If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
clfe wrote: "clfe" wrote in message ... "Cecil Moore" wrote in message . .. K4YZ wrote: Cecil Moore wrote: Then why isn't knowledge of Morse code and the CW mode sufficient? Why must someone be forced to memorize the individual characters? Probably, Cecil, since it would then make it difficult to pass the test. You missed the point. The Morse code skill exam requires memorizing the characters. Memorizing is being condemned as an evil act. Since memorizing is evil, the Morse code skill exam should be the first thing to be eliminated. -- 73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp In some cases, it "could" be said that hairs are being split. To have "knowledge" of the code - could mean basically - you know it exists and why it is used. To "know" the Morse Code, usually refers to KNOWING the characters sufficiently to use them at whatever speed it is you can. On the other hand, someone who isn't involved could say - that a Ham operator is "knowledgable" in the code. Heck, to someone not IN Ham radio - they could easily assume a NO CODE tech - KNOWS code. Just to clarify my point - many "assume" a Ham Operator - regardless the license - KNOWS code. So, if a "No Code" tech simply says "I"M A HAM OPERATOR" to someone not knowing the license class structure, the "assumption is made. AND unless that NC tech clarifies it, the unsuspecting person will go on in ignorance "assuming" ALL hams "know" code. Morse Code (per my recollection) has always been and most likely - even if only in history books - always will be known and associated with HAM RADIO. Heaven forbid that someone assumes that a lowly, unwashed Technician know the CODE. lou Many "assume" that an Old Timer knows more than they actually know. Most Old Timers are guilty of this kind of thinking. Furthermore, many "assume" that newcomers to the hobby know little or nothing, and have no desire to learn. Most Old Timers are guilty of this klind of thinking. |
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
|
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
|
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
|
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
From: Al Klein on Wed, Aug 9 2006 9:24 pm Groups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna, rec.radio.amateur.policy, rec.radio.scanner, rec.radio.swap On 9 Aug 2006 19:14:54 -0700, wrote: 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. That's my point - there's no test any longer. For anything more than the ability to memorize answers. 1. The FCC does NOT generate the questions on any amateur radio license test. The VEC Question Pool Committee does. By LAW the VEC QPC is composed of radio amateurs. 2. The FCC does NOT mandate the maximum number of questions on any amateur radio license exam written test. The FCC specifies only the MINIMUM number of questions. The VEC QPC can generate as many questions as it cares to. 3. At some point a LARGE number of questions could defeat even the most eidetic of humans, thereby destroying your rant of "it isn't a real test because all can memorize the questions-answers." So all ham radio is is Morse Code on HF? Or is it more than that? It's a lot more. The question isn't what ham radio is, it's whether one should be required to pass a realistic test to get a license. "Realistic test" = Collitch-level BS to make one a 1930's radio expert? :-) Define "realistic test" remembering that ALL the VEs are also VOLUNTEER radio amateurs. 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. What current exam? Memorizing answers and writing them down isn't a test. Oh, my, are you taking on the ENTIRE Academic Community now? Last college-level course test I had required MEMORIZING and WRITING THEM DOWN! Damn, all that work leading up to it and it wasn't a "real" test! You'd probably be weeded out pretty quickly. I doubt it - if I couldn't pass an Extra theory exam - a real one, not the nonsense that passes for one these days - I'd lose my job in a second. [getting Donald Trump wig] "You're fired!" :-) So, Al, what did you get for a license? A BS-HAM? Define "real test," show your work. What if you addressed what I said when you answer me? Your dishonest tactics are transparent. WHAT "dishonest tactics," olde-tymer? You've gotten rather self-righteous about "real" without giving any real answers as to what defines "real." You got stomped on, par for the newsgroup course. If you don't like disagreements over your disagreeability, try another venue. Quit putting words in my mouth. I wasn't complaining to anyone, and we weren't discussing remembering 50 year old tests. You WERE COMPLAINING...all about "today's tests are not 'real'". Self-righteousness is readily transparent... But if a practical exam is necessary for Morse Code, why isn't it necessary for other modes? Maybe we should have one - show the ability to put a clean PSK signal on the air. Show the ability to interpret a waterfall display. Show the ability to tell the difference between various digital modes. The bands would be pretty QRM-free. You did NOT answer Brian's question. Does self-righteousness negate having to answer questions? So you're in favor of exams that test knowledge of theory? "Draw the schematic of ..."? "Explain why long path 2400 bps is impossible on 14 MHz"? That kind of relevance? Or the "pick the answer with the resistor like we showed you in the example" kind of relevance? Now you are putting words in Brian's mouth. Tsk, tsk. Explain how the VEs will love and embrace your collitch-level AMATEUR radio license exam, needing hours per test applicant. In case you hadn't been up to speed, the FCC does NOT normally do any testing of either Commercial or amateur radio licenses. That's been privatized. If you wish to change AWAY from privatized testing, you have ready access to the Proposal method with the FCC. They explain the whole process. All you have to do now is memorize a few answers. That's all you had to do then. How do you draw a schematic and explain the functions of parts by memorizing answers? You can't explain phase shift by memorizing "10k" or "coil". Gosh, olde-tymer, did the ham exams of a half century ago get into vectors and phases? I had none of that in my First 'Phone exam. I missed a collitch-final kind of exam? :-) 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? They just gave you a radio and said "use it"? Soldiers and Airmen weren't "given" radios. They were ISSUED them. A half century ago you had damn well take CARE of them or you HAD to pay for them! By the way, the FCC does NOT regulate federal government radio use...the NTIA does that, for both federal folks and military personnel use. I can give you a brief summation of the "instruction" in using an AN/PRC-6 HT: About 10 minutes, word of mouth and hands-on "training." A VHF radio transceiver, it wasn't designed for AMATEUR radio activities. It couldn't be...didn't have any place to plug in a code key. :-) I can easily remember the "training" on lots of other real radios in the military plus a few more as a civilian working on DoD contract projects. The AN/PRC-119 took a lot longer, especially for the Hopset entry. [I had to learn it from its big TM] You familiar with the PRC-119? A quarter-million of them have been built. All the military branches have them. When I was licensed you had to show an understanding of theory, by answering questions that were more than just multiple choice from a published answer pool. Sunnuvagun! In 1956 one of the four parts I successfully completed was MULTIPLE-CHOICE! How about that? :-) But that was at an FCC Field Office. 80 miles away in Chicago. No "conditionals" for Commercials then, senior. "Privatized testing" would be a laughable subject in '56. :-) 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. You must be sitting on oil. Can't you stick to a topic long enough to be coherent? You were discussing how someone can be efficient at voice commo, not in Morse. I have no problem with understanding Brian...and I HAVE been around radio communication for a rather long time. Try asking me about "efficiency" or "throughput" on any mode, any radio service. Can you explain where all the other radio services got their "training" in radio use? If any at all, that is. You can't find any other radio service users who get NO "training" whatsoever nor need anything but an equipment license to use it? [I'm not talking about CB] 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. I have no problem with that. I daresay a whole bunch of VEs would argue with you after spending HOURS separately with each test applicant for one of those "realistic test" ideas of yours. I'm advocating real testing for whatever mode. Right now the only test is "do you have the fee, can you get to the testing place, and have you memorized enough answers to pass". Let's have a test that shows whether the testee knows anything. CW, APRS, AX25, PSK - all of it. Or separate the licenses. You want to operate FM, you take a test on FM and, if you pass, you get an FM license. Want to operate SSB, you take a different test. Not "want to get on the air? memorize some answers and pay your fee". Tsk, tsk. Plan out a "real test" and then get an estimation of the TIME it would take for each VE and each license applicant. Remember that US amateur radio licensing is now an ALL-VOLUNTEER process. Just WHO are you expecting to PAY for all the equipment necessary to do your "real testing" on ALL modes now allocated to US radio amateurs? Government? VEs? Who will be responsible for their maintenance? [this group has ALREADY beaten that subject to death in here] You will have to Petition the FCC for a drastic change in the number of "endorsements" to the various parts and classes. You will have to get in touch with the VEC QPC to change the number of written test questions. I don't think you will do anything, just sit in here and blow off steam like the usual self-righteous Olde-Tymer. Geez. US amateur radio is "working DX on HF with CW." Know CW and you don't need any theory or other BS. Ipso facto. [or something fancy in Latin to show 'book-larnen'...:-) ] |
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that persondie?
Al Klein wrote:
The Conditional was whatever class was being tested for, but not at an FCC office. It had nothing to do with the class, only with the location. On the contrary, the Conditional was the General Class license given away from an FCC office. At the time I got mine, the distance from an FCC office was set at 75 miles. Quoting the 1957 ARRL License Manual: "The Conditional Class license conveys privileges identical to those of the General Class ..." which incidentally at the time, was all amateur frequency operating privileges. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that persondie?
Al Klein wrote:
Most of those are the assumptions of newcomers about the assumptions of old timers. Most old timers don't make that assumption. We've been around long enough to have seen different. But apparently not long enough to know what the Conditional Class license was all about. -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 12:20:56 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote: Al Klein wrote: Most of those are the assumptions of newcomers about the assumptions of old timers. Most old timers don't make that assumption. We've been around long enough to have seen different. But apparently not long enough to know what the Conditional Class license was all about. So enlighten me. |
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that persondie?
Al Klein wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote: Al Klein wrote: Most of those are the assumptions of newcomers about the assumptions of old timers. Most old timers don't make that assumption. We've been around long enough to have seen different. But apparently not long enough to know what the Conditional Class license was all about. So enlighten me. Isn't the quote from the 1957 ARRL License Manual sufficient? -- 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp |
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that persondie?
not THIS again
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:10 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com