And if your CW rig "Chirps" it drives a DSP notch filter NUTS.

Dan/W4NTI

"Jim Hampton" wrote in message
...

"RST Engineering" wrote in message
...
Nobody ever claimed that it is a dead mode. Model Ts aren't dead.
Tailwheel airplanes aren't dead. Neither is CW.

However, the driver's license test doesn't include hand-cranking Model T
engines, nor does the airplane certificate test include 3-point landings
in
tailwheel airplanes. Why hang on to an obsolete technology on the EXAM
for
those who choose not to participate in the obsolete mode?

Moreover, there aren't special lanes on the road for Model Ts, nor are
there
special runways for tailwheel airplanes. Why are there special segments
of
the band for CW. Makes no sense to me.


Jim

Well, that sounds like a good deal (eliminate the cw only bands) for the
no-codes, but it would end up a very *good* deal for the cw enthusiasts.
Believe me, ssb would get clobbered from one end to the other by cw
stations
simply because of the wide spectrum that ssb occupies (compared to cw,
that
is). I have a feeling that if the cw bands were eliminated, a lot of
phone
folks would be screaming to bring them back. I'm not sure, but based upon
my 75 watts being able to cut through a kilowatt station trying to clobber
me and another station ..... both of us maintained a solid qso for half an
hour at 35 to 45 words per minute cw whilst Mike, W2OY, was trying to jam
us
with a kilowatt of am. Didn't work then and I doubt it would work now.
You're talking a 6 kHz wide am signal vs cw signals needing only a couple
hundred of Hertz. You're talking at least a 14 dB or so advantage for the
cw based upon bandwidth of the receiver.

For the protection of the phone stations, I believe you will want to keep
the cw bands intact.


73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA

wrote in message
oups.com...
From: "K?B" on Sun 28 Aug 2005 17:47

Idiotic diatribe deleted.

plonk

Dang not much else left is there?

Dan/W4NTI

wrote

Hans, I know you think the best system would be to
simply allow all authorized modes anywhere in the
ham bands, by any licensed radio amateur.

Now that's a STRETCH!

I do believe that the FCC over-manages our allocations on most bands with their
arbitrary slicing/dicing by mode/license class, without any obvious regard to
"market forces". I'd like to see that cumbersome system replaced with a
bandplanning model similar to many UHF/VHF bands where the users (that'd be guys
like you and me) work out band plans which can be dynamically adjusted to meet
our changing needs.

The current US plan which allocates virtually 100% of our spectrum (less some
minor slices near 5MHz and 219MHz) to narrowband CW, yet restricts every other
mode regardless of popularity to smaller segments, is so backwards as to be
spherical in its backwardness (backward from every possible viewing angle).

73, de Hans, K0HB

wrote

It would serve the useful purpose of making
sure drivers had the basic skills required to
drive a manual transmission car.

There currently is no such test, but drivers who decide to use manual
transmissions seem to learn that skill without a government test.

Similarly if there is no Morse skill test, hams who decide to use that mode will
take it upon themselves to learn that skill without the need for government
testing.



That complexity would benefit from some rules changes.
Like a protected space for good old Morse Code.

Morse code currently enjoys free access to essentially every Hz of amateur
spectrum. Since CW is your (and my) favorite mode, that's what Martha Stewart
might call "a good thing®" Would you support removal of that free access in
exchange for "protected space" pro-rated by bandwidth relative to "protected
space" for other popular modes?

For example, a good fast CW signal might require "protection" for 150Hz and a
properly operated SSB station might require "protection" for 2400Hz. Based on
that ratio and your notion of "protected space" for each mode, for each 10KHz
protected segment of CW spectrum, SSB operators should have a protected segment
of 160KHz.

Be careful what you wish for.

73, de Hans, K0HB

John Smith wrote:
Jim:

It is only necessary to create the association between any spoken word and
the series of characters you wish to generate when that word is spoken,
into a library of such associations...

In other words, if I speak "the" and make the association to the
characters "t-h-e" the speech to text engine will always generate those
characters when I speak that specific word--I could just as easily
associate the spoken "the" with any other series of characters.

Now, while you and I might not go to that trouble if we are fast typists,
others who do not type will... those who are blind will... companies and
corps will (and especially those employing disabled workers.) I have seen
such libraries on the net for specific uses, such as programming, before.
You most likely can download one for the speech engine in question...

There are groups devoted to the blind who could easily supply you with
them, I am sure...

John

Too many words in the English language that are pronounced the same but
spelled differently for speech-to-text to work very well.

Know-no, new-knew, see-sea, I-eye, nose-knows, sail-sale, to-two-too-tu
tu, seem-seam, Sue-sue (name vs litigation), cheep-cheap, but-butt,
ect., ect., ect.

A speech-to-text probgram would have to be able to put the words into
context. Probably doable to some level.

wrote in message
ups.com...
Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
Obviously they haven't actually
listened to the parts of the ham bands where
Morse Code is used.

Model Ts aren't dead.
Tailwheel airplanes aren't dead. Neither is CW.

True enough.

However, the driver's license test doesn't include hand-
cranking Model T
engines, nor does the airplane certificate test include
3-point landings in tailwheel airplanes.

That's because the percentage of autos with handcranks is very
small. So is the percentage of taildragger aircraft.

Better example from the auto anology is manual gearboxes.
There are significant numbers of new vehicles made every
day which have manual gearboxes...but no state mandates
driver testing on a manual gearbox to be able to drive one.

Last statistics I saw were that 5% of new cars have manual
transmissions. The other 95% sold today are automatics.

Agreed, but in terms of total vehicles sold new each year
in the US, that is several hundred thousand vehicles
with stick shifts every year.

Out of total sales in the millions. A tiny niche market. In fact,
almost all cars can be ordered with an automatic transmission, but many
*cannot* be ordered with a manual transmission.

Morse Code accounts for a lot more than 5% of amateur radio
HF/MF operation.

The point still reverts to the exclusivity (i.e. stand-alone)
testing for one mode and one mode only. No other mode, or
subject area is so tested for an amateur license.

Sure - because no other popular mode requires skills the
average person does not already posess.

Digital modes involve a certain skill level at typing.
No one is tested to be sure they can operate at
X wpm minimum speed. Additionally, what's wrong with
a ham starting out at even 1 wpm on the air. Why
must there be a minimum skill level. Two no-code
techs can do that now on VHF. What's so special
about HF vs VHF. Clearly the international community
no longer sees the need for a morse skill test.

How many hams would have to learn to talk in order to use voice
modes? How many would have to learn to read and type to use keyboard
modes?

What's different about Morse Code is that most new hams today have to
learn it just for amateur radio. And that, IMHO, is what bugs some
folks so much.

Probably so.

But the percentage of ham stations on HF/MF using Morse
Code is much, much higher.

So? Nothing in the amateur rules requires anyone to every
make a CW QSO, or, for that matter any contact
using any mode at all.

Exactly. Yet there are all sorts of test questions on things no ham is
required to do.

Why?

Read again the following:
The point still reverts to the exclusivity (i.e. stand-alone)
testing for one mode and one mode only. No other mode, or
subject area is so tested for an amateur license.

The issue is and always has been
the exclusive CW test in comparison to knowledge
tested for any other modes.

Without knowledge of those other modes, you can't get a
license, even if all you want to do is to use Morse Code.

Wrong....you can ignore or not learn about several specific
subject areas...one or more modes of operation, etc. and
still get a passing test grade.

That depends entirely on what you consider a "subject area". If you
define "subject area" as "questions about SSB voice", one could
probably get all the questions about SSB voice wrong and still pass -
*if* almost all of the others were answered correctly.

But if you define "subject area" as "questions about voice modes", it's
doubtful that one could get all the questions about voice modes wrong
and still pass - even if almost all of the others were answered
correctly.

You assume ALL unknown questions would be answered wrong.
Test taking 101 sez for ALL questions you don't know the answer to
pick C. Doing so for 10 questions the test taker has no clue on
is bound to net at least 2 or 3 correct answers.

However, the remaining Morse Code test is probably
going away soon.

Just a matter of time.

Probably.

Why hang on to an obsolete technology on the EXAM for
those who choose not to participate in the obsolete mode?

"Obsolete"? Morse Code is the second most popular mode
in HF amateur radio.

Why are there written exams with questions on electronics
for those who chose not to build their radios?

No separate test exists for only the electronics.

Nope - but try to pass the exam without electronics knowledge.

It still isn't a separate exclusive test.

Doesn't have to be.

If you get all
the other stuff (rules, regs, etc) 100%, you can miss
a greater percentage of electronic questions then
if it was a separate subject area test.

But you can't miss all of them.

But let's say you get 50% of those. Then you may end up
passing the test if all the other stuff (rules/regs) is answered
correctly. That isn't the case for the stand-alone morse
test.

The fact of the matter is that the current written tests involve a lot
of subject areas, but not in a lot of depth. Morse Code testing
involves one subject area, in somewhat more depth (although at 5 wpm,
"depth" becomes somewhat questionable).

It's like saying we have a manual-transmission test where the
person must get the car in first gear and drive around an empty parking
lot at 5 mph for one minute. And folks say that's too much to ask!

And the IARU plus the WRC have stated it isn't required. They have
left the choice to each individual administration...and that's where we
are today in USA regs. The FCC has said it will end all morse
testing (NPRM 05-235). Commentors are now and have been
submitting their views for a month or more already. I haven't
seen even ONE persuasive new argument to save code testing.
All the procode test support argumennts are the same ones
as before which the FCC has already reviewed and dismissed.

The written is
scored on an overall basis....not on a subject area stand-alone
basis.
Add some CW questions (similar in format to existing
questions on the phonetic alphabet) to the tests then.

What Canada has done solves that problem.

Works for me.

Moreover, there aren't special lanes on the road for Model
Ts,
nor are there special runways for tailwheel airplanes.

But there are special lanes on some roads for cars
only, high-occupancy vehicles only, etc.

There are sidewalks and trails on which motor vehicles
are banned.

Why are there special segments of
the band for CW.

The only CW-only parts of the US ham bands are
50.0-50.1 MHz and 144.0-144.1 MHz.
All other HF "CW" subbands are shared with
digital/data modes.

Correct.

So would you support a reasonable set of Morse Code only subbands,
Bill? Say, the bottom 10-15% of each HF ham band?

I've said before that I have no problem with doing so.
Within the USA, we could do so via ARRL voluntary
bandplans without ever involving the FCC.
Doing so might actually serve as a good incentive for some
folks to learn and use morse. Makes far more sense to
me than trying to keep the test itself.

Cheers and I see my July 06 prediction becoming more of a
possibility every day that passes now.

Let's see...comments close sometime this fall...FCC takes
six months to produce the R&O, coming out in early
spring 2006...effective early summer 2006.

You may be the winnah!

The Pool is still ongoing.

One thing I notice about FCC R&Os for the amateur service is that
they almost never put changes into effect on the first of a month -
always midmonth or something like that.

We'll see.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"KØHB" wrote in message
ink.net...

wrote

It would serve the useful purpose of making
sure drivers had the basic skills required to
drive a manual transmission car.

There currently is no such test, but drivers who decide to use manual
transmissions seem to learn that skill without a government test.

And they appear to do so with no threat to anyone else.
When my kids got their licenses they first learned and passed
their test using an automatic transmission. They later then
took on the task of learning manual transmissions at a point
where they alraedy were comfortable with the basic driving
skills and could then focus more on the additional skills
needed to drive a manual gearbox vehicle.

Similarly if there is no Morse skill test, hams who decide to use that
mode will take it upon themselves to learn that skill without the need for
government testing.

That complexity would benefit from some rules changes.
Like a protected space for good old Morse Code.

Morse code currently enjoys free access to essentially every Hz of amateur
spectrum. Since CW is your (and my) favorite mode, that's what Martha
Stewart might call "a good thing®" Would you support removal of that free
access in exchange for "protected space" pro-rated by bandwidth relative
to "protected space" for other popular modes?

For example, a good fast CW signal might require "protection" for 150Hz
and a properly operated SSB station might require "protection" for 2400Hz.
Based on that ratio and your notion of "protected space" for each mode,
for each 10KHz protected segment of CW spectrum, SSB operators should have
a protected segment of 160KHz.

Excellent point.

Be careful what you wish for.
73, de Hans, K0HB

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

From: Bill Sohl on Aug 29, 5:25 am

wrote in message
Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message
Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message

snip of analogies into far-different activities

Morse Code accounts for a lot more than 5% of amateur radio
HF/MF operation.

The U.S. amateur radio frequency allocations show that
MF-HF accounts for only 1 percent (rounding to integers)
of total bandspace. Manual radiotelegraphy ("CW") is
optional for ANY amateur class (except the old Novice)
on ANY amateur band above 30 MHz...yet, without taking
any "official poll" on it, it is obvious that "CW" is
LESS than 1 percent of all amateur operation above 30 MHz.
One percent of one percent gets to be a tiny value.

The point still reverts to the exclusivity (i.e. stand-alone)
testing for one mode and one mode only. No other mode, or
subject area is so tested for an amateur license.

Sure - because no other popular mode requires skills the
average person does not already posess.

Digital modes involve a certain skill level at typing.
No one is tested to be sure they can operate at
X wpm minimum speed. Additionally, what's wrong with
a ham starting out at even 1 wpm on the air. Why
must there be a minimum skill level. Two no-code
techs can do that now on VHF. What's so special
about HF vs VHF. Clearly the international community
no longer sees the need for a morse skill test.

Anyone with a communications receiver or scanner can find
out that FEW "average hams" speak or enunciate well. :-)
There has NEVER been a speaking test for ANY U.S. amateur
radio license examination.

FEW "average persons" can operate TV modes, slow or fast
scan, without the automatic easy-to-use features found on
all consumer grade motion-picture cameras on the market
now. I've not only used an RCA studio TV camera WITHOUT
those features but checked alignment/scanning and the
electronics of same. NO SUCH TV mode MANUAL TEST is done
in U.S. amateur radio licensing.

NO Manual Data mode TEST has ever been required in U.S.
amateur radio licensing EVER, yet the FCC allocates Data
modes coexisting with "CW" on almost all amateur bands.

Manual radiotelegraphy "proficiency" testing has ALWAYS
been in U.S. amateur radio licensing, through the three
predecessor radio regulating agencies before the FCC was
created. It is an "artifact" of testing that has never
been removed due to opposition from just enough lobbying
efforts to keep it in place. That it has "always been
there" is absolutely NO valid reason to keep it.

The international community, as represented by the IARU,
came out over a year before WRC-03 on eliminating the code
test for any license...at the option of each
administration. The ARRL was opposed to elimination on
through the last day of WRC-03 and now are ambivilent on
that. We have yet to see the ARRL's comments on NPRM
05-143 in WT Docket 05-235.

The ARRL's "compromise" plan is to retain the code test
for Amateur Extra only. That is clearly a sop to their
core membership who favor radiotelegraphy. However, at
only 145 thousand members, the total ARRL membership is
only about 20% of all individual licensed radio amateurs
in the USA (721,481 as of 26 August 2005).

How many hams would have to learn to talk in order to use voice
modes?

More than you would believe to listen to them on the air. :-)

How many would have to learn to read and type to use keyboard
modes?

"Data" modes are not restricted to just keyboard input.

What's different about Morse Code is that most new hams today have to
learn it just for amateur radio. And that, IMHO, is what bugs some
folks so much.

Probably so.

Not "probably." MOST CERTAINLY.

52 years ago when I operated my first big HF transmitter, "CW"
skills were NOT required to send TTY and Voice on HF over "DX"
paths. Of course that was in the military and the morsemen's
argument is "that isn't amateur radio!" :-) Well, neither is
broadcasting (called "Mass Media" radio services now), private
land mobile radio service, aircraft radio service, or personal
radio services...but all those services operate by the very
same physical laws as does amateur radio service. Broadcasting,
PLMRS, aircraft, personal radio services do NOT use "CW" mode
nor do they test for that.

Probably what REALLY "bugs" the NCTA is the terrible arrogance
of the PCTA that morse code is the heart and soul of amateur
radio, or words to that effect...plus, "only 'real' amateurs
know code," a terribly elitist, exclusionary bit of bigotry
that grew stronger with the so-called "incentive plan" licensing
(lobbied for by the ARRL).

snip

But if you define "subject area" as "questions about voice modes", it's
doubtful that one could get all the questions about voice modes wrong
and still pass - even if almost all of the others were answered
correctly.

You assume ALL unknown questions would be answered wrong.
Test taking 101 sez for ALL questions you don't know the answer to
pick C. Doing so for 10 questions the test taker has no clue on
is bound to net at least 2 or 3 correct answers.

Miccolis is trying to tap-dance around the plain, simple fact:
Fail the code test on a General or Extra exam and one FAILS
to get the General or Extra upgrade. NOT a question of
"so many 'other' questions right/wrong," a matter of singular
FAILURE.

snip

But you can't miss all of them.

But let's say you get 50% of those. Then you may end up
passing the test if all the other stuff (rules/regs) is answered
correctly. That isn't the case for the stand-alone morse
test.

You said that before, I've said that before, lots of others have
said that before, and the FCC says so in the regulations.
Miccolis is trying to smokescreen the plain, simple fact that
the manual radiotelegraphy test is stand-alone and NOT a part
of the written test elements.


The fact of the matter is that the current written tests involve a lot
of subject areas, but not in a lot of depth. Morse Code testing
involves one subject area, in somewhat more depth (although at 5 wpm,
"depth" becomes somewhat questionable).

It's like saying we have a manual-transmission test where the
person must get the car in first gear and drive around an empty parking
lot at 5 mph for one minute. And folks say that's too much to ask!

Automotive vehicle operation IS NOT A PART OF NPRM 05-143 OR
WT DOCKET 05-235. Geez...

And the IARU plus the WRC have stated it isn't required. They have
left the choice to each individual administration...and that's where we
are today in USA regs. The FCC has said it will end all morse
testing (NPRM 05-235). Commentors are now and have been
submitting their views for a month or more already. I haven't
seen even ONE persuasive new argument to save code testing.

Excuse me? Morse code will be extremely valuable in coordinating
communications to counter-attacking alien invaders; the will
never understand morse code so they will be caught be surprise.
That has been amply documented in the film "Independence Day."

:-)

All the procode test support argumennts are the same ones
as before which the FCC has already reviewed and dismissed.

Deja vu all over again. yawn


So would you support a reasonable set of Morse Code only subbands,
Bill? Say, the bottom 10-15% of each HF ham band?

I've said before that I have no problem with doing so.
Within the USA, we could do so via ARRL voluntary
bandplans without ever involving the FCC.
Doing so might actually serve as a good incentive for some
folks to learn and use morse. Makes far more sense to
me than trying to keep the test itself.

NPRM 05-143 is NOT about "bandplans." It is SOLEY
concerned with elimination or retention of Test Element 1,
the manual radiotelegraphy skill test.

snip


One thing I notice about FCC R&Os for the amateur service is that
they almost never put changes into effect on the first of a month -
always midmonth or something like that.

We'll see.

Hello? WHEN was R&O 99-412 issued? [it was on "restructuring"]

Good grief, all these "insiders" haven't been making notes...

"KØHB" wrote in message
news
KØHB wrote

E=IR. It's not just a good idea; it's the LAW!

"RST Engineering" wrote

No, according to G. S. Ohm, R=E/I. The other two forms are merely
algebraic
manipulations.

Somebody is always trying to twist the law to suit there own agenda!
Damned
lawyers!

73, de Hans, K0HB
Grand Exhalted Liberator of the Electric Smoke



Hello, Hans

If there *is* any difference, for heaven's sake, please, someone prove it.

It is all relative or mind over matter. If you don't mind, it doesn't
matter


73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA

wrote:
RST Engineering wrote:
Nobody ever claimed that it is a dead mode.
cut


"Obsolete"? Morse Code is the second most popular mode
in HF amateur radio.

When are you going ENGLISH

Obsolete is not useless, ask the marines from Leyte about the
uselessness of the obseltete Batteships tat rendered gunfire support

Why are there written exams with questions on electronics for
those who chose not to build their radios?

Indeed I ask why there are so many question about electronics on the
tech pool as I try to teach them to my partner.

I also question the real need to memeroize band edges and even pieces
of the band plan in general pool I am reading now

but neither of these issues is anoything but a smoke screen
cut