Len:

Yes, I think I rather like carl...

At first I was just wondering if he was another status quo type, and maybe
they have managed to transform him into one. But, when someone had posted
past comments of his (which I was in horror to watch him apologize for!)
I realized he might be the right man for the job, at least a help rather
than a hindrance.

But, you are correct... it is morbidly fascinating, in sick way... frown

John

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 11:47:30 -0700, wrote:

From: John Smith on Aug 29, 8:08 am


Here you have a true picture of the sorry state of amateur radio. A bunch
of ancient, silly old men lying about military service, and arguing about
such... all which has nothing to do with the amateur hobby in this
century, in this millennium...

These subjects, which the vast majority of amateurs have no interest in,
do nothing to assist amateur radio, indeed, they only further aids its'
decay.

CW is as important to the future as the model A, the steam engine, the
the horse and buggy, etc... and yet you have the greatest expenditure of
energy revolving around it. There are no men with the vision, courage and
skills to be able to step in and move focus on points which would move
amateur radio ahead...

Actually, there ARE those. Only one of them has been in this
newsgroup (Carl Stevenson)...and has been roundly booed or
snubbed by those "ancient, silly old men" you mentioned.

Only old gossipers using ancient technology to further their own
self-serving interests are the problem, sane men have fled for other
frontiers...

It is ridiculous to watch...

I find it morbidly fascinating! :-)

All,

I am a somewhat younger person (43 yrs) and I still see a use for CW.


1) Since it has the narrowest bandwidth of any mode, you can squeeze
it in between massive amounts of QRM on the 40 meter band and still
manage to get heard.

2) Again, since it has the narrowest bandwidth of any mode, you can
get more kilometers per watt out of the signal... basically you get
reach the furtherest across the world with it.

3) It is the only digital mode that does not require computer
machinery to interpret.

4) It the mode that requiring the simplest of equipment to implement.
Worst case, one could use crystal oscillator and a crystal receiver to
make a contact one state away. Try that with SSB or packet!

To me, CW is to communication as a lightsaber is to combat: both are
archaic, elegant, and extremely effective ways of getting your point
made. There might not be Jedi in this galaxy, but in my mind CW
operation is the next best thing.

The Eternal Squire

From: on Aug 30, 3:15 pm

All,

I am a somewhat younger person (43 yrs) and I still see a use for CW.

1) Since it has the narrowest bandwidth of any mode, you can squeeze
it in between massive amounts of QRM on the 40 meter band and still
manage to get heard.

2) Again, since it has the narrowest bandwidth of any mode, you can
get more kilometers per watt out of the signal... basically you get
reach the furtherest across the world with it.

ONLY if the ionosphere is "kind" to you and you stay BELOW
VHF. Get below MF and them lil QRP things will go dead.

3) It is the only digital mode that does not require computer
machinery to interpret.

The "digital" label is incorrect. Since OOK CW morse has
only two states, carrier-on or carrier-off, it is BINARY.

The Morse-Vail "code" is so simple in technology that it can
be done with wires and a battery, NO radio required.

Why are you doing the ex deus machina thing? What are you
using to get your posting out to the rest of the Internet?


4) It the mode that requiring the simplest of equipment to implement.
Worst case, one could use crystal oscillator and a crystal receiver to
make a contact one state away. Try that with SSB or packet!

In 1844 the Morse-Vail Telegraph successfully demonstrated
wired communications between Baltimore, MD, and Washington,
DC. WITHOUT any radio whatsoever! That should "qualify" as
"contact one state away."

If "contacting another state" is so important, I need only
drive a day or two to another state...where I can stand in
that state and TALK to three other states! No radio of any
kind needed! :-)


To me, CW is to communication as a lightsaber is to combat: both are
archaic, elegant, and extremely effective ways of getting your point
made. There might not be Jedi in this galaxy, but in my mind CW
operation is the next best thing.

Obi-wannabe, a "lightsaber" is a FICTIONAL thing out of the
imaginary world of George Lucas' creativity. It does NOT
exist. Neither do "Jedi Knights." Such is FICTION.

Don't tell me you are going to drag out the 1996 movie
"Independence Day" as a "documentary?!?" :-)

Obi-wannabe, a "lightsaber" is a FICTIONAL thing out of the
imaginary world of George Lucas' creativity. It does NOT
exist. Neither do "Jedi Knights." Such is FICTION.

Don't tell me you are going to drag out the 1996 movie
"Independence Day" as a "documentary?!?" :-)

Oh come on, don't you know a metaphor when you see one?
A little escapism is good for the human soul.

The Eternal Squire

Oh come on, don't you know a metaphor when you see one?
A little escapism is good for the human soul.

Metaphors be with you Obi-wannabe.

"Escapism" is wonderful for the movies. In radio-electronics
things ain't fantasy. I learned that long, long ago, on Terra
not far away.

Electrons, fields, and waves behave by THEIR rules, not human ones.
You learn THEIR rules and work with those, then you've got a chance
to make them do your bidding. Believe in THAT, not magic or the
moom-pitchas.

Have you memorized the rectangular-form complex number arithmetic
yet?

wrote in message
oups.com...
All,

I am a somewhat younger person (43 yrs) and I still see a use for CW.


1) Since it has the narrowest bandwidth of any mode, you can squeeze
it in between massive amounts of QRM on the 40 meter band and still
manage to get heard.

2) Again, since it has the narrowest bandwidth of any mode, you can
get more kilometers per watt out of the signal... basically you get
reach the furtherest across the world with it.

3) It is the only digital mode that does not require computer
machinery to interpret.

4) It the mode that requiring the simplest of equipment to implement.
Worst case, one could use crystal oscillator and a crystal receiver to
make a contact one state away. Try that with SSB or packet!

To me, CW is to communication as a lightsaber is to combat: both are
archaic, elegant, and extremely effective ways of getting your point
made. There might not be Jedi in this galaxy, but in my mind CW
operation is the next best thing.

The Eternal Squire



CW is not the narrowest bandwidth mode; currently, psk-31 is. With
something like a 32 Hz bandwidth, cw pales in comparison with its' 100 to
200 Hz bandwidth.

That said, it is easy to grab a key (or keyer) and have an intelligent
conversation (yes, the cw gang can and does rag-chew) with simple equipment.
It should be noted that PSK takes its' cue from CW in that it is a
variable-length encoded mode. Like CW, the most common characters are the
shortest (and CW is worthless? Folks learned and built upon the earlier
mode).

PSK-31 can send/receiver far faster than the best cw operator can
send/receive. However, there are some folks that argue that keyboards are
obsolete. I suspect they simply want no tests LOL.

CW can be a most effective way of communicating your message. One guy on a
local repeater was screaming "cw forever". Fortunately, the repeater owner
was in the group so ..... int f2? And .... 40 words per minute mcw was sent
over the repeater. The owner had no problem. I had no problem. Yes, I can
stir the pot a bit LOL

The guy pushing for cw only? My point was made ))


73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA

"Jim Hampton" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...
All,

I am a somewhat younger person (43 yrs) and I still see a use for CW.


1) Since it has the narrowest bandwidth of any mode, you can squeeze
it in between massive amounts of QRM on the 40 meter band and still
manage to get heard.

2) Again, since it has the narrowest bandwidth of any mode, you can
get more kilometers per watt out of the signal... basically you get
reach the furtherest across the world with it.

3) It is the only digital mode that does not require computer
machinery to interpret.

4) It the mode that requiring the simplest of equipment to implement.
Worst case, one could use crystal oscillator and a crystal receiver to
make a contact one state away. Try that with SSB or packet!

To me, CW is to communication as a lightsaber is to combat: both are
archaic, elegant, and extremely effective ways of getting your point
made. There might not be Jedi in this galaxy, but in my mind CW
operation is the next best thing.

The Eternal Squire



CW is not the narrowest bandwidth mode; currently, psk-31 is. With
something like a 32 Hz bandwidth, cw pales in comparison with its' 100 to
200 Hz bandwidth.


However CW is the lowest power consumption mode. All the other digital
modes require a computer and monitor. The latter two combined can require
250watts to 350 watts even before adding in the transmitter requirements.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Dee Flint" wrote in message
...

"Jim Hampton" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...
All,

I am a somewhat younger person (43 yrs) and I still see a use for CW.


1) Since it has the narrowest bandwidth of any mode, you can squeeze
it in between massive amounts of QRM on the 40 meter band and still
manage to get heard.

2) Again, since it has the narrowest bandwidth of any mode, you can
get more kilometers per watt out of the signal... basically you get
reach the furtherest across the world with it.

3) It is the only digital mode that does not require computer
machinery to interpret.

4) It the mode that requiring the simplest of equipment to implement.
Worst case, one could use crystal oscillator and a crystal receiver to
make a contact one state away. Try that with SSB or packet!

To me, CW is to communication as a lightsaber is to combat: both are
archaic, elegant, and extremely effective ways of getting your point
made. There might not be Jedi in this galaxy, but in my mind CW
operation is the next best thing.

The Eternal Squire



CW is not the narrowest bandwidth mode; currently, psk-31 is. With
something like a 32 Hz bandwidth, cw pales in comparison with its' 100
to
200 Hz bandwidth.


However CW is the lowest power consumption mode. All the other digital
modes require a computer and monitor. The latter two combined can require
250watts to 350 watts even before adding in the transmitter requirements.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE




An excellent point, Dee

Of course, if your computer is a Cray .....
Just plug into your nearest substation LOL.

A good point and well taken. Then again, RTTY does not necessarily require
a computer. Anyone have a model 28 ASR? ))


73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA

"Jim Hampton" wrote in message
...

"Dee Flint" wrote in message
...

"Jim Hampton" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...
All,

I am a somewhat younger person (43 yrs) and I still see a use for CW.


1) Since it has the narrowest bandwidth of any mode, you can squeeze
it in between massive amounts of QRM on the 40 meter band and still
manage to get heard.

2) Again, since it has the narrowest bandwidth of any mode, you can
get more kilometers per watt out of the signal... basically you get
reach the furtherest across the world with it.

3) It is the only digital mode that does not require computer
machinery to interpret.

4) It the mode that requiring the simplest of equipment to implement.
Worst case, one could use crystal oscillator and a crystal receiver to
make a contact one state away. Try that with SSB or packet!

To me, CW is to communication as a lightsaber is to combat: both are
archaic, elegant, and extremely effective ways of getting your point
made. There might not be Jedi in this galaxy, but in my mind CW
operation is the next best thing.

The Eternal Squire



CW is not the narrowest bandwidth mode; currently, psk-31 is. With
something like a 32 Hz bandwidth, cw pales in comparison with its' 100
to
200 Hz bandwidth.


However CW is the lowest power consumption mode. All the other digital
modes require a computer and monitor. The latter two combined can
require
250watts to 350 watts even before adding in the transmitter requirements.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE




An excellent point, Dee

Of course, if your computer is a Cray .....
Just plug into your nearest substation LOL.

A good point and well taken. Then again, RTTY does not necessarily
require
a computer. Anyone have a model 28 ASR? ))


73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA


Curiosity prompts me to ask how much power that drew?

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

From: Dee Flint on Aug 30, 7:00 pm

"Jim Hampton" wrote in message
wrote in message

CW is not the narrowest bandwidth mode; currently, psk-31 is. With
something like a 32 Hz bandwidth, cw pales in comparison with its' 100 to
200 Hz bandwidth.

However CW is the lowest power consumption mode. All the other digital
modes require a computer and monitor.

Tsk, tsk, BAD engineer! Go sit in the corner cubicle with Wally.

No, "all the other digital modes" do NOT need a full-on PC.

It is COMMON to use a full-on PC because that is the SIMPLEST
solution to implementing such mode...and because so few
manufacturers have designed and made stand-alone equipment
for some digital modes.

One example that was withdrawn from kit production was the
DZ Engineering "PSKube," a stand-alone PSK31 transceiver. Full
manual and details, photos, are available at the DZ website.

The latter two combined can require
250watts to 350 watts even before adding in the transmitter requirements.

Tsk, tsk, tsk! Why not figure in the entire HOUSE that holds
the radio? :-)

Back in 1947 or so, ENIAC was crunching numbers using around 50
thousand tubes (give or take) and gulping KWe like a small
housing project. In 2000, my little HP 32S II pocket programmable
calculator was loaded with three small Lithium-ion battery cells
and allowed me to crunch numbers FASTER than ENIAC, with MORE
PRECISION than ENIAC, with FAR MORE RELIABILITY than ENIAC, and
had MORE BUILT-IN FUNCTIONS for calculation than was even dreamed
of for ENIAC. Ya know what? It still has those SAME BATTERIES!
Even after seeing a lot of use, it still has the juice.

Go take apart an AMTOR peripheral coupler, analyze its innards,
and report back on power consumption. A modern one, not one of
the first using discrete transistors. Ain't no 100 Watt power
consumption or even close to it. My ancient HP 722 inkjet printer
takes only a few Watts on standby, hardly more than that to print
text at a reasonable rate; it has an in-line-cord 'wall wart' style
power supply unit that doesn't get warm in-use.

I grant you that an electronic display takes some Watts. I don't
immediately recall the power demand on my Samsung 712n flat-panel
display but just from feeling the top vents, it can't be more than
50 Watts. It's a year old and as bright as ever, fine
distortionless detail, a "17-inch" size flat-panel. That display
COULD simultaneously show all the details of an operating HF
transceiver as well as the text into and out of an AMTOR box
(or any of the 'TORs). Of course that needs the computer box
itself which DOES take some Watts...but the box power demand has
dropped considerably since 1981 in addition to increasing its
functioning waayyyyyy above the original 4 MHz clock first Boca
Raton boxes. The HP box I've got now is lazily doing all this
word processing, running SETI@home data unit in the background,
running diagnostics on itself, all seemingly simultaneous. It
can do much more, and does with AVIs or MPEGs and other things.

Might I suggest an even ittier-bittier power demand "CW" unit,
doesn't even need a hardware receiver, just the optical wetware
and perhaps a telescope (zero power demand). Connect a manual
code key in place of a white-LED flashlight switch and "blip"
away as fast as you can in morse code. No problem, the LED
light can follow all amateur Data on-off switching. Excellent
efficiency in Lumens/Watt, better than a transistorized Class
C amplifier. Of course, the frequency is ABOVE the maximum
ITU frequency allocation of 300 GHz and therefore doesn't need
any license of any kind! Of course, daylight operation isn't
too swift for "DX." :-)

bit bit