheck. Bye. I never failed such an exam. I never failed any exam in college courses, either. I just kept on working in engineering design...and having to constantly keep on learning. The state of the electronics arts have NOT ceased to advance...not one iota of stopping. Funny thing is, we're all arguing pros and cons and in the end, it won't matter. WE do not have control. NO NO NO!!! WRONG IN HERE!!! The NO-CODE TEST ADVOCATE extras "HAVE CONTROL!" At least three have "forbidden" any non-amateur to EVER say anything about getting INTO amateur radio! Such folk are, as these gods of radio put it, "NOT INVOLVED!" Damn the First Amendment (say those three). THEY "rule" on What Shall Be in U.S. amateur radio! Their clubhouse door is CLOSED to "outsiders." [so are their minds, BTASE...) So, if we're going to debate the issues we have no control over, may as well keep it clean. What is "clean?" Anything done the way the ARRL says is "clean?" Anything done to show "committment" and "dedication" to amateurism is "clean?" Does "clean" mean that ALL must obey the olde-fahrt amateur extras who cuss at all the (evil) no-coders? Does "clean" mean the usual Double Standard in this newsgroup? All the PCTA extras can cuss at others but everyone else has to be OH so polite, civil, obediant, and respectful to their MIGHTY personal accomplishments? Hardly any of us know the other and it isn't worth making enemies over. Quite true, but that is NOT practiced in here. Look at the labels of "PUTZ," "LIAR," "COWARD" that are tossed out freely by these MIGHTY PCTA extras! Certainly not worth name calling.... It MUST be "worth it" to these stalwart, noble, good and true MORSEMEN. They seem to thrive on it. Whether I'm right or wrong, I do value opposing view points. Everyone has a right to his/her own opinion. Commendable and should be the operative ethic in here. Unfortunately, it is NOT SO. Pro or con, it is a matter of time. May be a year, may be 5, but it will come to pass. Absolutely. But...that will be the END of the ARS (Archaic Radiotelegraphy Society). retired (from regular hours) electronic engineer person |
From: "Michael A. Terrell" on Mon,Apr 18 2005 6:00 am
cl wrote: The local ham club is looking for people to take classes with "Now Your Talking" rather than try to find people with any electronics background. I offered to help maintain their club equipment but they brushed me off because I don't have a ham ticket. I still have a half way decent RF bench, but nothing compared to the $1,000,000 plus benches of test equipment I had at Microdyne. I never had any formal electronics training, yet I ws a broadcast engineer, and a engineering tech for some products at Microdyne. I learned it because I wanted to. I went to work part time in a TV shop at 13 after school and on Saturdays. When I was drafted I was tested to prove I didn't know electronics but it backfired. I not only passed the MOS test for Broadcast Engineer at Ft Knox, I was told I had received the highest score on record for the test. These are some of the reasons for my sig file. :-) -- Former professional electron wrangler. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida Michael, be warned that you can now expect all sorts of "hate mail" in public in response to what you've written. :-) Trust me on that if you haven't seen others' received flak. :-) Still a professional electron pusher (and long-time electronics hobbyist) but one doesn't do it during regular office hours. :-) |
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!!! Actually, Lennie, YOU are the only one making that assertion. 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 1953. Went from Basic to Signal School at Fort Monmouth, NJ. Amount of Signal School time spent on morse code? ZERO! NO class, NO "cramming." I guess it was too much to ask you to actually comment on something you KNOW about, is it, Lennie...?!?! HUUUUUUGGGGGGGEEEEEE snip of usual Lennie reliving his youth by recounting his "good ole Army days..."...But still without really answering the original correspondant's questions... Pro or con, it is a matter of time. May be a year, may be 5, but it will come to pass. Absolutely. But...that will be the END of the ARS (Archaic Radiotelegraphy Society). retired (from regular hours) electronic engineer person Retired from what he alledges to have been an engineering career... Now full time newsgroup insulting. Steve, K4YZ |
wrote: From: "Michael A. Terrell" on Mon,Apr 18 2005 6:00 am cl wrote: The local ham club is looking for people to take classes with "Now Your Talking" rather than try to find people with any electronics background. "Now You're Talking" is for folks with no prior background. The idea being to introduce those who DON'T have that prior background. I offered to help maintain their club equipment but they brushed me off because I don't have a ham ticket. I still have a half way decent RF bench, but nothing compared to the $1,000,000 plus benches of test equipment I had at Microdyne. I am sure the offer was appreicated, Mike, it it IS an "Amateur Radio" club. Do you have an aversion to getting licensed? I never had any formal electronics training, yet I ws a broadcast engineer, and a engineering tech for some products at Microdyne. I learned it because I wanted to. I went to work part time in a TV shop at 13 after school and on Saturdays. When I was drafted I was tested to prove I didn't know electronics but it backfired. I not only passed the MOS test for Broadcast Engineer at Ft Knox, I was told I had received the highest score on record for the test. These are some of the reasons for my sig file. :-) -- Former professional electron wrangler. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida Michael, be warned that you can now expect all sorts of "hate mail" in public in response to what you've written. Actually, not really Mike. Welcome to RRAP, wherein our resident "used-to-be-an-engineer-and-know-everything-better-than-you" representitive, Len "Lennie" Anderson endears himself and makes friends by calling them Nazis, thugs, elitists, etc, then crying foul when "called" on it. Trust me on that if you haven't seen others' received flak. Trusting Lennie Anderson on ANYthing is like letting Jack Kevorkian make your health care decisions for you. Do a Google on ", ", (before winter 2001, I believe...) Lennie's "reputation" for honesty, trustworthiness and dependability are less than adequate. Still a professional electron pusher (and long-time electronics hobbyist) but one doesn't do it during regular office hours. You don't do it during OFF hours either, judging by your complete lack of evidence on ANY "hobbyist" project other than listening to the ATIS at LAX on your scanner. Hope you'll get a ticket at one level or another, Mike...there's a lot of fun to be had...If some club was rude to you, don't think it's the whole tamale. 73 Steve, K4YZ |
wrote in message oups.com... From: "cl" on Sun,Apr 17 2005 11:33 pm "bb" wrote in message groups.com... cl wrote: The biggest problem with most is "laziness". Was that your problem? If you hadn't been so lazy you could have learned the code in under a week? 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!!! :-) Besides, at that time, I was chasing rug rats - so study time was premium. Excuses, excuses, excuses! :-) 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 1953. Went from Basic to Signal School at Fort Monmouth, NJ. Amount of Signal School time spent on morse code? ZERO! NO class, NO "cramming." At that time the ONLY military occupation specialty in the Army requiring morsemanship was Field Radio. Field Radio then required passing 20 WPM, was taught at Camp Gordon (later Fort Gordon, now the home of the Signal Corps). 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. :-) 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. NO MORSE USED at the third-largest station in the Army Command and Administrative Network. Maybe you never will use it again. Perhaps. I've found little use for it so far. Maybe once I'm an old fart, have loads of time, and wax nostalgic for things that never were, I'll take it up and enjoy it, and demand that all learn it. 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. 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! :-) Many people learned the skeletal system in health class, microorganisms in Biology class. It doesn't mean they use it now. Probably forgot it as soon as they graduated. But, it was "required". It's not a big deal people. Once you get past the "do I have to" and start doing it, you'll amaze yourself at how fast and easy it can be. Indeed. I never had the "do I have to?" attitude as there was no code-free license when I became a ham. Yet it took me about 9 weeks of daily practice. And you stuck with it!!!!!!!! You didn't quit, and it got you where you wanted to be. OR had to be - for your class of license. 2 weeks, 9 weeks, so what... you did it. A milestone to be proud of. No one can fault you for that effort. Riiiight, Coach Lector. :-) After my release from active duty in 1956, I thought it good to get a Commercial Radiotelephone License. Lots of job opportunities with that then. Couldn't find a Q&A book in town but I got a copy of the entire FCC regulations from a good guy at a local broadcast station, studied that and got my First 'Phone on the first sitting in Chicago, 90 miles away (didn't walk, rode the train, kept my shoes on even if there was no snow). Moved to L.A. at the end of '56, started at Art Center School of Design to become an illustrator. Worked during the day at Hughes Aircraft, found out that illustrators didn't make much money, liked electronics (already spent three years in Army communications) and switched to Electronics Engineering. Took me 15 years to complete that due to job requirements making me miss whole semesters. Got engineering responsibility, title, and pay before any "certificate" (suitable for framing) awarded (sheep did not sacrifice their skins for graduates, regardless of what is said). In between semesters, I thought it a neat thing to learn this morse code stuff, get a fancy callsign to "sign after my name" (youth can be misleading on what is important). Got to roughly 8 WPM clean copy using practice tapes (magnetic, reel-to-reel, cassettes had not yet been invented in those 60s days). Stopped after that plateau, wondered "whatinhell am I doing spending all this time on morse?" I'd already spent three full years on Army communications at a major station (220 thousand messages a month in 1955), had become a supervisor, did finally work on microwave radio relay operations in the service, was now an employee of Ramo- Wooldridge Corp. in electronic warfare group, and the Class D CBs had already started. I'd gotten the First 'Phone, worked on HF, was now working on more of the EM spectrum than any ham of today can use, already had a good home workshop and was coming along on professional design. I didn't "NEED MORSE" to GET ON THE AIR. I had already done that, perfectly legal, without fault. I had tossed the idea of getting a "title" (the callsign) since there was MUCH MORE electronics coming along. The first of the ICs had already hit the market and some of us were tinkering with the first personal computers, rolling our own without benefit of MITs or Apple or SwTP kits (hadn't come out yet). PLENTY of fun and games in electronics AND radio to be interested in. I DO use code now and then, but not daily like many others do. Everyone has their own thing. Some are into Packet, RTTY, AMTOR, etc, I'm not...To each his own. But we all had to learn "something" about those modes to pass an exam. Oooooo! "PASS THE (code) EXAM!" Geez, poor babies, like an amateur exam is "Nobel Laureate" material? Like "rocket science?" Yeah... a "life accomplishment!" :-) I used to "pass a test" every week...on payday. If I didn't KNOW what was needed on the job, to do the things my bosses had given me responsibility for, I wouldn't "pass that exam." No paycheck. Bye. I never failed such an exam. I never failed any exam in college courses, either. I just kept on working in engineering design...and having to constantly keep on learning. The state of the electronics arts have NOT ceased to advance...not one iota of stopping. Funny thing is, we're all arguing pros and cons and in the end, it won't matter. WE do not have control. NO NO NO!!! WRONG IN HERE!!! The NO-CODE TEST ADVOCATE extras "HAVE CONTROL!" At least three have "forbidden" any non-amateur to EVER say anything about getting INTO amateur radio! Such folk are, as these gods of radio put it, "NOT INVOLVED!" Damn the First Amendment (say those three). THEY "rule" on What Shall Be in U.S. amateur radio! Their clubhouse door is CLOSED to "outsiders." [so are their minds, BTASE...) So, if we're going to debate the issues we have no control over, may as well keep it clean. What is "clean?" Anything done the way the ARRL says is "clean?" Anything done to show "committment" and "dedication" to amateurism is "clean?" Does "clean" mean that ALL must obey the olde-fahrt amateur extras who cuss at all the (evil) no-coders? Does "clean" mean the usual Double Standard in this newsgroup? All the PCTA extras can cuss at others but everyone else has to be OH so polite, civil, obediant, and respectful to their MIGHTY personal accomplishments? Hardly any of us know the other and it isn't worth making enemies over. Quite true, but that is NOT practiced in here. Look at the labels of "PUTZ," "LIAR," "COWARD" that are tossed out freely by these MIGHTY PCTA extras! Certainly not worth name calling.... It MUST be "worth it" to these stalwart, noble, good and true MORSEMEN. They seem to thrive on it. Whether I'm right or wrong, I do value opposing view points. Everyone has a right to his/her own opinion. Commendable and should be the operative ethic in here. Unfortunately, it is NOT SO. Pro or con, it is a matter of time. May be a year, may be 5, but it will come to pass. Absolutely. But...that will be the END of the ARS (Archaic Radiotelegraphy Society). retired (from regular hours) electronic engineer person Correction - I'm "not" Caveat Lector........ I use small case cl, he uses capitals. See my address within! cl |
Mel A. Nomah wrote:
"Michael Coslo" wrote in message ... : : I've looked at some of the older questions. The only thing about them : that is difficult is that they tend to pertain to operating with : equipment and different condition than today. : No, the only thing harder was that those were just samples, and you had to actually understand the underlying material because the question on the examination would be different. But it wasn't harder, just different. From your description of "take the online test until I can pass it, then rush down to the VE session", I expect that you'd be another Len Anderson under those conditions, on the outside looking in. Well then you'd be wrong. - Mike KB3EIA - |
Kim wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... cl wrote: which required code. 5 WPM is not impossible to learn. It only takes a few minutes a day and about 2 weeks at least to get enough to pass a test. Took me 45 minutes a day for over 6 months, plus one failed test to get to 5 wpm. I'm all in favor of Morse code testing, but you guys have to show some understanding that it isn't that easy for a lot of people. I aced the writtens, without a whole lot of study by comparison to a lot of people. I don't go around calling them retards or stupid. - Mike KB3EIA - For some, Mike, the "code" (i.e., even just the connotation in the word "code") is all they got. Well said, Kim. - Mike KB3EIA - |
cl wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... cl wrote: which required code. 5 WPM is not impossible to learn. It only takes a few minutes a day and about 2 weeks at least to get enough to pass a test. Took me 45 minutes a day for over 6 months, plus one failed test to get to 5 wpm. I'm all in favor of Morse code testing, but you guys have to show some understanding that it isn't that easy for a lot of people. I aced the writtens, without a whole lot of study by comparison to a lot of people. I don't go around calling them retards or stupid. - Mike KB3EIA - Ok.... It took "me" 2 weeks, I know others who learned it quickly, but I can't provide a time frame. Yes, code "can" be harder for others to pick up. I don't doubt that for a minute. Point is, you have to put one foot in front of the other and stick with it, to get down the path to learn it. Yup. I must confess that I kind of drew you and some folks into this a bit, because I have some significant hearing defects. Several 60+ db notches,esp at the mid and higher frequencies and two separate tones of tinnitis, a different frequency for each ear. I haven't had a quiet moment for 30 years or more. When conversing with people, I read lips. I understand vey much the situation of the fellow whose wife has notches in her hearing.(conjecture alert) I would also say I suspect that the constant noise in my ears has turned of parts of my brain that process sound. And that is probably why I had such a hard time (conjecture alert off) All I can say for teh folks with hearing problems is that study, practice, and most importantly, relaxation during copying is the key. Does 6 months of constant hard effort indicate the desire to "stick with it"? Many don't want to start, and whine about it without ever putting forth effort. Hell, I know people who bitched about having to look at the "basic" Q/A manual! One remark was "Do I "have" to learn all this?" Another - "Do I "have" to read all these questions?" But yet they want a license. Pure laziness. Licenses should be "earned" not given away. People are least likely to respect something "given" to them. Most of what you say , I agree with. If a person doesn't want to study, they shouldn't have a license The bands are already showing signs of deterioration from people who just don't care. I've heard of some pretty wild times long before things were "dumbed down"! - Mike KB3EIA - |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:24 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com