Dee Flint wrote:
"KØHB" wrote in message
k.net...

wrote


Kinda like people with no amateur radio license and little or no
Morse Code experience trying to impose their will on those of
us who *are* licensed and *do* use Morse Code.


I haven't seen anyone, licensed or not, propose a change in the
regulations that would affect my use of Morse code.

Beep beep
de Hans, K0HB


I have seen people proposing going entirely to voluntary band plans for HF
instead of regulated splits ala Europe and thus making all modes legal
throughout the entire band. That could impact your use of Morse during the
larger voice contests.

Couldn't possibly. CW always gets through.

With the number of hams in this country that could
be a mess.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Thus one of the original reasons to test for Morse. It limits the
number of people holding a license.

wrote in message
oups.com...

Dee Flint wrote:
"KØHB" wrote in message
k.net...

wrote


Kinda like people with no amateur radio license and little or no
Morse Code experience trying to impose their will on those of
us who *are* licensed and *do* use Morse Code.


I haven't seen anyone, licensed or not, propose a change in the
regulations that would affect my use of Morse code.

Beep beep
de Hans, K0HB


I have seen people proposing going entirely to voluntary band plans for HF
instead of regulated splits ala Europe and thus making all modes legal
throughout the entire band. That could impact your use of Morse during
the
larger voice contests.

Couldn't possibly. CW always gets through.

With the number of hams in this country that could
be a mess.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Thus one of the original reasons to test for Morse. It limits the
number of people holding a license.
________________________________________________
End Quote



No that was never one of the original reasons to test for Morse.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

Dee Flint wrote:
"KØHB" wrote in message
k.net...

wrote


Kinda like people with no amateur radio license and little or no
Morse Code experience trying to impose their will on those of
us who *are* licensed and *do* use Morse Code.


I haven't seen anyone, licensed or not, propose a change in the
regulations that would affect my use of Morse code.

Beep beep
de Hans, K0HB


I have seen people proposing going entirely to voluntary band plans forHF
instead of regulated splits ala Europe and thus making all modes legal
throughout the entire band. That could impact your use of Morse during
the
larger voice contests.

Couldn't possibly. CW always gets through.

With the number of hams in this country that could
be a mess.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Thus one of the original reasons to test for Morse. It limits the
number of people holding a license.
________________________________________________
End Quote



No that was never one of the original reasons to test for Morse.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Yes, it was. See Google.

wrote in message
ups.com...

Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

Dee Flint wrote:
"KØHB" wrote in message
k.net...

wrote


Kinda like people with no amateur radio license and little or no
Morse Code experience trying to impose their will on those of
us who *are* licensed and *do* use Morse Code.


I haven't seen anyone, licensed or not, propose a change in the
regulations that would affect my use of Morse code.

Beep beep
de Hans, K0HB


I have seen people proposing going entirely to voluntary band plans for
HF
instead of regulated splits ala Europe and thus making all modes legal
throughout the entire band. That could impact your use of Morse during
the
larger voice contests.

Couldn't possibly. CW always gets through.

With the number of hams in this country that could
be a mess.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Thus one of the original reasons to test for Morse. It limits the
number of people holding a license.
________________________________________________
End Quote



No that was never one of the original reasons to test for Morse.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Yes, it was. See Google.

__________________________________________________ _
End Quote


Google is not necessarily a reliable historical source, especially for
things that far in the past.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
cut

With the number of hams in this country that could
be a mess.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Thus one of the original reasons to test for Morse. It limits the
number of people holding a license.
________________________________________________
End Quote



No that was never one of the original reasons to test for Morse.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Yes, it was. See Google.

__________________________________________________ _
End Quote


Google is not necessarily a reliable historical source, especially for
things that far in the past.

Google may well have the answers here but they exist none the less and
can be found by anyone that is not so blind as not be willing to risk
there preconceived notions

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Morse Code test speeds for an amateur license were
increased from 10 wpm to 13 wpm, circa 1936, at the
request of the ARRL president in a letter to the FCC.
See Page 82 of "Fifty Years of ARRL" -- that's no
deep dark secret.

But it's not the whole story.

The request was for an increase from 10 wpm to
12-1/2 wpm. The FCC "rounded up" to 13 wpm
on their own.

The same letter requested more comprehensive
WRITTEN exams,
updated to the current technology then used by hams.
This was also granted by the FCC. There were only
three classes of license at the time, and all required
the same code speed.

The code speed increase is often remembered. The
written test improvement is rarely if ever
remembered.

This whole situation is frequently "spin doctored"
by those who say the code test speed was
raised to limit the number of amateurs.

For example, it was claimed by WA6VSE (now WK3C)
back in 1999 that:

"The ARRL wanted faster code tests PURELY as a
means of slowing growth in the amateur ranks, contending
that (with about 30,000 hams at the time) "the bands are
approaching saturation" ... clearly a ridiculous claim."

The saturation thing was a very realistic claim. And there
were 46,000 US hams, not 30,000.

Here's "the rest of the story":

The ham bands of the time consisted of 160, 80, 40, 20, 10,
5, 2-1/2 and 1-1/4 meters. Nothing else.

The bands below (shorter in wavelength) than 20 meters
were sparsely populated by hams, due to the difficulty of
getting simple 1930s equipment to work at all on
such frequencies, and the limited results that could be expected.

160 was popular with 'phone men, but a decent antenna
for that band was/is enormous and BCI could be a real devil.

10 was not as popular because of its varying propagation and
equipment difficulties.

So most hams were on 80, 40, and 20, using simple, Depression
era stations. A "pair of tens and a three tube blooper" (push pull
self-controlled oscillator transmitter and regenerative receiver)
was typical, and many hams did not even have that. Home-made
stations were common - a station that had no home-brew was
very rare.

Yes, crystal controlled, multistage transmitters and single signal
superhet receivers were in use, but only by a few wealthy hams.
There were even some amateurs using SSB voice, but the cost and
complexity of such a station kept their numbers to a handful. Those
hams who did use voice were almost all using double-sideband-
with-carrier AM, and took up 6 to 10 kc of the band each.

In practice, ham QSOs of the day rarely had both stations on the same
frequency. Many of the simple transmitters of the 1930s were not
designed for rapid QSY, and straying outside the band was too easy.
Crystal controlled operation was even less flexible.

So most QSOs used up two frequencies - what would be called "split"
operation today. This meant that the QRM was twice as bad as if
everyone had "zero beat" QSOs.

In order to make contacts under such conditions, it was necessary to
tune through the band pretty quickly, to hear any replies to a CQ.
This meant receivers with fast tuning rates and not too much
selectivity.

The result was that each QSO required much more room than today.

The total available spectrum on 80, 40, and 20 added up to only
1200 kilocycles. (We're talking about the '30s, so I use the historic
term).
Put 4600 hams (10% of the total licensees) on the air at once and each
would less than 250 cycles. The bands WERE approaching saturation.

Saturation was not the only problem. There were about 19,000 USA
licensed hams in 1929. Their number had grown slowly but steadily
from the post WW1 reactivation ten years earlier.

In 1929 there came new regs that dramatically cut the width of the
bands (40 was once 7-8 Mc., 20 was 14-16 Mc.) and required much
cleaner signals from ham stations. Yet over the next few years, in the
depths of the Great Depression, the number of US ham licenses almost
tripled, to 46,000. In addition, many newcomers left the hobby quickly

- at one point in the early '30s, turnover approached 40% per year.
That
meant most hams were newcomers, often technically and operationally
lacking in skills and knowledge. One less-than-knowledgeable ham
with a faulty transmitter could make a real mess on the band. Worse,
a ham who strayed out of the band could mess up nonamateur radio
services in a big way.

The very existence of amateur radio in the 1930s wasn't very secure.
Even after hams were allowed back on the air after WW1, there were
several efforts to kill off or severely restrict amateur radio all
through
the 1920s. Amateur radio did not achieve international treaty status
until 1927, and the price for that status was the extreme loss of
bandspace on 40 and 20 meters listed above. The 1927 treaty also
required clean signals, Morse Code testing and written testing of
all radio amateurs.

Those in the 1930s who knew the history understood that if amateurs
strayed
out of their bands too much, the same forces that had tried to kill
off amateur radio in the '20s might well succeed in the 1930s.

The idea was to slow the rapid turnover *and* insure that new hams were
more
operationally skilled and technically knowledgeable, by requiring a
little more code speed and a lot more technical knowledge.

Today we have far more bandwidth, far more sophisticated equipment,
and far more options in choice of band and mode.

Before criticizing the actions of almost 70 years ago, one should first

get a clear picture of the conditions of the time. Critics of the ARRL

action are invited to build an operating amateur station, using only
parts
and techniques available in the early '30s - and do it on a
Depression-era budget, as well. Then try to use said station on the ham

bands, and see what conclusions are drawn.

The point of all this is that ham radio was VERY different in the '30s,
and solutions that seem simple and obvious today were not practical
for most hams back then. What is really amazing is that so many hams
succeeded, using such simple equipment.

A big part of the story was the use of CW, and the operating skills of
the
hams of the day. But in some circles it is electropolitically
incorrect
to talk about operating skills in a positive manner. Or to suggest
that
perhaps the Ancient Ones knew something about what they were doing.

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote


160 was popular with 'phone men, but a decent antenna
for that band was/is enormous and BCI could be a real devil.


Phone women too. My Mom's xmtr was hardwired for160 (no plug-ins).


Put 4600 hams (10% of the total licensees) on the air at once and each
would less than 250 cycles. The bands WERE approaching saturation.


Only theoretically. Geographic sharing isn't a post-war invention.

Beep beep
de Hans, K0HB

KØHB wrote:
wrote

160 was popular with 'phone men, but a decent antenna
for that band was/is enormous and BCI could be a real devil.

Phone women too. My Mom's xmtr was hardwired for160 (no plug-ins).

MY BAD!!!

Should read "'phone hams"!

Sidebar point: In those days, amateur HF 'phone operation was limited
to
160, 75, 20 and 10 meters. Not only were the subbands allocated to
'phone
narrower than today, but use of 75 and 20 meter 'phone required a Class
A
license. 160 and 10 meters became very popular 'phone bands because
all license classes could operate 'phone there.

Put 4600 hams (10% of the total licensees) on the air at once and each
would less than 250 cycles. The bands WERE approaching saturation.

Only theoretically. Geographic sharing isn't a post-war invention.

True enough.

However the point is still valid - the number of QSOs that the 1930s
HF amateur bands and equipment could handle was much less than today.

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote:
Morse Code test speeds for an amateur license were
increased from 10 wpm to 13 wpm, circa 1936, at the
request of the ARRL president in a letter to the FCC.
See Page 82 of "Fifty Years of ARRL" -- that's no
deep dark secret.

But it's not the whole story.

The request was for an increase from 10 wpm to
12-1/2 wpm. The FCC "rounded up" to 13 wpm
on their own.

Those dirty, rotten, G-Men.

The same letter requested more comprehensive
WRITTEN exams,
updated to the current technology then used by hams.
This was also granted by the FCC. There were only
three classes of license at the time, and all required
the same code speed.

The FCC of the 30's appeared to be pushovers. Wonder who's kid was
appointed Chief those days?

The code speed increase is often remembered. The
written test improvement is rarely if ever
remembered.

This whole situation is frequently "spin doctored"
by those who say the code test speed was
raised to limit the number of amateurs.

And you, of course, have the one truth, the only truth, so help you
Hiram.

Paul Runninghorse Vigil
Senior Consultant 30 Years Experienced
FREE TELEPHONE CONSULTATION ( Do you Want to Know how to Buy real
estate with Little or NO MONEY DOWN ) or know how to Design a Creative
Owner Carry Financing Mortgage Notes? Or if you are selling your real
estate or your business, (Residential or Commercial) How to design Cash
Flows? I can show you how. Hi I Am Paul Runninghorse Vigil Senior
Consultant 30 Years Experienced, in Creative Real Estate Buying or
Selling and in Creative Real Estate Financing Notes, Trust Deeds and
Real Estate Investigations.
Ph # 303-284-0636 Fax 303-284-0974
Was a Broker, Realtor and Owner
Operator of Real Estate Brokerages and
Mortgage Companies. * Refer-A-Friend
www.capitalvigilfundingdept.com