|
On 19 Sep 2005 17:28:11 -0700, "
wrote in .com: snip Show us by documented fact that morse code manual radiotelegraphy is IN USE by radio services other than amateur radio TODAY. Morse is required for the Public Mobile Services (Part 22), the International Fixed Public Radiocommunication Services (Part 23), satellite uplinks (ATIS, Part 25), and other services including Experimental, Special Broadcast, etc. Morse is also a requirement for a Commercial Radio Operators License (Part 13). I should also point out that every communication needs a sender, a receiver, and a message. Although manual Morse may not be -required- to send or receive the message, Morse is used so the communication -can- be done manually by either the sender or receiver (or both) should the automatic systems fail. The fact is, morse is very much alive within amateur radio. It has AGED. It will eventually become terminal. Doubtful. Morse code is the simplest and most univeral method of radio communication, but is hardly limited to radio -- don't forget that it was invented for -wire- telegraphy. It has also been used extensively with optical and other types of communication. It has existed since before radio was invented, continues to exist outside the sphere of radio, and certainly won't die if it's abandoned as a requirement for radio. But as long as Morse code exists, radio operators will continue to use it. Now that's not an argument either for or against the dropping of the code requirement. Like I said before, it's no big deal. And like I also said before, what -IS- a big deal is the dumbing down of the written test. I still don't understand why there is so much bitching (from both sides) about the code test yet almost no discussion about the 'memory' test. Anyone care to explain that? ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message ... On 19 Sep 2005 17:28:11 -0700, " wrote in .com: snip Show us by documented fact that morse code manual radiotelegraphy is IN USE by radio services other than amateur radio TODAY. Morse is required for the Public Mobile Services (Part 22), the International Fixed Public Radiocommunication Services (Part 23), satellite uplinks (ATIS, Part 25), and other services including Experimental, Special Broadcast, etc. Morse is also a requirement for a Commercial Radio Operators License (Part 13). I should also point out that every communication needs a sender, a receiver, and a message. Although manual Morse may not be -required- to send or receive the message, Morse is used so the communication -can- be done manually by either the sender or receiver (or both) should the automatic systems fail. The fact is, morse is very much alive within amateur radio. It has AGED. It will eventually become terminal. Doubtful. Morse code is the simplest and most univeral method of radio communication, but is hardly limited to radio -- don't forget that it was invented for -wire- telegraphy. It has also been used extensively with optical and other types of communication. It has existed since before radio was invented, continues to exist outside the sphere of radio, and certainly won't die if it's abandoned as a requirement for radio. But as long as Morse code exists, radio operators will continue to use it. Now that's not an argument either for or against the dropping of the code requirement. Like I said before, it's no big deal. And like I also said before, what -IS- a big deal is the dumbing down of the written test. I still don't understand why there is so much bitching (from both sides) about the code test yet almost no discussion about the 'memory' test. Anyone care to explain that? That genie got out of the bottle a long time ago and as with most things, once it's out, you can't put it back in. However there has been some discussion on it but the tone has been that there's now no likelihood that a changed can be made. While I earned my license under the current open question pool system, I approached my study as if the questions were not published. I chose to learn the material, memorize equations, learn how to apply the equations, etc. Then simply used the published questions as a check to see if my understanding was correct. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
Dee Flint wrote:
"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message ... On 19 Sep 2005 17:28:11 -0700, " wrote in ps.com: snip Show us by documented fact that morse code manual radiotelegraphy is IN USE by radio services other than amateur radio TODAY. Morse is required for the Public Mobile Services (Part 22), the International Fixed Public Radiocommunication Services (Part 23), satellite uplinks (ATIS, Part 25), and other services including Experimental, Special Broadcast, etc. Morse is also a requirement for a Commercial Radio Operators License (Part 13). I should also point out that every communication needs a sender, a receiver, and a message. Although manual Morse may not be -required- to send or receive the message, Morse is used so the communication -can- be done manually by either the sender or receiver (or both) should the automatic systems fail. The fact is, morse is very much alive within amateur radio. It has AGED. It will eventually become terminal. Doubtful. Morse code is the simplest and most univeral method of radio communication, but is hardly limited to radio -- don't forget that it was invented for -wire- telegraphy. It has also been used extensively with optical and other types of communication. It has existed since before radio was invented, continues to exist outside the sphere of radio, and certainly won't die if it's abandoned as a requirement for radio. But as long as Morse code exists, radio operators will continue to use it. Now that's not an argument either for or against the dropping of the code requirement. Like I said before, it's no big deal. And like I also said before, what -IS- a big deal is the dumbing down of the written test. I still don't understand why there is so much bitching (from both sides) about the code test yet almost no discussion about the 'memory' test. Anyone care to explain that? That genie got out of the bottle a long time ago and as with most things, once it's out, you can't put it back in. However there has been some discussion on it but the tone has been that there's now no likelihood that a changed can be made. The test is no more dumbed down than just about everything else in the world. I've seen testing regimens where the outcome of incompetence is possible injury or worse that also use question pools. The student buys the book, and there they go. While I earned my license under the current open question pool system, I approached my study as if the questions were not published. I chose to learn the material, memorize equations, learn how to apply the equations, etc. Then simply used the published questions as a check to see if my understanding was correct. I still think that the prospective Ham should prepare for his/her license in similar manner as a thesis defense. Come up with a new radio related research project, and do a couple years research, then defend it in front of a panel of "steely eyed" FCC experts...... 8^) Just kidding of course. I bought a study guide from 1957 or 58 at a hamfest. It looks surprisingly like what we have now, save for the mostly hollow-state emphasis. Given a few days to learn about the VT stuff, I have no doubt that I would be able to pass any of the tests - except for the Morse code tests. Some of the questions were amazingly easy. And all from "The Golden Age" of Amateur Radio! Some time I think I should post some of the questions. I have no problem with the tests as they are now. I prepared for the tests in a similar fashion to the way you did, except I took the on-line tests as a check, mostly for the questions that have to be memorized, such as the band edges - stuff like that. I used the tools at hand. The material is there. If we choose to learn it well, it is a good starting point. If we don't, we just cheat ourselves. Seems harder to memorize the entire question pool anyhow. - Mike KB3EIA - |
Frank Gilliland wrote: Now that's not an argument either for or against the dropping of the code requirement. Like I said before, it's no big deal. And like I also said before, what -IS- a big deal is the dumbing down of the written test. Sometimes I think that the "dumbing down" is a factor of the maturing Ham looking at how things appear from the vantage point of time and accumulated knowledge. They might remember the test seeming very difficult when they took it. Then they look at modern tests (if they even do look at them) and conclude that the modern tests are exceptionally easy, when it is simply that they have learned much in the years that have passed since their own tests. I still don't understand why there is so much bitching (from both sides) about the code test yet almost no discussion about the 'memory' test. Anyone care to explain that? When we do attempt to discuss something else, for some reason or another, it gets redirected to the Morse code issue. - Mike KB3EIA - |
KØHB wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/drbfk I read it. sounds interesting. How we gonna connect the nation at 700 MHz? I can't make any determination on whether he is right or not. The article only says that we have it all wrong and Mr O'Brien has the answers. Okay. Thanks Mr O'Brien. NO doubt there will be a lot of infrastructure needed, with lots of brass to be made. - Mike KB3EIA - |
"Michael Coslo" wrote How we gonna connect the nation at 700 MHz? Hi Mike, The article had nothing to do with "connecting the nation". It has to do with regional interoperability, the very thing that Katrina aftermath found largely inadequate. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
KØHB wrote: "Michael Coslo" wrote How we gonna connect the nation at 700 MHz? Hi Mike, The article had nothing to do with "connecting the nation". It has to do with regional interoperability, the very thing that Katrina aftermath found largely inadequate. Ahh, so we need another system to connect to the rest of the nation then? I still find this whole thing another thinly designed bandwidth grab, when in reality is that the system concept is not working. Seems like grass is greener stuff to me, unless there is something majik about 700 MHz, and the TV channels. - Mike KB3EIA - |
"Michael Coslo" wrote Ahh, so we need another system to connect to the rest of the nation then? Two things: Thing #1) I think "the rest of the nation" stayed pretty well connected. Regional public service interoperability at the incident was the huge gaping problem area. (As it was 9/11 and any number of other incidents.) Thing #2) The article doesn't propose to "grab" the 700MHz band..... It's already slated for public service. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 11:09:31 -0400, Michael Coslo
wrote in : Frank Gilliland wrote: Now that's not an argument either for or against the dropping of the code requirement. Like I said before, it's no big deal. And like I also said before, what -IS- a big deal is the dumbing down of the written test. Sometimes I think that the "dumbing down" is a factor of the maturing Ham looking at how things appear from the vantage point of time and accumulated knowledge. They might remember the test seeming very difficult when they took it. Then they look at modern tests (if they even do look at them) and conclude that the modern tests are exceptionally easy, when it is simply that they have learned much in the years that have passed since their own tests. By "dumbing down" I was referring to the question pool being released to the public where it can be memorized to some extent. As for the level of technical expertise, I'm sure the content hasn't changed much over the years (except maybe for the addition of semiconductors). But then again, maybe the technical aspects of the test -should- be 'dumbed down'. Modern ham radios have digital PLL tuners, automatic antenna matchers, audio signal processing..... I even saw one that had a built-in Morse code decrypter. About all that's left for the ham to learn anymore is on-air protocol and antennas. It's no wonder so many hams are becoming appliance operators. Heck, the FCC would do just as well to turn the service into several CB bands and drop the license. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 01:54:09 GMT, KØHB wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/drbfk Those of us who had to suffer from Morgan O'Brien's backstabbing at the Commission (anyone remember the failed Chicago Land Mobile Regional Task Force debacle) give little weight to his posturings, even if they turn out to be "right" strictly by accident. My public safety clients give little weight to anything coming out of Nextel anyhow..... -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 11:35:07 -0400, Michael Coslo wrote:
Ahh, so we need another system to connect to the rest of the nation then? I still find this whole thing another thinly designed bandwidth grab, when in reality is that the system concept is not working. Seems like grass is greener stuff to me, unless there is something majik about 700 MHz, and the TV channels. We heard the same mazurka about the 800 MHz channels ten years ago. Even amongst those clients of ours who went for 800 MHz systems, some of those actually work well as a regional public safety intercommunication system when designed and used correctly. One of the major pronlems that seems to surface every time in every field is "turf wars" a.k.a. "protect my local interests". Notwithstanding the extortionate user fees paid to the agency who holds the actual license, the only ones who really profited from that exercise was Motorola. (APCO members on here will certainly recognize this.) Enter now 700 MHz stage-left...... -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 16:02:19 GMT, KØHB wrote:
Two things: Thing #1) I think "the rest of the nation" stayed pretty well connected. Regional public service interoperability at the incident was the huge gaping problem area. (As it was 9/11 and any number of other incidents.) The very thing that the 800 MHz NPSPAC channels were supposed to provide. What did the regional (state) NPSPAC delegates do at the meetings but drink coffee laced with chicory? At least in California we designated quite a few channels just for that purpose and every (800 MHz) radio of every agency was supposed to have them installed, tested, and working (a software "install"), and a lot of Federal grant money went in to ensuring that. Or was the problem that they didn't get around to installing 800 MHz systems even when everyone else did while grant money was available? -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
From: Frank Gilliland on Sep 20, 4:09 am
On 19 Sep 2005 17:28:11 -0700, " snip Show us by documented fact that morse code manual radiotelegraphy is IN USE by radio services other than amateur radio TODAY. Morse is required for the Public Mobile Services (Part 22), the International Fixed Public Radiocommunication Services (Part 23), satellite uplinks (ATIS, Part 25), and other services including Experimental, Special Broadcast, etc. Morse is also a requirement for a Commercial Radio Operators License (Part 13). "IN USE," Frank. :-) I do not find any reference to manual morse code radiotelegraphy in Part 22, Public Mobile Radio Service. "Codes" are stated, but those are NOT "morse codes." Part 23, International Fixed Public Radio Service, does have reference to manual morse code (International variety, same as defined for amateur radio) IF and only IF the transmitter license is specifically designated as "radiotelegraph" with that emission. I do not find any specific reference to manual morse code in Part 25, Satellite Communications Radio Service. Where is the requirement for a commercial radiotelegrapher license there? Note: Satellite Communications allocated bands are all in the microwave region and that is highly unlikely to be used with manual on-off keying of a transmitter. Part 13 defines ALL the Commercial Radio Operator licenses and is not a radio service per se. Radiotelegraph (Commercial) licenses require specific skill levels tested for each of three classes. Radiotelephone (Commercial) and GMDSS operator licenses do NOT require manual morse code skill testing. Yes, there are automatic morse code keyers in use in various radio services still, such as in Aviation Radio Service, about as many as there were such stations a half century ago. As such they are satisfying very OLD regulatory requirements and have all the usefulness of teats on a boar hog. Those keep on working because they are simple repetitive appliances to a transmitter, no different (but less complex) than a "fox test" generator for TTY. Pilots of aircraft don't "identify" VOR radionavigation transmitters by morse code in normal use, they simply dial up the channel as shown on their aeronautical charts and the ground station is either there or not there; frequency/channel assignments have been done to prevent interference with other ground radionavigation frequencies/channels even at the extreme distances possible with high altitude flying. I wrote "IN USE" in all captitals on purpose. Where, other than on the Great Lakes in maritime service, is morse code USED for communications in the United States? I should also point out that every communication needs a sender, a receiver, and a message. Although manual Morse may not be -required- to send or receive the message, Morse is used so the communication -can- be done manually by either the sender or receiver (or both) should the automatic systems fail. The ORIGINAL morse code was all numbers and "recorded" by an ink pen on paper. No hearing was required. Morse's financial backer, Alfred Vail, is said to have suggested the addition of letters and punctuation plus making shorter code characters in line with printers' type case arrangements. The early WIRED telegraph systems primarily used MANUAL transmission and reception. Very long distance services, such as by undersea cable, used recorded transmission and reception primarily to increase throughput, allowing brief breaks for operators to answer more important calls of nature. Punched paper tape was in use for TTY by 1904. That year marks the first recorded instance of demonstration of an Exclusive-OR "scrambling" of one clear-text message with a "keying" tape (duplicate at the receiving end) for encryption by non-crypto-specialist operators. P-tape has been standard on TTY and RTTY message communications for well over a half century. It is quick, convenient, and one TTY operator could tend a dozen P-tape TTY machines in continuous duty. Electromechanical teleprinters are on the way to extinction, replaced by better, faster all- electronic message means. The fact is, morse is very much alive within amateur radio. It has AGED. It will eventually become terminal. Doubtful. It WILL eventually become terminal. The last mighty macho morseman will have the last morse code key pried out of cold, dead fingers. It will wind up as exhibits in a museum, those exhibits already in progress. Morse code is the simplest and most univeral method of radio communication, but is hardly limited to radio -- don't forget that it was invented for -wire- telegraphy. I've been reminding folks of that for years. 1844 is the year the first Morse-Vail Telegraph system went into operation. COMMERCIAL (i.e., professional, service for money) I might add. It has also been used extensively with optical and other types of communication. Not "extensively" except in maritime talk-between-ships by light blinker. Signal flags are traditional in navies but those are not "morse code." Two-flag (two-torch at night) manual semaphore was used in the U.S. Army prior to our Civil War; the torch over crossed signal flags is still the collar insignia of the Army Signal Corps. However, that was NOT by "morse code" but by position of the semaphore indicators relative to the operator's body to denote the various characters. Various forms of semaphore signaling, even to construction of networks for same, was done for over a century PRIOR to the first wired telegraphy systems. NONE of those used "morse code" anywhere close to what morse code is today. Native American Indian smoke signals did NOT use "morse code." The electronic "remote control" generally uses a pulse train code to control a variety of electronics using infra-red "carrier" or an RF carrier. That is by on-off keying but such keying has NEVER used any "morse code." On-off keying of a carrier is a supply-economic for battery-powered remotes. It has existed since before radio was invented, continues to exist outside the sphere of radio, and certainly won't die if it's abandoned as a requirement for radio. "Morse code" predated the first demonstration of radio as a communications medium by 52 years of USE. There are NO working morse code telegraph circuits in the United States in continuous communications service. NONE. It has been an internal practice in commercial communications to denote teleprinter services as "telegraph" for over a half century, leading some to presume that such "telegraph" services still "use morse code modes." They do not. But as long as Morse code exists, radio operators will continue to use it. Yes, and riding horses is still done in equestrian pursuits (but not as an everyday transport), smoothbore musketry and bows-arrows are still used for hunting (but not as a regular means of killing game), and parks still have real steam train rides (but not for regular passenger conveyance). Until the electronic terminals became economic, the electromechanical teleprinter systems carried the vast majority of message communications for over a half century...for telegrams, for government, military, business, commerce, and private communications. Some hobbyists still insist on using vacuum tube circuitry for low-power (relatively speaking) uses in radio, despite the proven fact that solid-state circuit design results in lower power demand, smaller physical size, more economy, and generally superior performance. Now that's not an argument either for or against the dropping of the code requirement. Like I said before, it's no big deal. And like I also said before, what -IS- a big deal is the dumbing down of the written test. I still don't understand why there is so much bitching (from both sides) about the code test yet almost no discussion about the 'memory' test. Anyone care to explain that? On the contrary, the common PCTA expression is that the Pool of published questions has "dumbed down" amateur radio license examinations to an absurd level. [Pools exist for both VEC and COLEM] They illogically connect dropping of the code test with "dropping of the written test" by direct statement or by infrerence. They also forget that the VEC Question Pool Committee devises ALL the Pool questions and answers, said VEC being composed of licensed radio amateurs. The FCC now specifies only a minimum number of questions per test element, does not differentiate to minimum number per kind of question. There has been a virtual enormous quantity of bitching/moaning about the allegedly "dumbed-down" written test elements, some bitching/moaning at a vitriolic level. The current hot topic in United States amateur radio policy is NPRM 05-143 on the elimination/retention of the morse code test. That NPRM does NOT state that written test elements will be changed. Focus, please. If you wish to Petition the FCC to change this alleged "dumb- down" issue, feel free. The FCC even explains the procedure for Petitioning in their regulations, Title 47 Code of Federal Regulations. Meanwhile, contact the VEC QPC for changes to the present-day multiple-choice public question-answer Pool. |
From: Michael Coslo on Sep 20, 8:09 am
Frank Gilliland wrote: Now that's not an argument either for or against the dropping of the code requirement. Like I said before, it's no big deal. And like I also said before, what -IS- a big deal is the dumbing down of the written test. Sometimes I think that the "dumbing down" is a factor of the maturing Ham looking at how things appear from the vantage point of time and accumulated knowledge. Excellent point and very true to the general situation. They might remember the test seeming very difficult when they took it. Then they look at modern tests (if they even do look at them) and conclude that the modern tests are exceptionally easy, when it is simply that they have learned much in the years that have passed since their own tests. Some infer that they were ALWAYS knowledgeable experts. :-) They were NEVER "dumb" and Their Tests were of the highest, most difficult professional standards possible. yawn I still don't understand why there is so much bitching (from both sides) about the code test yet almost no discussion about the 'memory' test. Anyone care to explain that? When we do attempt to discuss something else, for some reason or another, it gets redirected to the Morse code issue. NPRM 05-143 is the hottest POLICY topic for United States amateur radio right now. It is concerned solely on the elimination or retention of the morse code test for any class amateur radio license examination. It is NOT concerned with changing any of the written test elements. In case you're wondering, THIS newsgroup was originally created JUST FOR the code test issue, years ago when rec.radio.amateur.miscellaneous filled up too much with code test discussions/arguments/flaming. |
Phil Kane wrote:
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 11:35:07 -0400, Michael Coslo wrote: Ahh, so we need another system to connect to the rest of the nation then? I still find this whole thing another thinly designed bandwidth grab, when in reality is that the system concept is not working. Seems like grass is greener stuff to me, unless there is something majik about 700 MHz, and the TV channels. We heard the same mazurka about the 800 MHz channels ten years ago. Even amongst those clients of ours who went for 800 MHz systems, some of those actually work well as a regional public safety intercommunication system when designed and used correctly. Right! I haven't heard enough of his plan to make a judgement, but why don't we just make this grand schem work there? One of the major pronlems that seems to surface every time in every field is "turf wars" a.k.a. "protect my local interests". States rights too? A lot of the places that have a lot of the potential for disaster don't take to kindly to the evil Federal guvmint meddling in their affairs. Notwithstanding the extortionate user fees paid to the agency who holds the actual license, the only ones who really profited from that exercise was Motorola. (APCO members on here will certainly recognize this.) Enter now 700 MHz stage-left...... These things are so predictable. 1. Disaster happens We have to blame someone, and since the Democreeps aren't in power (we'll still blame 'em just for good practice) so we need to find a scapegoat. 2. AHA! The problem came about because of Television broadcasters, Those no-goods! 3. I have a plan! Give me money. 4. Thank you, here's your system. Next disaster please...... 5. ......Those darn democrats! I guess I'm a little cynical today ;^) - Mike KB3EIA - |
Frank Gilliland wrote:
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 11:09:31 -0400, Michael Coslo wrote in : Frank Gilliland wrote: Now that's not an argument either for or against the dropping of the code requirement. Like I said before, it's no big deal. And like I also said before, what -IS- a big deal is the dumbing down of the written test. Sometimes I think that the "dumbing down" is a factor of the maturing Ham looking at how things appear from the vantage point of time and accumulated knowledge. They might remember the test seeming very difficult when they took it. Then they look at modern tests (if they even do look at them) and conclude that the modern tests are exceptionally easy, when it is simply that they have learned much in the years that have passed since their own tests. By "dumbing down" I was referring to the question pool being released to the public where it can be memorized to some extent. As for the level of technical expertise, I'm sure the content hasn't changed much over the years (except maybe for the addition of semiconductors). That is one interesting feature of modern society. If we are going to have standardized test- which seems to be gospel anymore, we have to publish the answers. One of the more amusing side effects of that is that the pools occasionally have an incorrect answer. Then we'll see it corrected. I wonder how many testees got credit for a wrong answer, and vice-versa? But then again, maybe the technical aspects of the test -should- be 'dumbed down'. Modern ham radios have digital PLL tuners, automatic antenna matchers, audio signal processing..... I even saw one that had a built-in Morse code decrypter. About all that's left for the ham to learn anymore is on-air protocol and antennas. It's no wonder so many hams are becoming appliance operators. Heck, the FCC would do just as well to turn the service into several CB bands and drop the license. The appliance issue *is* a problem IMO, and I think it is incumbent on the Ham to build things. But that's just me. While I'm not quite up to designing and building a full featured modern radio, I can and do design and build stuff around the shack Of course, I'm not about to give up my modern radio either. 8^) - Mike KB3EIA - |
On 20 Sep 2005 13:00:25 -0700, "
wrote in .com: From: Frank Gilliland on Sep 20, 4:09 am On 19 Sep 2005 17:28:11 -0700, " snip Show us by documented fact that morse code manual radiotelegraphy is IN USE by radio services other than amateur radio TODAY. Morse is required for the Public Mobile Services (Part 22), the International Fixed Public Radiocommunication Services (Part 23), satellite uplinks (ATIS, Part 25), and other services including Experimental, Special Broadcast, etc. Morse is also a requirement for a Commercial Radio Operators License (Part 13). "IN USE," Frank. :-) I do not find any reference to manual morse code radiotelegraphy in Part 22, Public Mobile Radio Service. "Codes" are stated, but those are NOT "morse codes." Sec. 22.313(c): "Station identification must be transmitted by telephony using the English language or by telegraphy using the international Morse code....." Part 23, International Fixed Public Radio Service, does have reference to manual morse code (International variety, same as defined for amateur radio) IF and only IF the transmitter license is specifically designated as "radiotelegraph" with that emission. It's used for both radiotelegraph stations -and- radiotelephone stations (Sec. 23.37(d)(i) & (iii), respectively). I do not find any specific reference to manual morse code in Part 25, Satellite Communications Radio Service. Where is the requirement for a commercial radiotelegrapher license there? Morse code is used for ATIS so the receiver doesn't have to be automated like the transmitter. Note: Satellite Communications allocated bands are all in the microwave region and that is highly unlikely to be used with manual on-off keying of a transmitter. I did mention that a communication requires both a sender -AND- a receiver, did I not? Part 13 defines ALL the Commercial Radio Operator licenses and is not a radio service per se. Radiotelegraph (Commercial) licenses require specific skill levels tested for each of three classes. Radiotelephone (Commercial) and GMDSS operator licenses do NOT require manual morse code skill testing. Nevertheless, what you are suggesting is that a radiotelegraph operator's certificate is usable only on the ham bands. It isn't. Morse is used in maritime and other commercial radio services. Yes, there are automatic morse code keyers in use in various radio services still, such as in Aviation Radio Service, about as many as there were such stations a half century ago. As such they are satisfying very OLD regulatory requirements and have all the usefulness of teats on a boar hog. Those keep on working because they are simple repetitive appliances to a transmitter, no different (but less complex) than a "fox test" generator for TTY. Pilots of aircraft don't "identify" VOR radionavigation transmitters by morse code in normal use, they simply dial up the channel as shown on their aeronautical charts and the ground station is either there or not there; frequency/channel assignments have been done to prevent interference with other ground radionavigation frequencies/channels even at the extreme distances possible with high altitude flying. I wrote "IN USE" in all captitals on purpose. Where, other than on the Great Lakes in maritime service, is morse code USED for communications in the United States? I take it you don't have a scanner. If you did, and listened to many of the VHF PSP freqs you would occassionally hear a brief automated station ID in Morse, as required by law. It's also used quite a bit in maritime service since Morse has developed into a universal language. The point is that Morse -IS USED- in other services besides Amateur radio. That's a fact, and it's sufficient to fulfill your request. I should also point out that every communication needs a sender, a receiver, and a message. Although manual Morse may not be -required- to send or receive the message, Morse is used so the communication -can- be done manually by either the sender or receiver (or both) should the automatic systems fail. The ORIGINAL morse code was all numbers and "recorded" by an ink pen on paper. No hearing was required. Morse's financial backer, Alfred Vail, is said to have suggested the addition of letters and punctuation plus making shorter code characters in line with printers' type case arrangements. The early WIRED telegraph systems primarily used MANUAL transmission and reception. Very long distance services, such as by undersea cable, used recorded transmission and reception primarily to increase throughput, allowing brief breaks for operators to answer more important calls of nature. Punched paper tape was in use for TTY by 1904. That year marks the first recorded instance of demonstration of an Exclusive-OR "scrambling" of one clear-text message with a "keying" tape (duplicate at the receiving end) for encryption by non-crypto-specialist operators. P-tape has been standard on TTY and RTTY message communications for well over a half century. It is quick, convenient, and one TTY operator could tend a dozen P-tape TTY machines in continuous duty. Electromechanical teleprinters are on the way to extinction, replaced by better, faster all- electronic message means. Thanks for the history lesson. But my point was that learning Morse isn't always for the purpose of tapping out a message on the key. Any message sent by Morse, automated or not, has to be understood by the receiver of the message. Since Morse decryption technology is decades behind automated Morse-sending gadetry, it is well advised for anyone intending to receive such a message to learn the code -regardless- of whether he ever intends to send one. The fact is, morse is very much alive within amateur radio. It has AGED. It will eventually become terminal. Doubtful. It WILL eventually become terminal. The last mighty macho morseman will have the last morse code key pried out of cold, dead fingers. It will wind up as exhibits in a museum, those exhibits already in progress. Morse code is the simplest and most univeral method of radio communication, but is hardly limited to radio -- don't forget that it was invented for -wire- telegraphy. I've been reminding folks of that for years. 1844 is the year the first Morse-Vail Telegraph system went into operation. COMMERCIAL (i.e., professional, service for money) I might add. It has also been used extensively with optical and other types of communication. Not "extensively" except in maritime talk-between-ships by light blinker. Ground-pounders have used Morse code for decades -- that's why there's a momentary pushbutton on so many flashlights. Signal flags are traditional in navies but those are not "morse code." Two-flag (two-torch at night) manual semaphore was used in the U.S. Army prior to our Civil War; the torch over crossed signal flags is still the collar insignia of the Army Signal Corps. However, that was NOT by "morse code" but by position of the semaphore indicators relative to the operator's body to denote the various characters. Various forms of semaphore signaling, even to construction of networks for same, was done for over a century PRIOR to the first wired telegraphy systems. NONE of those used "morse code" anywhere close to what morse code is today. Thanks for the second history lesson. But who suggested semaphore was the same as Morse code? Native American Indian smoke signals did NOT use "morse code." Again, who suggested any such thing? The electronic "remote control" generally uses a pulse train code to control a variety of electronics using infra-red "carrier" or an RF carrier. That is by on-off keying but such keying has NEVER used any "morse code." On-off keying of a carrier is a supply-economic for battery-powered remotes. .......and this is going where? It has existed since before radio was invented, continues to exist outside the sphere of radio, and certainly won't die if it's abandoned as a requirement for radio. "Morse code" predated the first demonstration of radio as a communications medium by 52 years of USE. There are NO working morse code telegraph circuits in the United States in continuous communications service. NONE. It has been an internal practice in commercial communications to denote teleprinter services as "telegraph" for over a half century, leading some to presume that such "telegraph" services still "use morse code modes." They do not. No argument. What's your point? That Morse code needs to have commercial sponsorship to exist? But as long as Morse code exists, radio operators will continue to use it. Yes, and riding horses is still done in equestrian pursuits (but not as an everyday transport), I think the Amish would disagree with you, as would a lot of country folk here in the West. smoothbore musketry and bows-arrows are still used for hunting (but not as a regular means of killing game), and parks still have real steam train rides (but not for regular passenger conveyance). Until the electronic terminals became economic, the electromechanical teleprinter systems carried the vast majority of message communications for over a half century...for telegrams, for government, military, business, commerce, and private communications. Some hobbyists still insist on using vacuum tube circuitry for low-power (relatively speaking) uses in radio, despite the proven fact that solid-state circuit design results in lower power demand, smaller physical size, more economy, and generally superior performance. Yet fire and the wheel are still quite popular. Go figure. Now that's not an argument either for or against the dropping of the code requirement. Like I said before, it's no big deal. And like I also said before, what -IS- a big deal is the dumbing down of the written test. I still don't understand why there is so much bitching (from both sides) about the code test yet almost no discussion about the 'memory' test. Anyone care to explain that? On the contrary, the common PCTA expression is that the Pool of published questions has "dumbed down" amateur radio license examinations to an absurd level. [Pools exist for both VEC and COLEM] I haven't seen this year's COLEM question pool. Got a link? They illogically connect dropping of the code test with "dropping of the written test" by direct statement or by infrerence. I have done no such thing. Maybe you missed my position the first six times I stated it -- I really don't care about the code test. The only reason I defend it is because it's so much easier to learn the code and pass the test than to bitch and moan about it year after year after year. They also forget that the VEC Question Pool Committee devises ALL the Pool questions and answers, said VEC being composed of licensed radio amateurs. The FCC now specifies only a minimum number of questions per test element, does not differentiate to minimum number per kind of question. There has been a virtual enormous quantity of bitching/moaning about the allegedly "dumbed-down" written test elements, some bitching/moaning at a vitriolic level. All I read in this newsgroup is bitching and moaning (from both sides) about the code requirement. In which newsgroup is all the bitching and moaning about the written test occuring? The current hot topic in United States amateur radio policy is NPRM 05-143 on the elimination/retention of the morse code test. That NPRM does NOT state that written test elements will be changed. Focus, please. I changed the focus. There are plenty of other threads that focus on your preferred topic. If you don't like the topic that I have chosen to address then don't reply. If you wish to Petition the FCC to change this alleged "dumb- down" issue, feel free. The FCC even explains the procedure for Petitioning in their regulations, Title 47 Code of Federal Regulations. Meanwhile, contact the VEC QPC for changes to the present-day multiple-choice public question-answer Pool. I'm familiar with the petition process, thanks. And likewise, if you don't like any discussion of the written test requirements (which I believe falls within the category of 'policy') then feel free to petition the appropriate authority. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
Dave Heil wrote: wrote: From: "Alun L. Palmer" on Sun 18 Sep 2005 07:19 " wrote in From: Alun L. Palmer on Sep 17, 8:07 am The only point where I differ is that I'm personally convinced that abolition of the Morse test would have been carried in the ITU in 1993 if it could only have got to the floor. Those who delayed it did so precisely because they knew that. That's a typical tactic, found at any large conclave/conference. The ITU is one country one vote, so the US is no more influential there than Monaco or Luxembourg. Only when it comes to the VOTE ITSELF. It's fairly obvious that the larger-population countries have larger delegates (and the 'guests' who are not supposed to have any voting power). With more people in a delegation, the more people there are to meet with other delegations away from the assembly and do one-on-one salesmanship for "their side." Then you have the many months prior to a WRC where the delegates have been largely identified on the ITU listings (plus their hotels/lodgings per delegation identified) so that "salesmanship" can be applied. The major "salesmanship" effort is on OTHER radio matters, of course, and - contrary to specific-interest-on-ham-radio groups - is of a greater international importance in radio regulations. The IARU as a collective body is larger than the ARRL and their opinion-influence on the voting delegates is stronger than the ARRL's influence. The ARRL began the IARU and the IARU permanent headquarters is at Newington. Kind of like the Radio League of Nations! Most IARU member societies are very, very small. They don't have many members and they don't have much money. The IARU HQ frequently donates money so that third world delegates may attend. Kind of like the League of Nations! In the past, one of these was Cassandra Davies 9L1YL, President of SLARS (Sierra Leone Amateur Radio Society), also a licensing official at SLET, the Sierra Leonian PTT. Many SLARS members were non-Sierra Leonian. Average meeting attendance was between fifteen to twenty radio amateurs. Kind of like the Marianas Amateur Radio Club, MARC. Ask Jim about it sometime. In Botswana, no natives of Botswana were BARS members. Oh, my! Sounds elitist. There were no indigenous radio amateurs in Botswana despite yearly BARS classes in theory, regs and morse. Oh, my! Sounds like institutionalized SOMETHING. Most licensees were German, British, Indian, South African or American resident citizens. Hmmm? Them license classes must not have been very effective. Guinea-Bissau had no resident radio amateurs much of the time. During my two years in Bissau, there was a Swedish op, Bengt Lundgren J52BLU in country for about four months. There was a DXpedition to the Bijagos Islands by an Italian group which lasted a matter of days. For the balance of my tour, I was the only licensed radio amateur in the country. I wasn't the only licensed amateur in Korea, Guam, nor Somalia. When the IARU came out against amateur radio licensing code testing a year prior to WRC-03, that sent a "message" (in effect) to other administrations' delegates, a "set-up" for the future voting. The IARU had not yet been of a consensus on S25 modernization the decade before WRC-03. It wasn't much of a message for most African countries delegates. Too busy cashing in on the foreign aid packages, probably. One problem of American radio amateurs is that they do NOT, as a general rule, look any further than American ham radio magazines for "news." You state that as a fact. It can only be an assumption on your part. The internet has made it very easy for radio amateurs to find other sources for news. Excellent point! Please point me to the newsletter of the SLARS. Please! While the ITU has a number of easily- downloadable files on regulatory information, most of it is available only to "members" on a subscription basis (members would be "recognized" administration delegations or delegates). So, Joe Average Ham wouldn't be likely to subscribe in order to obtain the material. And SLARS members? They receive them via 1st class mail? They don't much bother with the FCC freely-available information even though the FCC is their government's radio regulatory agency. There's another assumption on your part. Hmmmm? There's a trend in your claiming that Len assumes too much. News that does get down to the individual-licensee level is thus rather "filtered" by intermediate parties. Filtered how, Len? Do you mean that only information of interest to radio amateurs is published, as a rule, in amateur radio magazines? Why would it be otherwise? Nuts and Volts used to publish some amatuer material. The Mother Earth News used to publish amateur mateiral. Now most of it comes via just a few mouthpeices. That makes it very easy for them to NOT spend time looking for news elsewhere and they get to play with their radios longer. :-) Do commercial ops and governmental ops have the same problem? Do they waste time and isn't it easy for them to cut down on the time they have to play with their radios? :-) What? No trade mags for the pros? It's also a ripe area for any group to do influence-control on many without them realizing what is happening. I had a feeling that we'd get down to your intimating that there's some conspiracy to keep radio amateurs in the dark. Dave K8MN No conspiracy. Most choose to be in the dark. |
Frank Gilliland wrote: Doubtful. Morse code is the simplest and most univeral method of radio communication, but is hardly limited to radio -- don't forget that it was invented for -wire- telegraphy. It has also been used extensively with optical and other types of communication. It has existed since before radio was invented, continues to exist outside the sphere of radio, and certainly won't die if it's abandoned as a requirement for radio. But as long as Morse code exists, radio operators will continue to use it. Now that's not an argument either for or against the dropping of the code requirement. Like I said before, it's no big deal. And like I also said before, what -IS- a big deal is the dumbing down of the written test. I still don't understand why there is so much bitching (from both sides) about the code test yet almost no discussion about the 'memory' test. Anyone care to explain that? Frank, I thought that you weren't a ham? |
Frank Gilliland wrote: No argument. What's your point? That Morse code needs to have commercial sponsorship to exist? "This dash brought to you by Viagra. It's 3 times longer than your average dit," |
|
K=D8HB wrote: http://tinyurl.com/drbfk 73, de Hans, K0HB Hans, the police, sherrif, fire, EMS, dog catcher, etc, can only procure the systems offered to them by Motorola, GE, Vertex, Johnson, etc. |
K=D8HB wrote: "Michael Coslo" wrote How we gonna connect the nation at 700 MHz? Hi Mike, The article had nothing to do with "connecting the nation". It has to do= with regional interoperability, the very thing that Katrina aftermath found la= rgely inadequate. 73, de Hans, K0HB Hans, as a retired CPO, you know as well as anybody else that interoperability of any service is a problem. Recall Grenada where a grunt used his Sprint calling card on a commercial line to call the Pentagon and request an Air Force air-strike on a target. Good grief! It's not just about grunts dying anymore. You'd think after 09/11/2001 we'd have fast-tracked this stuff! |
From: on Sep 20, 3:51 pm
Dave Heil wrote: wrote: From: "Alun L. Palmer" on Sun 18 Sep 2005 07:19 " wrote in From: Alun L. Palmer on Sep 17, 8:07 am The IARU as a collective body is larger than the ARRL and their opinion-influence on the voting delegates is stronger than the ARRL's influence. The ARRL began the IARU and the IARU permanent headquarters is at Newington. Kind of like the Radio League of Nations! Almost...IARU was formed in 1925 (according to them...but what do they know?). President Wilson helped push for the League of Nations. Most IARU member societies are very, very small. They don't have many members and they don't have much money. The IARU HQ frequently donates money so that third world delegates may attend. Kind of like the League of Nations! Wow! "Very, very small." Like the RSGB, the JARL, the organizations of Germany, Australia, New Zealand...all "very, very small" countries. Tsk, tsk, for an ex-State Department person, Heil sure doesn't get lavish on diplomacy... In the past, one of these was Cassandra Davies 9L1YL, President of SLARS (Sierra Leone Amateur Radio Society), also a licensing official at SLET, the Sierra Leonian PTT. Many SLARS members were non-Sierra Leonian. Average meeting attendance was between fifteen to twenty radio amateurs. Kind of like the Marianas Amateur Radio Club, MARC. Ask Jim about it sometime. That's Jim Kehler, KH2D, to readers who weren't here years ago. But, I wasn't aware that Side-Looking Airborne Radar Systems (SLARS) were anything but a hard-point attached accessory... In Botswana, no natives of Botswana were BARS members. Oh, my! Sounds elitist. Could be a religious-ethical thing...no hanging out in BARS. There were no indigenous radio amateurs in Botswana despite yearly BARS classes in theory, regs and morse. Oh, my! Sounds like institutionalized SOMETHING. Most licensees were German, British, Indian, South African or American resident citizens. They could have formed EARS...Embassy Amateur Radio Society. Hmmm? Them license classes must not have been very effective. Nor the society...nobody asked "ya got yer ears ON?" Guinea-Bissau had no resident radio amateurs much of the time. During my two years in Bissau, there was a Swedish op, Bengt Lundgren J52BLU in country for about four months. There was a DXpedition to the Bijagos Islands by an Italian group which lasted a matter of days. For the balance of my tour, I was the only licensed radio amateur in the country. I wasn't the only licensed amateur in Korea, Guam, nor Somalia. Heil wanted EXCLUSIVITY. :-) The major export of the country of Guinea-Bisseau is Cashews. That's nuts. When the IARU came out against amateur radio licensing code testing a year prior to WRC-03, that sent a "message" (in effect) to other administrations' delegates, a "set-up" for the future voting. The IARU had not yet been of a consensus on S25 modernization the decade before WRC-03. It wasn't much of a message for most African countries delegates. Too busy cashing in on the foreign aid packages, probably. ...or loading up outgoing ships with cashews. That's nuts. You state that as a fact. It can only be an assumption on your part. The internet has made it very easy for radio amateurs to find other sources for news. Excellent point! Please point me to the newsletter of the SLARS. Please! So, Joe Average Ham wouldn't be likely to subscribe in order to obtain the material. And SLARS members? They receive them via 1st class mail? They don't much bother with the FCC freely-available information even though the FCC is their government's radio regulatory agency. There's another assumption on your part. Hmmmm? There's a trend in your claiming that Len assumes too much. Yeah..."non-participants" aren't supposed to know anything. :-) News that does get down to the individual-licensee level is thus rather "filtered" by intermediate parties. Filtered how, Len? Do you mean that only information of interest to radio amateurs is published, as a rule, in amateur radio magazines? Why would it be otherwise? Nuts and Volts used to publish some amatuer material. The Mother Earth News used to publish amateur mateiral. Now most of it comes via just a few mouthpeices. Actually it comes from a HANDFUL of EDITORS (and their publishers) who do the deciding. Always has. ARRL has complete control over the output of its own media. Always has. If those few editors and their Associates put the words together in the right way, they will CONVINCE the readership that they are getting "all" the news. Heil just doesn't get it...even at his advanced age... Do commercial ops and governmental ops have the same problem? Do they waste time and isn't it easy for them to cut down on the time they have to play with their radios? :-) What? No trade mags for the pros? Actually there are quite a few "controlled subscription" trade magazines (free subscription to those IN the industry). Heil doesn't understand that professionals in radio work in NON-hobby activity...for money. Maybe State plays with radios on the job? I'm not sure if the NAB (National Association of Broadcasters) has free periodicals...maybe they do to Members. Radio and TV broadcasting only SEEMS like "playing around" to NON-pros. It's also a ripe area for any group to do influence-control on many without them realizing what is happening. I had a feeling that we'd get down to your intimating that there's some conspiracy to keep radio amateurs in the dark. No conspiracy. Most choose to be in the dark. It's the effect of the Darkness-Emitting Diode (DED) used by morsemen to show the state of their keying. Morse = DED. :-) [Heil doesn't have a sense of humor so the above is wasted on him] |
" wrote in
oups.com: From: "Alun L. Palmer" on Sat 17 Sep 2005 22:29 "Dan/W4NTI" wrote in No "Alun L. Palmer" Lennie the loser is transfixed on the anti-CW testing campaign. He can not carry on a discussion that has NOTHING to do with CW or testing without out bringing it into the discussion. Get it now? Why put my name in quotes? Plug it into the FCC database and it will come back with N3KIP, and show you that I am an Extra. Do you think I'm someone else? Jeswald wants all to be identified by their "tribal name" (the callsign in a ham radio group). When the "tribe" gathers, all must stay within the "tribal rules." :-) I[f] Len is transfixed on this issue, I suspect it's because he really wants a ham licence, despite his protestations to the contrary. "Transfixed?" No. Just terribly, terribly PERSISTENT. :-) Considering that I've been involved with communications (of many kinds, not just radio) for a half-century plus, and starting out with full exposure to HF radio communications at a professional level, the METHODS of communications are more important to me than the ABILITY for personal communications. Radiotelegraphy was the very first - and ONLY possible way - to communicate by radio. That was a mere 109 years ago, before all of electronics had rather revolutionized our society, before the vacuum tube was invented, well before the transistor was invented. Telegraphy itself is 161 years old. It had become mature at 52 years when the first radio communication was demonstrated. It is primitive, simplistic in method, very slow compared to normal human speech, prone to human error at either end of a radio circuit, and requires radiotelegraphy specialists at both ends in order to communicate written words. Its efficacy is largely fantasy, an artificiality promoted by much-earlier radiotelegraphers using their own abilities as role models for all others to follow. Radiotelegraphy's last stand in radio is AMATEUR radio license testing; all other radio services have given up on using radiotelegraphy for communications. [the largest use of radiotelegraphy is the long pulse code of the keyless auto entry "fob" transmitter, but that is for control, not communications and does not use the Morse-Vail coding] Modernization should be the order of the day, not the odor of antiquity. The "necessity" of testing for morse code cognition to operate any radio transmitter at 30 MHz or below is an old artificiality of the mind, abandoned by all other radio services, technically invalid, kept alive only by the egos and fantasies and conditioned thinking of those needing something, some ability to be "better than average." It is out of date, out of time, out of steam, and out to lunch. Do "I" want a ham license? Yes and no. :-) I've had a commercial license since '56, tested for it at a real FCC field office (not a COLEM), had experience in operating HF, VHF, UHF, microwave radios prior to that, more afterwards including LF, VLF and microwaves on up to 4mm wavelengths. I've retired from a career in radio-electronics design engineering (but only for regular hours). I've been a hobbyist in radio-electronics since 1947, something on-going. I don't really NEED an amateur license to fulfill my Life's Ambition. But other licensees DEMAND that I get one in order to comment on regulations (contrary to what the U.S. Constitution says). Maybe I "should" get one? :-) "Tribal rules," ey what? :-) dit dit Wait until the code test is abolished, and then get your Extra. That will annoy them to the maximum extent! |
Frank Gilliland wrote in
: On 20 Sep 2005 13:00:25 -0700, " wrote in .com: From: Frank Gilliland on Sep 20, 4:09 am On 19 Sep 2005 17:28:11 -0700, " snip Show us by documented fact that morse code manual radiotelegraphy is IN USE by radio services other than amateur radio TODAY. Morse is required for the Public Mobile Services (Part 22), the International Fixed Public Radiocommunication Services (Part 23), satellite uplinks (ATIS, Part 25), and other services including Experimental, Special Broadcast, etc. Morse is also a requirement for a Commercial Radio Operators License (Part 13). "IN USE," Frank. :-) I do not find any reference to manual morse code radiotelegraphy in Part 22, Public Mobile Radio Service. "Codes" are stated, but those are NOT "morse codes." Sec. 22.313(c): "Station identification must be transmitted by telephony using the English language or by telegraphy using the international Morse code....." Part 23, International Fixed Public Radio Service, does have reference to manual morse code (International variety, same as defined for amateur radio) IF and only IF the transmitter license is specifically designated as "radiotelegraph" with that emission. It's used for both radiotelegraph stations -and- radiotelephone stations (Sec. 23.37(d)(i) & (iii), respectively). I do not find any specific reference to manual morse code in Part 25, Satellite Communications Radio Service. Where is the requirement for a commercial radiotelegrapher license there? Morse code is used for ATIS so the receiver doesn't have to be automated like the transmitter. Note: Satellite Communications allocated bands are all in the microwave region and that is highly unlikely to be used with manual on-off keying of a transmitter. I did mention that a communication requires both a sender -AND- a receiver, did I not? Part 13 defines ALL the Commercial Radio Operator licenses and is not a radio service per se. Radiotelegraph (Commercial) licenses require specific skill levels tested for each of three classes. Radiotelephone (Commercial) and GMDSS operator licenses do NOT require manual morse code skill testing. Nevertheless, what you are suggesting is that a radiotelegraph operator's certificate is usable only on the ham bands. It isn't. Morse is used in maritime and other commercial radio services. Yes, there are automatic morse code keyers in use in various radio services still, such as in Aviation Radio Service, about as many as there were such stations a half century ago. As such they are satisfying very OLD regulatory requirements and have all the usefulness of teats on a boar hog. Those keep on working because they are simple repetitive appliances to a transmitter, no different (but less complex) than a "fox test" generator for TTY. Pilots of aircraft don't "identify" VOR radionavigation transmitters by morse code in normal use, they simply dial up the channel as shown on their aeronautical charts and the ground station is either there or not there; frequency/channel assignments have been done to prevent interference with other ground radionavigation frequencies/channels even at the extreme distances possible with high altitude flying. I wrote "IN USE" in all captitals on purpose. Where, other than on the Great Lakes in maritime service, is morse code USED for communications in the United States? I take it you don't have a scanner. If you did, and listened to many of the VHF PSP freqs you would occassionally hear a brief automated station ID in Morse, as required by law. It's also used quite a bit in maritime service since Morse has developed into a universal language. The point is that Morse -IS USED- in other services besides Amateur radio. That's a fact, and it's sufficient to fulfill your request. I should also point out that every communication needs a sender, a receiver, and a message. Although manual Morse may not be -required- to send or receive the message, Morse is used so the communication -can- be done manually by either the sender or receiver (or both) should the automatic systems fail. The ORIGINAL morse code was all numbers and "recorded" by an ink pen on paper. No hearing was required. Morse's financial backer, Alfred Vail, is said to have suggested the addition of letters and punctuation plus making shorter code characters in line with printers' type case arrangements. The early WIRED telegraph systems primarily used MANUAL transmission and reception. Very long distance services, such as by undersea cable, used recorded transmission and reception primarily to increase throughput, allowing brief breaks for operators to answer more important calls of nature. Punched paper tape was in use for TTY by 1904. That year marks the first recorded instance of demonstration of an Exclusive-OR "scrambling" of one clear-text message with a "keying" tape (duplicate at the receiving end) for encryption by non-crypto-specialist operators. P-tape has been standard on TTY and RTTY message communications for well over a half century. It is quick, convenient, and one TTY operator could tend a dozen P-tape TTY machines in continuous duty. Electromechanical teleprinters are on the way to extinction, replaced by better, faster all- electronic message means. Thanks for the history lesson. But my point was that learning Morse isn't always for the purpose of tapping out a message on the key. Any message sent by Morse, automated or not, has to be understood by the receiver of the message. Since Morse decryption technology is decades behind automated Morse-sending gadetry, it is well advised for anyone intending to receive such a message to learn the code -regardless- of whether he ever intends to send one. The fact is, morse is very much alive within amateur radio. It has AGED. It will eventually become terminal. Doubtful. It WILL eventually become terminal. The last mighty macho morseman will have the last morse code key pried out of cold, dead fingers. It will wind up as exhibits in a museum, those exhibits already in progress. Morse code is the simplest and most univeral method of radio communication, but is hardly limited to radio -- don't forget that it was invented for -wire- telegraphy. I've been reminding folks of that for years. 1844 is the year the first Morse-Vail Telegraph system went into operation. COMMERCIAL (i.e., professional, service for money) I might add. It has also been used extensively with optical and other types of communication. Not "extensively" except in maritime talk-between-ships by light blinker. Ground-pounders have used Morse code for decades -- that's why there's a momentary pushbutton on so many flashlights. Signal flags are traditional in navies but those are not "morse code." Two-flag (two-torch at night) manual semaphore was used in the U.S. Army prior to our Civil War; the torch over crossed signal flags is still the collar insignia of the Army Signal Corps. However, that was NOT by "morse code" but by position of the semaphore indicators relative to the operator's body to denote the various characters. Various forms of semaphore signaling, even to construction of networks for same, was done for over a century PRIOR to the first wired telegraphy systems. NONE of those used "morse code" anywhere close to what morse code is today. Thanks for the second history lesson. But who suggested semaphore was the same as Morse code? Native American Indian smoke signals did NOT use "morse code." Again, who suggested any such thing? The electronic "remote control" generally uses a pulse train code to control a variety of electronics using infra-red "carrier" or an RF carrier. That is by on-off keying but such keying has NEVER used any "morse code." On-off keying of a carrier is a supply-economic for battery-powered remotes. ......and this is going where? It has existed since before radio was invented, continues to exist outside the sphere of radio, and certainly won't die if it's abandoned as a requirement for radio. "Morse code" predated the first demonstration of radio as a communications medium by 52 years of USE. There are NO working morse code telegraph circuits in the United States in continuous communications service. NONE. It has been an internal practice in commercial communications to denote teleprinter services as "telegraph" for over a half century, leading some to presume that such "telegraph" services still "use morse code modes." They do not. No argument. What's your point? That Morse code needs to have commercial sponsorship to exist? But as long as Morse code exists, radio operators will continue to use it. Yes, and riding horses is still done in equestrian pursuits (but not as an everyday transport), I think the Amish would disagree with you, as would a lot of country folk here in the West. smoothbore musketry and bows-arrows are still used for hunting (but not as a regular means of killing game), and parks still have real steam train rides (but not for regular passenger conveyance). Until the electronic terminals became economic, the electromechanical teleprinter systems carried the vast majority of message communications for over a half century...for telegrams, for government, military, business, commerce, and private communications. Some hobbyists still insist on using vacuum tube circuitry for low-power (relatively speaking) uses in radio, despite the proven fact that solid-state circuit design results in lower power demand, smaller physical size, more economy, and generally superior performance. Yet fire and the wheel are still quite popular. Go figure. Now that's not an argument either for or against the dropping of the code requirement. Like I said before, it's no big deal. And like I also said before, what -IS- a big deal is the dumbing down of the written test. I still don't understand why there is so much bitching (from both sides) about the code test yet almost no discussion about the 'memory' test. Anyone care to explain that? On the contrary, the common PCTA expression is that the Pool of published questions has "dumbed down" amateur radio license examinations to an absurd level. [Pools exist for both VEC and COLEM] I haven't seen this year's COLEM question pool. Got a link? They illogically connect dropping of the code test with "dropping of the written test" by direct statement or by infrerence. I have done no such thing. Maybe you missed my position the first six times I stated it -- I really don't care about the code test. The only reason I defend it is because it's so much easier to learn the code and pass the test than to bitch and moan about it year after year after year. They also forget that the VEC Question Pool Committee devises ALL the Pool questions and answers, said VEC being composed of licensed radio amateurs. The FCC now specifies only a minimum number of questions per test element, does not differentiate to minimum number per kind of question. There has been a virtual enormous quantity of bitching/moaning about the allegedly "dumbed-down" written test elements, some bitching/moaning at a vitriolic level. All I read in this newsgroup is bitching and moaning (from both sides) about the code requirement. In which newsgroup is all the bitching and moaning about the written test occuring? The current hot topic in United States amateur radio policy is NPRM 05-143 on the elimination/retention of the morse code test. That NPRM does NOT state that written test elements will be changed. Focus, please. I changed the focus. There are plenty of other threads that focus on your preferred topic. If you don't like the topic that I have chosen to address then don't reply. If you wish to Petition the FCC to change this alleged "dumb- down" issue, feel free. The FCC even explains the procedure for Petitioning in their regulations, Title 47 Code of Federal Regulations. Meanwhile, contact the VEC QPC for changes to the present-day multiple-choice public question-answer Pool. I'm familiar with the petition process, thanks. And likewise, if you don't like any discussion of the written test requirements (which I believe falls within the category of 'policy') then feel free to petition the appropriate authority. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- Morse code was originally intended to be a machine system, but hand sent Morse is too irregular. Machine sent Morse could be read by machine long ago and is certainly no problem now. |
"Dan/W4NTI" wrote in
. net: "Alun L. Palmer" wrote in message ... "Dan/W4NTI" wrote in link.net: No "Alun L. Palmer" Lennie the loser is transfixed on the anti-CW testing campaign. He can not carry on a discussion that has NOTHING to do with CW or testing without out bringing it into the discussion. Get it now? Dan/W4NTI "Alun L. Palmer" wrote in message ... " wrote in ups.com: From: Michael Coslo on Sep 16, 9:44 am an_old_friend wrote: Dan/W4NTI wrote: "an_old_friend" wrote in message Dan/W4NTI wrote: wrote in message From: Dan/W4NTI on Sep 13, 1:25 pm More BS from the non ham Lennie the loser. plonk Per SOP ignore any data insult any oposition Boring Dan realy getting boring As usual A-O-F you got it wrong. My problem with Lennie is he simply can't stay on subject. Spins everything that is said. And his one track mind of anti-CW and basically anti-ham rhetoric gets tired quickly. So I have decided to plonk him. He is not relevant to a serious discussion in this group, since he is not a member of the society. Dig it? Aagin SoP ranting form you, anyone different knows nothing of value Boring Dan Boring He has a point, Mark. There are people in this group who I don't regularly post to. There is a fringe element that seems to be really concerned with each others sexual habits, there is a group of Ham-baiters, and there are those who simply hate Amateurs. All my exchanges with him have become drearily predictable and not very interesting, at least to me. Poor baby. "Sore loser-ism" displayed for all to see. :-) The whines have been pressed from grapes of morsemen's wrath! I don't need the non-sequitars, the name calling, or the constant attempts to steer most every thread to CW testing. "Non sequitur." [from the Latin] Tsk, tsk, tsk. Coslo wishes to be "correct" in any discussion or argument? Not possible in an OPEN forum when his discussions and arguments are NOT winning/correct/valid or on the subject of amateur radio. Note: There exist OTHER forums for discussion of religion and general moral-ethical behavior. Those do not involve amateur radio per se, though, so it is best NOT to whine and carry on about losing discussions and arguments by spouting "you hate hams!" Mr. Anderson simply hates Hams. Incorrect. By so stating an incorrect falsehood, you create, in effect, a mild sort of character assassination which is not at all civil or mannerly. If you cannot stand to have your statements rebutted, talked against, or shown to be invalid or incorrect, then you have NO validity in engaging in uncivil character assassination by hurling falsehoods or even personal insults. That is okay, no one has to like Hams, me, or chunk light tuna. This newsgroup was NOT created to "like Michael Coslo" or to discuss various forms of comestible fish or meat. If you cannot stand the heat of debate or strong discussion, this newsgroup is NOT for you. So I seldom bother to reply. No point to it. Yet you engage in uncivil character assassination, being the hypocrite to your statement of saying "no point to it." Obviously you HAVE a "point." That is to personally insult those who disagree with you, such as saying "I hate hams!" I do not. Disagreement with you or anyone else on amateur radio policy is NOT "hating hams." Disagreement with certain policies expressed by the ARRL is NOT "hating hams." You seem to forget (conveniently) that I've been IN radio and electronics for a long time, first as a hobbyist, then as a radio operator and maintainer in the United States military. That military experience was enlightening and interesting enough to me to change my working career goal from industrial illustration to electronics engineering. That became my career and I've retired from regular hours at that. Radio and electronics hobby interests continue with me still, begun in 1947 and still with me 58 years later. Not having as much exposure to other forms of radio communication, certainly not for as long as I, you consider "radio" as being ONLY that which you are familiar with: Amateur radio, CB, cellular telephony. RADIO is far larger than that. Amateur radio is a small subset of the larger world of ALL radio communication. Radio amateurs can benefit by learning more about other forms of radio communication since all the physical principles are the same. You get bogged down on expressing your views almost entirely from the standards and practices of amateur radio as you know it. That is short-sighted and detrimental to overall policy - the adminstrative regulations imposed by authority of government law. At present, in terms of amateur radio policy, there is only ONE MAJOR topic before the Federal Communications Commission: NPRM 05-143 on the elimination or retention of the morse code test. Elimination of the morse code test threatens the traditional, mind-conditioned "soul" of many radio amateurs. Elimination of the code test will prove to be of much larger impact on the future of United States amateur radio than did the "restructuring" of mid-2000. That impact will be far longer than dozens of future hurricane disasters, far more reaching than some creation of "classes" of licenses that give status and prestige to certain radio amateurs. It spells "the end of ham radio" to some who are unable to change, unable to accept anything but their own comfortable fantasy of the "amateur community." That traditionalists refuse to recognize change is not my problem, not a requirement that I toady to those self-professed "experts of radio" by giving gratuitous praise on their mighty self- stated accomplishments. CHANGE has happened to ALL OTHER radio services. No God has divined that amateur radio refuse to change nor has the Divine Being blessed all those of "higher" classes wisdom and judgement because they've met older artificial standards imposed by older amateurs. In my career work I've seen tremendous change in as many forms of electronics and radio as I've been fortunate to experience (a great deal many). Nowhere have I experienced as hidebound and stubborn refusal of so many to accept change in amateur radio...and to blatantly insult the person of those seeking change, seeking modernization. Some in amateur radio seem to be the living embodiment of ultra-uber- conservatism. For an avocational activity that is NOT vital to the nation. Amateur radio is basically a hobby, a personal activity involving radio, a fun recreation but one that requires federal regulation due to the physical nature of electromagnetic radiation. If you think that amateur radio is "more" than that, you are mistaken and are living in an idealized but fantasy concept of an avocational pursuit. Not my problem. It is yours. It is Jeswald's. It is all those who think they "own" amateur radio as it is now. I'll admit that Len can be irritating at times, but this accusation that he hates radio hams is nonsensical. I've never seen any evidence of that. I also agree with his post that dropping the Morse test is THE big issue, more important than any restructuring, etc. I have taught ham radio classes, and IME the biggest factor in whether people succeed in the theory tests is whether they are genuinely interested in radio. If they just want to chat and aren't into radio as a medium, there's always CB. OTOH, it's absolutely possible to be totally radio obsessed and yet not give a fig for Sam Morse and his silly old bleeping noises. This is why it's a big issue. If CW had been on the ITU agenda back in '93, which it was supposed to be, s25 would have been amended back then, and we could have seen an explosion in our numbers before the Internet really caught on. As it is, ham radio is as old as yesterday's newspaper. In short, it's probably too late to get a major boost in numbers, even if we gave the licences away, which abolishing the code test certainly doesn't do (and no, I'm not proposing we make the theory easier). Why put my name in quotes? Plug it into the FCC database and it will come back with N3KIP, and show you that I am an Extra. Do you think I'm someone else? I Len is transfixed on this issue, I suspect it's because he really wants a ham licence, despite his protestations to the contrary. With all the Unknown Flying Objects it is hard to tell who is real and not Alun. Of course Lennie wants a ham license. But he has now blustered and BSed his way into a corner and can't find a way out. Dan/W4NTI AFAIK there is only one Alun Palmer with a ham radio licence anywhere in the world, so you can get my call directly from my name, provided you are careful with the spelling. You could find more than one call in more than one country if you try hard enough, but they are still just me. I think Len may get a ham licence, but we will have to wait and see. It's plain he's after HF though. |
|
From: on Tues 20 Sep 2005 15:35
wrote: From: Dan/W4NTI on Sep 16, 4:47 pm "Mike Coslo" wrote in message Dan/W4NTI wrote: See what we mean? He just can't stay on subject. Always brings in Morse code "Morsemen", same same all the time. Then he gets into his "Military career". Predictable as a Sun set. Right, so what is the point, eh? I can't think of a one actually Mike. Little pointy heads aren't good for thinking. Len, Len, Len, why must you antagonize those of lower intelligence? It's my "style," Brian. :-) You are right. I should be nicer. "Ya jes' cain't fix stupid!" Ain't no hope they get smarter... :-) Just because the express purpose of RRAP is to dis-cuss Morse Code Policy is no reason to actually dis-cuss Morse Code Policy. Get with it, OM! Understood! I'm dragging out my theology texts and foreign policy tracts and my camel's hair coat (to see if it can go through the eye of a needle...not easily...has to be disassembled). Hard to keep up with these Eclectic Morsemen...all trying to talk about ANYTHING but the morse code test! :-) |
It's also a ripe area for any group to do influence-control on many without them realizing what is happening. I had a feeling that we'd get down to your intimating that there's some conspiracy to keep radio amateurs in the dark. No conspiracy. Most choose to be in the dark. It's the effect of the Darkness-Emitting Diode (DED) used by morsemen to show the state of their keying. Morse = DED. :-) [Heil doesn't have a sense of humor so the above is wasted on him] =================================== Poor flatulent Lennie. A primo example of an Octogenarian "Gas Baggeous" malcontentus. |
wrote in message oups.com... From: Alun L. Palmer on Sep 20, 9:40 pm " wrote in snip Wait until the code test is abolished, and then get your Extra. That will annoy them to the maximum extent! Nah, I'm keeping them GUESSING right now...annoys the snit out of them! :-) What? No 16 kb response? Your flatulence must be at an ebb. |
On 20 Sep 2005 15:59:09 -0700, wrote in
. com: Frank Gilliland wrote: Doubtful. Morse code is the simplest and most univeral method of radio communication, but is hardly limited to radio -- don't forget that it was invented for -wire- telegraphy. It has also been used extensively with optical and other types of communication. It has existed since before radio was invented, continues to exist outside the sphere of radio, and certainly won't die if it's abandoned as a requirement for radio. But as long as Morse code exists, radio operators will continue to use it. Now that's not an argument either for or against the dropping of the code requirement. Like I said before, it's no big deal. And like I also said before, what -IS- a big deal is the dumbing down of the written test. I still don't understand why there is so much bitching (from both sides) about the code test yet almost no discussion about the 'memory' test. Anyone care to explain that? Frank, I thought that you weren't a ham? I'm not. I've been tempted for years to get my license so I can play around on 160m and UHF (nothing else sounds particulary interesting). But from what I have seen of ham radio in the past few years I don't really like it. Some hams seem to be absorbed in the electronics while others are into gab sessions; yet few hams are able to grasp the duality of 'radio communications'. And many hams think their amateur status is the defining characteristic of their existence. Heck, I was a BE for almost ten years but I don't advertise that fact on a T-shirt and baseball cap, or sign my name with a "B.E." at the end. I thought ham radio was supposed to be a recreational pursuit, not a religion or political ideology. But from what I see, it seems as if getting a license means you have to choose sides and fight a heated battle for what I would expect to be a HOBBY!!! ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
wrote:
KØHB wrote: http://tinyurl.com/drbfk 73, de Hans, K0HB Hans, the police, sherrif, fire, EMS, dog catcher, etc, can only procure the systems offered to them by Motorola, GE, Vertex, Johnson, etc. And a good point that is, Brian. They don't know exactly what is needed, and can only buy what they are told will work for them (this time) - Mike KB3EIA - |
|
Alun L. Palmer wrote:
Wait until the code test is abolished, and then get your Extra. That will annoy them to the maximum extent! Why on earth would that annoy me? BTW, Alun. I never did get an answer from you on that other question I asked. You approve or not? - Mike KB3EIA - |
"Michael Coslo" wrote This is what has me worried. If a new Whiz-bang system is going to work, it has to connect the whole nation. Mike, Come back to the discussion when you understand the term "regional interoperability". DOS Hint: It has absolutely nothing to do with "connect the whole nation". 73, de Hans, K0HB |
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 08:36:31 -0400, Michael Coslo wrote:
This is what has me worried. If a new Whiz-bang system is going to work, it has to connect the whole nation. When New Orleans is under water, they don't just need to talk to the locals, they need to get word out to the whole country - or at least the parts that can send help. That 'sposed to be the county and state Emergency Services and National Guard's task with their obscenely expensive Rockwell-Collins ALE HF radios that are 'sposed to be able to load up on a doorknob and have all sorts of DoD/FEMA channels to play on. We here in the back woods of Oregon have those in our county and state EOCs and we also have a gaggle of MARS folks who have those capabilities. Notice all the 'sposed in the above. Is it or is it not a people problem? -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
KØHB wrote:
"Michael Coslo" wrote This is what has me worried. If a new Whiz-bang system is going to work, it has to connect the whole nation. Mike, Come back to the discussion when you understand the term "regional interoperability". DOS Hint: It has absolutely nothing to do with "connect the whole nation". Hans, As the Czar of this discussion, how about TELLING us exactly what Obrien's regional interopability plan is? ;^) Even a little clue might help the dillatentes like me. And I'm telling you that IMO any system that doesn't connect areas larger than "regional" is not going to work under many circumstances. Of course I could be wrong. - Mike KB3EIA - |
Phil Kane wrote:
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 08:36:31 -0400, Michael Coslo wrote: This is what has me worried. If a new Whiz-bang system is going to work, it has to connect the whole nation. When New Orleans is under water, they don't just need to talk to the locals, they need to get word out to the whole country - or at least the parts that can send help. That 'sposed to be the county and state Emergency Services and National Guard's task with their obscenely expensive Rockwell-Collins ALE HF radios that are 'sposed to be able to load up on a doorknob and have all sorts of DoD/FEMA channels to play on. We here in the back woods of Oregon have those in our county and state EOCs and we also have a gaggle of MARS folks who have those capabilities. Notice all the 'sposed in the above. Is it or is it not a people problem? Yes, it is a people problem. Is that wonderful radio going to be at the other end when it is needed? Just having one on one end of the emergency isn't too helpful. Emergencies tend to be random, and tend to wipe out a lot of important things when they do happen. Maybe if we can make all of our disasters happen in predetermined places? - Mike KB3EIA - |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:28 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com