If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
 

"David G. Nagel" wrote in message
...
TimBob wrote:

In "Indepedance Day" morse code saves the world from the alien
invasion! They made a movie about it so it must be true!
Tim N7XAU
Cecil Moore wrote:

Dave wrote:

C'mon Cecil, you've been licensed as long as I have. I Know you Know CW.
Does that mean we're virtually obsolete?

My favorite mode is CW and it's a fun mode but it is never
going to save the world.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp




If I recall correctly the IDF officer said the US was communicating in
"old fashioned morse code".

Dave N

I once seen a copy of the "code" used by other countries. There were
"some" - if not many differences. I also seen a copy of "supposedly" the old
west code - used .......... Man, what a difference - IF ALL WERE TRUE - that
is........ I'm only reporting what I seen, can't say for sure if true or
not. It was interesting to say the least.

Maybe - and I"m going on a limb here to guess - the "differences" in the
other countries code - was short hand much like our Q signals.

L.

If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
 

On 6 Aug 2006 00:54:48 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote:

nope handihams has no respect for LD's at all

There's a difference between lack of ability and lack of desire. The
latter is just plain laziness.

If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
 

"Ricke" wrote in
oups.com:

Love it, get up on cb channels to do CW practice. The sheer irratation
factor is worth learning code

Rick
N4NKR


And some probably hear it and send back. the CB-Hams, A.K.A. Phonies.

If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
 

"TimBob" wrote in
oups.com:

In "Indepedance Day" morse code saves the world from the alien
invasion! They made a movie about it so it must be true!
Tim N7XAU


That movie was hokey. An alien invasion force with thousands of ships in
orbit would need to use our satellites to communicate with each other.

Yah, right.

Sc

If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
 

"David G. Nagel" wrote in
:

L. wrote:
"David G. Nagel" wrote in message
...

Ricke wrote:


Love it, get up on cb channels to do CW practice. The sheer irratation
factor is worth learning code

Rick
N4NKR


If one wishes to operate legally on 11 meters do not use CW or tone CW.
The only legal modes of communicating there is AM or SSB voice. Tone
maybe used as an alerting mechanism but not for other methods of
communication.

Even though licenses are not required and most (not all) persons don't
follow the regs there, if you are caught violating the regs there you
can be refused an Amateur License. It can and does happen from time to
time.

Dave WD9BDZ


This is true! As the man said, tho most don't follow them - they DO
exist. They WILL be enforced - if so desired. Actually, an infraction
of any radio rule can deem you ineligible for not only an Amateur
Licence but also any other license from the FCC - even GROL. IF you
hold a GROL and do something stupid with it, it can cause your
"amateur" license to be stripped. Ignorance is no excuse. When you sign
the forms - and your license(s) - you agree to abide by the R/Rs.




Apparently if you have been convicted of a felony anything you can loose
your license also.

Dave WD9BDZ


That would explain why there are a lot of felons on CB then. You can hear
alot of them on 27.025 MHz.

SC

If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that persondie?
 

L. wrote:

"David G. Nagel" wrote in message
...

TimBob wrote:


In "Indepedance Day" morse code saves the world from the alien
invasion! They made a movie about it so it must be true!
Tim N7XAU
Cecil Moore wrote:


Dave wrote:


C'mon Cecil, you've been licensed as long as I have. I Know you Know CW.
Does that mean we're virtually obsolete?

My favorite mode is CW and it's a fun mode but it is never
going to save the world.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp



If I recall correctly the IDF officer said the US was communicating in
"old fashioned morse code".

Dave N


I once seen a copy of the "code" used by other countries. There were
"some" - if not many differences. I also seen a copy of "supposedly" the old
west code - used .......... Man, what a difference - IF ALL WERE TRUE - that
is........ I'm only reporting what I seen, can't say for sure if true or
not. It was interesting to say the least.

Maybe - and I"m going on a limb here to guess - the "differences" in the
other countries code - was short hand much like our Q signals.

L.


Morse code as used by Western Union (when they did code) is different
from International Morse code as used by radio operators. Not very
different but different.

DN

If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
 

On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 17:51:14 -0400, "L." wrote:

I once seen a copy of the "code" used by other countries. There were
"some" - if not many differences.

Because there are some differences in alphabets.

I also seen a copy of "supposedly" the old
west code - used .......... Man, what a difference - IF ALL WERE TRUE - that
is

That's American Morse, as opposed to International Morse, which is
used on the air. American Morse is composed of dots, dashes and
spaces. (Spaces are parts of the letters, not just the spaces between
them.) International Morse uses just dots and dashes - the spaces are
just spaces.

If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
 

Not true. Hams care much more about saving lives than operating appliances.
I'm betting a great number of them have their CPR cards,
ready for action. Self-cleaning ovens run a sad second place to standing
tall at the 911 center.

On your other point..
Most hams are men and they generally don't know how to operate any appliance
except the refrigerator door,
and maybe the microwave oven. A few are versed in toaster operation, I hear.

However; they will indeed spend hours installing flashy lights and
noisemakers on their cars, as well as
spend hours 'standing by' and preparing for the life-saving moment. They'll
spend grocery money to purchase a
plethora of other "necessary" equipment and "uniforms/ID/look-at-me" items.
Be it weather watching, crowd control, parade control, or just control in
general, hams are standing by to manage the world, after the "big one"....
Hams just like you, Dirk. And for that, I thank you.

I can only pray for peace on these hams as they spend their last days
brushing the fallen hair
from their rigs. Saving countless lives in the aftermath, diligently
tapping away; giving
needed instruction to all the elderly survivors crowded around their
homemade QRP
battery operated rigs..... Oh, and lest we not forget the generator owners
crowded around their swans, drakes and 101e's... burning precious fuel to
strain an ear
for the faint but all-knowing dit-dah that will be their salvation.
I'd bet with a 100w rig pushing a 600-1Kw amp [and a break in the fallout],
they could work weak signal maybe 10-20 miles
through the new noise floor.

As for me, I'll be listening too,
voice, morse and digital.
Coz by that time, the only appliance I'll be operating is that new
one-button rig from GLOCK.
.....and I love ham.

LOL...
btw, trolls suck.





"Dirk" wrote in message
...
Ham's care more about operating appliances than knowing how to save a
lives.

:-(

If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
 

Al Klein wrote:
On 2 Aug 2006 20:05:21 -0700, wrote:

Al Klein wrote:
On 23 Jul 2006 07:26:05 -0700, wrote:

how balanced is to to place CW over all over ham knowledge?

No one is, any more than by requiring people to know the law one is
putting the law "over all ham knowledge".

CW is pass/fail. To fail CW denies all HF privs (except for Alaska).

Theory is also pass/fail. To fail to get the required number of
correct answers denies all privs - HF, VHF, UHF ...

There is no pass/fail practical for SSB, FM, AM, FSTV, SSTV, RTTY, FAX,
Packet, PSK, etc, etc, etc.

There's no test at all, so those claiming that the reason they want a
test for CW dropped because it's not "modern" have no argument - they
want no test for FSTV, SSTV, RTTY (which is also pretty old hat),
packet, PSK, etc. They want no test at all, unless they can memorize
a few answers to "pass" it.

You couldn't be more wrong. If there were practical exams for SSB, FM,
AM, FSTV, SSTV, RTTY (which is pretty darned old), packet, PSK, etc,
then it would be CRYSTAL clear that a Morse Code exam is valid.

However, there are no such practical exams for the other modes. So
there need be no exam for Morse Code, either.

How progressive is it?

How progressive is it to not require people to know ... oh, yeah,
that's progressive, since the new thing is to hand out licenses
because people have some kind of "right" to get on the air.

Then why is it with the prospect of losing the CW Exam, that you'se
guys want to "beef up" the written exams?

We don't.

That is not true.

Sure it is. "Beefing up" the written exam is a counter to "drop CW
because it's old fashioned". If you want modern you want the testing
to be turned from CW to modern modes.

That is not true. You wish to change the written exams, not add
practical exams for SSB, FM, AM, FSTV, SSTV, RTTY (which is pretty
darned old), packet, PSK, etc.

Those who want CW dropped just
want what they can't memorize dropped so they can get a ticket without
really being tested on anything.

So all ham radio is is Morse Code on HF? Or is it more than that?

Actually knowing anything is so old
fashioned, isn't it?

Not at all.

We want to get back the level it used to be before it was
dumbed down to the point that you could almost pass it if you never
heard of the FCC, ham radio or electronics.

You're referring to the Conditional license, right?

No, I'm not addressing *where* the test is held at all - I'm
addressing *whether* there's any real test, which there isn't, except
for CW right now. Spitting out something you memorized is only a test
of memory.

Sounds like the Conditional License to me.

Just by guessing at the
answers. It used to require that you draw (was it 3?) schematics.

You tell me? Was it 2 or was it 3?

I don't remember after almost 50 years - but I could still draw them
today, and it's not a test of remembering what's on the test, it's a
test of knowing what's in a radio.

Then advocate passing the current exam at every license renewal. You'd
probably be weeded out pretty quickly.

From scratch. Let's see how many people could do that today. A
Colpitts oscillator, a Hartley oscillator and some other circuit that
I've forgotten at the moment.

You should self-modify your license and cease amateur operation until
you remember.

Why? Testing isn't about memory, it's about knowledge.

What if you forgot your band edges?

The amateur is self-policing, and you no longer meet your own standard.

Sure I do. The test wasn't to remember what circuits to draw, it was
to draw them. And I can draw them any time.

Then do so. Quit complaining to me that you can't remember what it was
that you were supposed to draw.

They're still as relevant today as they were 50 years ago.

Other things are relevant today that weren't even known 50 years ago.

So let's have them on the test.

But if a practical exam is necessary for Morse Code, why isn't it
necessary for other modes? If all radio is merely plug and play, why
do the services still have radio schools (that aren't teaching Morse
Code)?

Oops, that's right - no more relevant testing, isn't that what people
are asking for? Just give me the answers so I can memorize them and
pick them out on the test.

Who said that? We absolutely NEED relevant exams. That is my whole
argument!

how loyal is it to denny the nation the benifits of allowing more
operators

What "benefits" does the country get from more people using radios who
don't know the first thing about them? (Whatever "denny" means.)

It's always been that way. You could even buy Heathkits already
assembled.

But you had to actually *know* a little theory to use one legally.

No you didn't.

Yes, you did - you had to pass a test to show that you did.

There has never been a practical test to show that you could operate a
radio. Ever.

All you
have to do now is memorize a few answers.

That's all you had to do then.

I used radios in the military. I never used a CW key in the military.
I never jammed another operator, although Brandywine asked me to reduce
power once.

But you had to learn how to use the radios.

I did?

Hams today don't - they
memorize a few answers, buy equipment and get on the air - with no
understanding of what they're doing, and no desire to learn.

Then it hasn't changed much since you were first licensed.

That's exactly what he's talking about. Give someone a radio and a
"license" to use it and he'll "acquire the skill to be ready for
service to country and community". That's what Mark said, right up
above. How does one acquire skill by playing radio?

We self-train.

You may, but I can see from many of the comments that have been posted
here that a lot of people don't. They don't want to learn, they want
to get on the air. Period.

W3RV didn't wait to get a ham license before operating! He just wanted
to get on the air. Period.

It is a continuous process of improvements. You
mistakenly believe that at the conclusion of The Exam, the "operator"
is 100%.

And you mistakenly believe that most hams today want to learn how to
operate properly. Listen to 75 some evenings.

Lots of OFs on there who should know better. That's why I hold the
opinions that I hold. Your generation doesn't have a lock on decency,
respect, or apatite for knowledge. Far from it.

But that's what Mark and his ilk want - we'll have "skilled operators"
if we allow people to buy radios and put them on the air with no skill
or knowledge. By osmosis? Or by magic?

I've listened to emergency responders on a scanner before. They don't
use Morse Code, they don't use CW. They use FM/Voice. Somehow they
are effective at it, not having taken a Morse Code test. How can this
be?

They were trained.

Not in Morse Code. If you must retain a Morse Code Exam, then you must
also administer practical exams for SSB, FM, AM, FSTV, SSTV, RTTY
(which is pretty darned old), packet, PSK, etc.

So you'd get a license not knowing CW, build a radio (you couldn't buy
one then) and ... what? Sit and look at it. Some things are just too
obvious to need mentioning.

Please diagram that radio from "Scratch."

Any time. Filter or phasing? BFO receive or quadrature detection?
I've designed them, built them and used them, and still could.

What is/was your profession?

Evidently not, or I'd be the only one in the world advocating that a
test should actually test for something. There are actually millions
of us who don't think lack of instant gratification is the worst thing
in the world.

Dial 911 and tell the operator that you don't need instant
gratification, take your time.

Very bad example of an attempt at sarcasm and a misunderstanding of
"gratification".

What next? DXCC awards for those who *want* to work 100 countries?

You seem to be confused. DXCC is an award offered by the ARRL, not the
FCC. It has nothing to do with licensing.

But an award for wanting has to do with "I want it so it's my right to
have it", which is what I'm talking about. No one has any "right" to
get on the air.

Correct. And no one has a right to force their favorite mode on
everyone else. Your days of doing so are numbered.

If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
Testing isn't about memory, it's about knowledge.

Then why isn't knowledge of Morse code and the CW mode
sufficient? Why must someone be forced to memorize
the individual characters?
--
73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

We aren't made to memorize every value of resistor and capacitor, or
every offset for the six meter repeater subband.