Opus- wrote:
Sorry I am late in replying. Holiday weekend here in Canada.

I hope it was a good one.

On 5 Oct 2006 17:05:58 -0700, spake thusly:

Opus- wrote:
On 5 Oct 2006 04:26:28 -0700, spake thusly:
Opus- wrote:

The statement is quite simple...a voice on the airwaves can convey
much more information than just the words spoken but CW can only
convey the words.

Morse Code can convey more than the words - if the operators are
skilled in it.

One of those old timers once told me that he recognized another
operators "hand" back when I watched him operate.

Yup. Little things about an op's sending can make it as recognizable as
a familiar voice.

btw, the term "fist" is used in the same context as "hand" was used by
that op.

Never heard the term "fist" used in this context but it's been a while
since I have spent much time with a coder.

Both terms are used. Some folks use the term "swing" as well, but
that's not exactly a compliment.

I am not sure how
much more a person can get out of code.

The words, of course. How they are sent can tell a lot, too. It takes a
bit of experience to recognize all the subtleties of Morse Code.

The main point is that skilled Morse Code operators can convey more
than 'just the words'.

It's not the same thing as a voice, though.

I think that is your main point.

More than words, but how much more?

Quite a bit, but obviously not as much as a voice. The main point is
that skilled operators get more than 'just the words'.

It's a bit similar to the way that one's perception of the written word
is affected by the font, punctuation, capitalization, etc. Not exactly
the same, but similar.

I also have to believe that code
is slower than speech. Not usually a big issue but an issue none the
less.

Like many things, "it depends".

The raw speed of the spoken word is obviously faster.

But when you really listen to the way most people speak, the speed is
limited by many things. There's a lot of redundancy in the way many
people speak, pauses, repeats, "ums" and "ahs', and little phrases
tossed in while the person thinks of what to say next. Meanwhile, the
skilled Morse Code operator is using abbreviations and other shortcuts
that effectively increase the speed way beyond the raw wpm.

For example, the first response in a voice QSO might go like this:

"VE6QRM, victor-echo-six-quebec-romeo-mike, this is N2EY,
november-two-echo-yankee, thanks for the call. You're five and nine,
five-nine here, good clear signals. I am in Wayne, Pennsylvania, that's
Wayne, whiskey-alpha-yankee-november-echo, Pennsylvania, papa-alpha.
Name here is Jim, john-ida-mike, Jim. How do you copy me?....."

while using Morse Code, the same exchange could be:

"VE6QRM DE N2EY TNX CL BT UR 599 599 GUD SIG IN WAYNE PA WAYNE PA BT OP
JIM JIM BT HW?...."

Same information, two different modes. If the Morse Code ops are
reasonably fast, the time is comparable.

It's a different
communications experience, just as the written word is a different
experience from the spoken word.

Fair enough.

Exactly.

Since the medium and usually the hardware is exactly
the same weather or not a microphone or a key is used, why bother with
a key that is much more limited?

Several reasons:

1) It's often *not* the same hardware. You can use much simpler
equipment for Morse Code than for voice modes.

Well, I did say "usually".

Of course.

But wouldn't simpler equipment limit you to code only?

That depends on the exact situation. The important point is that once
you have Morse Code skills, using code-only equipment isn't really a
limitation in most cases.

Simplicity of equipment can be very important in some situations. For
example, if someone wants to actually build their HF Amateur Radio
equipment, it's much simpler and easier to build a Morse Code station
than an equivalent-performance voice station. In portable operations,
the power requirement, size and weight of a Morse Code station can be
less than that of the equivalent voice station.

With todays electronics, size and weight really aren't much of an
issue.

I disagree to a point! Look at the size, weight and performance of HF
rigs that you can carry with you. Is there any HF ham rig that's
SSB-capable that can compete with the Elecraft KX-1?

For fixed-station use, there isn't much size/weight difference, if any.
But when you need to carry the rig and batteries any real distance, the
differences become apparent. This is also when you will find that the
difference in low power performance really matters.

2) It's a different communications experience. (see above). For many of
us, that alone makes it worthwhile.

I am curious as to what would make it worthwhile.

All sorts of things:

A) You can communicate without talking or typing. (In a world where a
lot of us spend a lot of time on the telephone and computer, being able
to communicate another way can be a real treat!)

I dunno..I guess I like hearing things like gender or a foreign accent
to add spice to communication.

Of course. And that's part of the point: different communications
experiences.

B) The exercise of a skill is fun. Consider the person who learns how
to play a musical instrument: do you think making music (performing) is
the same experience as listening to recorded music?

Hmm..well..not really a good analogy. Listening to music is only a one
way street while both performing music, as well as radio
communications, is naturally a two way street.

I was thinking of the person who performs the music for themselves vs.
listening to a recording.

Either way, it's still a different experience.

Or consider this analogy: It's one thing to drive a car with all the
modern conveniences - power steering, automatic transmission, power
brakes, cruise control, climate control, etc., and doing it on a smooth
straight highway. It's a different experience to drive a car without
all those things, on a winding country road where the driver's skill
makes a big difference.

C) Once you have the skills, communicating with Morse Code can be as
easy - or even easier - than using voice.

Not quite sure how, but I'll take your word for it.

D) You can use Morse Code in situations where voice could not be used.
For example, suppose you are in a small house, apartment, RV, tent,
etc., and you want to operate without disturbing others (who might be
sleeping, talking, etc.). Of course you can put on headphones so they
don't hear the received signals, but in order to transmit, you have to
talk. Even if you keep your voice down, it can bother others. How many
times have you heard people complain about folks using cell phones in
public? But with Morse Code and a good pair of cans, you can operate
and make less noise than someone typing on a keyboard.

Not really a common circumstance, but I see your point here.

I think it depends on the amateur's situation. I know plenty of hams
with small children in the house, or with limited space for a shack,
where the sound issue is a big one. Being able to operate quietly can
be the difference between operating and not operating.

3) It takes up much less spectrum. With good equipment, five to ten
Morse Code signals can fit in the same spectrum space required by just
one single-sideband voice signal. AM and FM take up even more space on
the band.

Some very valid points here.

None of which mean that there *must* be a Morse Code test for an
amateur radio license. I happen to think such a test is a good idea,
but that's just my opinion.

4) It's more effective under adverse conditions. A Morse Code signal
typically has about 10-13 dB of advanatage over single-sideband voice.
That's about 2 S-units. Under conditions that make SSB unusable, or
barely usable, Morse Code will often be solid copy with good signals.

I could see the challenge in this. I remember a certain thrill back
when I was a kid, whenever I managed to make out a distant signal and
recognize where it was broadcast from.

Exactly! The very fact that it takes some skill is part of the fun and
attraction.

But some here seem to suggest that if no or little skill is required
then it's really not worth pursuing. I strongly dispute that.

I'm not sure what you mean by "if little or no skill is required, then
it's really not worth pursuing".

There are other reasons, but those four come to mind right now.

Here's one mo

5) The amount of "bad behavior" problems resulting in FCC enforcement
actions is much less from radio amateurs using Morse Code. Just look at
the FCC enforcement letters that address violations of deliberate
interference, obscenity, exceeding license privileges, and other "bad
behavior" problems. Almost all of them are for violations committed
using voice modes, not Morse Code. The difference is much greater than
would be expected from the relative popularity of the modes.

This doesn't mean all voice ops are problems or all Morse Code ops are
saints! All it means is that there's a lot less enforcement problems
from hams actually using Morse Code.

Perhaps the typical ages of people who prefer code could be a factor.
It does tend to be considerably older people who prefer code.

I disagree - for two reasons!

First I have found amateurs of all ages who are interested in Morse
Code. I have found that young people are interested *if* Morse Code is
presented correctly.

Some say that, in the modern world, young people who grew up with cell
phones and the internet aren't going to sit still for something like
Morse Code - or amateur radio. And many won't.

However, the very fact that Morse Code is unusual is a big attraction
to some of them - *because* it's so different and unusual. They've seen
voice comms - they all have cellphones! Typing on a keyboard and
reading a screen is something they've seen since they were babies. But
Morse Code is completely different. That's what draws many young people
- just look at the acceptance of the Harry Potter books.

The second reason is that the 'bad behavior' of amateurs on the air
doesn't seem to decrease with age. In fact, it may be the opposite!

One of the worst offenders here in the USA was a Californian named Jack
Gerritsen (ex-KG6IRO). He was found guilty of multiple repeated
offenses, all of which involved on-air behavior like jamming, not
'technical' violations. His bad behavior started on the ham bands but
spread to public service bands as well, giving amateur radio a black
eye. Enforcement efforts up to revoking his license didn't stop him.
The guy was totally out of control, a real problem case. So now he is
going to prison for seven years and has to pay a fairly serious fine
($21,000US, IIRC).

Gerritsen used only voice modes. He is now 70.

Somehow, this relates to pixels on my
screen but I have yet to understand why my opponent felt the need to
misdirect, misrepresent and misquote.

Lots of that going around - on both sides. Don't let it bother you - I
sure don't.

I just don't like the snotty attitude that makes the ARS look so bad.

Agreed! There's too much of that type of attitude on *both* sides of
the debate.

I am still waiting for my government handout. Never had any government
handouts in the 44 years I have been around.

How does one define "handout"?

Based on the comments, it would seem that the offending poster was
referring to something that was unique to Canada. About the only thing
I can think of is our medical care system. And THAT'S not really free
at all, as I will explain further below.

I've lost track of who was using the term "handout". I don't think it
was you.

For example, is public education of children a government handout? Yes,
many parents with kids in public school pay school taxes, but in most
districts those taxes paid by parents do not cover all of the costs of
the public schools. And the level of taxation does not depend on how
many children the parents have in school. Is public school a government
handout to people with lots of kids?

I don't know how Canadian public education is funded, but I suspect
that it's not that much different than in the USA - at least to the
extent that parents don't pay the full amount, nor does the tax level
increase with the number of children in school.

Is public education a government handout to people with several
children?

Or how about tax deductions? Are they a form of government handout? If
you have a mortgage or home equity loan, the interest is deductible. If
you rent, you don't get that deduction. Is that a government handout to
homeowners?

Now as for mortgages and home equity loans, the interest is NOT a tax
deduction here in Canada. That could be considered a handout that
Americans enjoy, something Canadians can't enjoy.

Exactly - if one uses the term "handout". A lot of US homeowners would
say that they 'deserve' the tax deduction.

I would say that the USA uses tax policy as a form of social
engineering. By making mortgage and home-equity interest count as a tax
deduction, the government is supporting home ownership over renting.

Also, Canada is the
second highest taxed nation in the world.

Really? Who is #1 - Sweden?

Renters get a wee bit of a
break in some provinces but not here in Alberta, Canada's "Texas".

Not trying to be argumentative, just trying to get a clear idea of what
is a handout and what isn't.

One person's handout is another's entitlement.

One more "handout": some (not all) Social Security benefits. Most
Americans make payments into Social Security all their working lives.
Some never collect a penny, because they die young.

But if a person receiving Social Security benefits lives long enough,
they will eventually receive more in benefits than they paid into the
system - including reasonable interest.

Is that a "handout"?

Can none of the pro-coders make
a valid point?

I just made a couple of valid points. That doesn't mean there *must* be
a Morse Code test, just that the mode has some good points.

Thank you for making some points in a nice, civilized manner.

My pleasure. Thanks for reading.

My neighbor, when I was about 12 or younger, had a nifty tower setup.
He had 2 tall telephone poles in the ground with enough space between
them for a third pole bolted in near the top, adding almost the full
length of another pole, save for about 6 feet where all three were
bolted together. I was self-supporting.

Cool! I recently saw a similar setup used for a repeater antenna in a
wooded area. It blended in much better than metal tower.

Drove by many many years later. Tower gone. Different house on same
lot. I guess you can never go back.

(sigh)

For many years there was a landmark ham tower near here. Custom
rotating steel pole, over 100 feet high, with multiple HF Yagis and a
full size 2 element 80/75 meter quad. (That's not a typo). All on a
typical suburban lot of less than an acre....

It was built by one ham, and when he passed away another one bought the
place. But when the second ham passed, the big tower and antennas
needed serious work and nobody stepped up to take on the task.

So the tower is all gone and the house is like all the others in the
area...

But some things can be preserved - values, skills, culture. Even if the
people and places change.

73 de Jim, N2EY

From: on Wed, Oct 11 2006 3:38 am

Opus- wrote:
On 5 Oct 2006 17:05:58 -0700, spake thusly:
Opus- wrote:
On 5 Oct 2006 04:26:28 -0700, spake thusly:
Opus- wrote:


But when you really listen to the way most people speak, the speed is
limited by many things. There's a lot of redundancy in the way many
people speak, pauses, repeats, "ums" and "ahs', and little phrases
tossed in while the person thinks of what to say next. Meanwhile, the
skilled Morse Code operator is using abbreviations and other shortcuts
that effectively increase the speed way beyond the raw wpm.

A comparison between a poor speaker and a skilled
radiotelegrapher is worthy HOW? To shine up the
"skilled radiotelegrapher?" [of course...]

Compare a good speaker and a poor, unskilled radio-
telegrapher's sending and speech becomes way, way
faster.



With todays electronics, size and weight really aren't much of an
issue.

I disagree to a point! Look at the size, weight and performance of HF
rigs that you can carry with you. Is there any HF ham rig that's
SSB-capable that can compete with the Elecraft KX-1?

AN/PRC-104...back-pack HF SSB transceiver, operational
since 1984. Built by (then) Hughes Aircraft Ground
Systems (Hughes purchased by Raytheon).

For civilian-only, try the SGC 2020 SSB HF transceiver
used by private boat owners as well as hams.

For fixed-station use, there isn't much size/weight difference, if any.
But when you need to carry the rig and batteries any real distance, the
differences become apparent. This is also when you will find that the
difference in low power performance really matters.

The PRC-104 has an integral automatic antenna matching
package (to the right of the transceiver itself). This
insures that the manpack set's whip antenna is always
tuned for optimum radiated transmission power.

SGC has several antenna autotuner models available;
separate equipments.


Or consider this analogy: It's one thing to drive a car with all the
modern conveniences - power steering, automatic transmission, power
brakes, cruise control, climate control, etc., and doing it on a smooth
straight highway. It's a different experience to drive a car without
all those things, on a winding country road where the driver's skill
makes a big difference.

You have much experience on "winding country roads?" :-)

[of course you do, you are an amateur extra morseman...]

Are you advocating "no-frills" personal vehicles? Why?

I learned to drive in a 1939 Ford, NO automatic trans-
mission, NO power steering, NO power brakes, No cruise
control, NO "climate control" other than the standard
heater. Training ground was an abandoned army camp, one
which DID have a few "winding (dirt) roads." If you
think for one minute that I would give up a nice,
comfortable, well-equipped 2005 Chevy Malibu MAXX just
to "rough it" for SOMEONE ELSE'S IDEA of what constitutes
"good driving," you've got your head up your ass.

Having earned my Army driving license, I will personally
challenge you to a Jeep gymkhana (Jeep circa 1940s-1960s)
at everything from "smooth straight highways" through
"winding country roads" on to OFF-ROAD ANYTHING. I will
WIN. Been there, did that, got T-shirts, etc.

That standard issue Jeep had NO amenities except for the
post-1950 winch and cable over the front bumper. "Climate
control" was whatever the climate was outside. The "power
transmission" was a couple gear shifts operated by arm
strength and experienced clutch operation. Ptui.

HOW MANY personal vehicles have YOU DESIGNED and BUILT?
Include auto kits if you need to.

HOW MANY thousands of miles have YOU driven? Over "winding
country roads?" [I don't think so unless you count the
old driveway to the Doylestown Barn Cinema...] I've driven
the VERY winding country road (rough surface) to a Wyoming
working ranch (cattle brand registered in Wyoming is "B-1
Bomber") from/to highway.



Perhaps the typical ages of people who prefer code could be a factor.
It does tend to be considerably older people who prefer code.

I disagree - for two reasons!

First I have found amateurs of all ages who are interested in Morse
Code.

If all you have is a hammer, naturally everything looks
like a nail to you...

I have found that young people are interested *if* Morse Code is
presented correctly.

Sado-masochism is still prevalent in the human condition.


Some say that, in the modern world, young people who grew up with cell
phones and the internet aren't going to sit still for something like
Morse Code - or amateur radio. And many won't.

Unquantified numbers. You are waffling on your emotional
reasons.


However, the very fact that Morse Code is unusual is a big attraction
to some of them - *because* it's so different and unusual. They've seen
voice comms - they all have cellphones! Typing on a keyboard and
reading a screen is something they've seen since they were babies.

One in three Americans has a cell phone. Census Bureau said
so in a public statement in 2004.

Back in the late 1940s - a time well before cell phones, personal
computers, with (mostly) only sound broadcasting - there was NO
great "novelty" or "interest" in morse code communications. Been
there, seen that, see no difference now.

But
Morse Code is completely different. That's what draws many young people
- just look at the acceptance of the Harry Potter books.

So, write the author of the "Harry Potter" series and have
her (J. K. Rowling) "introduce" morse code as "magic." :-)

BWAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHAA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

* M A G I C M O R S E *

BWAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHAA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


But some things can be preserved - values, skills, culture. Even if the
people and places change.

Preservation of the Past is the job of MUSEUMS.

Why do you insist on keeping a "living museum" in amateur
radio through federal license testing for morse code in
only AMATEUR radio?

YOU had to test for it so everyone else has to...

Fraternal order HAZING having NO tangible value
except to amuse those ALREADY tested for code.

wrote:
From: on Wed, Oct 11 2006 3:38 am
Opus- wrote:
On 5 Oct 2006 17:05:58 -0700, spake thusly:
Opus- wrote:
On 5 Oct 2006 04:26:28 -0700, spake thusly:
Opus- wrote:

But when you really listen to the way most people speak, the speed is
limited by many things. There's a lot of redundancy in the way many
people speak, pauses, repeats, "ums" and "ahs', and little phrases
tossed in while the person thinks of what to say next. Meanwhile, the
skilled Morse Code operator is using abbreviations and other shortcuts
that effectively increase the speed way beyond the raw wpm.

A comparison between a poor speaker and a skilled
radiotelegrapher is worthy HOW? To shine up the
"skilled radiotelegrapher?" [of course...]

Listen to the way *most people* speak, Len. There's a lot of redundancy
in the way many
people speak, pauses, repeats, "ums" and "ahs', and little phrases
tossed in while the person thinks of what to say next.

Compare a good speaker and a poor, unskilled radio-
telegrapher's sending and speech becomes way, way
faster.

So? Most people don't speak like they're reading a script.

With todays electronics, size and weight really aren't much of an
issue.

I disagree to a point! Look at the size, weight and performance of HF
rigs that you can carry with you. Is there any HF ham rig that's
SSB-capable that can compete with the Elecraft KX-1?

AN/PRC-104...back-pack HF SSB transceiver, operational
since 1984. Built by (then) Hughes Aircraft Ground
Systems (Hughes purchased by Raytheon).

Let's see...

The AN/PRC-104 weighs at least 14 pounds, according to the literature.
Some writeups say as much as 28 pounds. It's a pretty big set - you
don't just slip it in a pocket.

How much do the batteries weigh? How long will the set will run on one
set of batteries?

Battery voltage is nominally 24 volts, and the thing draws about 350 mA
on *receive*. So you can't just hook it to a 12 volts source, and the
power consumption on receive is about 8 watts.

Now the biggie: How much does one cost new? I found some for $2500 -
reconditioned.

For civilian-only, try the SGC 2020 SSB HF transceiver
used by private boat owners as well as hams.

Weighs 8 pounds without batteries. Not as big as a PRC-104 but still a
lot bigger than a KX-1. Draws over 300 mA on receive, but runs on 12
volts. Costs $800 new, last time I looked. Tuner and such are extra.

The KX-1 weighs under a pound and is much smaller and lighter. Receive
current is less than 50 mA. Costs $299 new.

So the rigs that "compete" with the KX-1 cost a lot more money (twice
to ten times the price or more), are far larger and heavier (8 to 20
times the weight or more), and the battery life is much less.

Thanks for proving my point, Len.

For fixed-station use, there isn't much size/weight difference, if any.
But when you need to carry the rig and batteries any real distance, the
differences become apparent. This is also when you will find that the
difference in low power performance really matters.

The PRC-104 has an integral automatic antenna matching
package (to the right of the transceiver itself). This
insures that the manpack set's whip antenna is always
tuned for optimum radiated transmission power.

The KX1 can be equipped with an ATU. Costs a lot less, weighs a lot
less, takes up a lot less space.

SGC has several antenna autotuner models available;
separate equipments.

All weigh more, use more power, cost more money.

Or consider this analogy: It's one thing to drive a car with all the
modern conveniences - power steering, automatic transmission, power
brakes, cruise control, climate control, etc., and doing it on a smooth
straight highway. It's a different experience to drive a car without
all those things, on a winding country road where the driver's skill
makes a big difference.

You have much experience on "winding country roads?" :-)

Yes. Do you?

[of course you do, you are an amateur extra morseman...]

Are you advocating "no-frills" personal vehicles? Why?

Why not?

I learned to drive in a 1939 Ford, NO automatic trans-
mission, NO power steering, NO power brakes, No cruise
control, NO "climate control" other than the standard
heater.

Sounds like the car I learned to drive in.

Training ground was an abandoned army camp, one
which DID have a few "winding (dirt) roads." If you
think for one minute that I would give up a nice,
comfortable, well-equipped 2005 Chevy Malibu MAXX just
to "rough it" for SOMEONE ELSE'S IDEA of what constitutes
"good driving," you've got your head up your ass.

It's not about *you*, Len.

Having earned my Army driving license, I will personally
challenge you to a Jeep gymkhana (Jeep circa 1940s-1960s)
at everything from "smooth straight highways" through
"winding country roads" on to OFF-ROAD ANYTHING.

Why would you give up a nice, comfortable, well-equipped 2005 Chevy
Malibu MAXX just
to "rough it", Len?

I will WIN.

Maybe. Maybe not. You don't really know, you're just bragging because
you know it won't happen.

Been there, did that, got T-shirts, etc.

That doesn't mean you would win.

That standard issue Jeep had NO amenities except for the
post-1950 winch and cable over the front bumper. "Climate
control" was whatever the climate was outside. The "power
transmission" was a couple gear shifts operated by arm
strength and experienced clutch operation. Ptui.

What's your point - that you spit at Jeeps?

HOW MANY personal vehicles have YOU DESIGNED and BUILT?
Include auto kits if you need to.

What does it matter? I could tell you about the time I took two junker
cars and made one good one out of them, but you'd find fault with that,
somehow.

HOW MANY thousands of miles have YOU driven?

Gosh, Len, I don't really know. Probably more than you, though.

Over "winding
country roads?"

Enough.

[I don't think so unless you count the
old driveway to the Doylestown Barn Cinema...] I've driven
the VERY winding country road (rough surface) to a Wyoming
working ranch (cattle brand registered in Wyoming is "B-1
Bomber") from/to highway.

What does that have to do with anything, Len?

Perhaps the typical ages of people who prefer code could be a factor.
It does tend to be considerably older people who prefer code.

I disagree - for two reasons!

First I have found amateurs of all ages who are interested in Morse
Code.

If all you have is a hammer, naturally everything looks
like a nail to you...

I've got a lot more tools than just a hammer. I know how to use them,
too.

I have found that young people are interested *if* Morse Code is
presented correctly.

Sado-masochism is still prevalent in the human condition.

And yet you claim you have no problem with people using Morse Code....

Some say that, in the modern world, young people who grew up with cell
phones and the internet aren't going to sit still for something like
Morse Code - or amateur radio. And many won't.

Unquantified numbers. You are waffling on your emotional
reasons.

"Amateur" is derived from the Latin word for "love". Means to do
something for the love of the thing alone. Emotional reasons, IOW.

The fact is that there are plenty of young people who like Morse Code
and learn it readily. I think that's one reason you want an age limit
for an amateur radio license - so those code-skilled young folks can't
get a license until they're 14.

However, the very fact that Morse Code is unusual is a big attraction
to some of them - *because* it's so different and unusual. They've seen
voice comms - they all have cellphones! Typing on a keyboard and
reading a screen is something they've seen since they were babies.

One in three Americans has a cell phone. Census Bureau said
so in a public statement in 2004.

So what?

When I was a teenager, practically everyone had a telephone. Why should
anyone have a ham rig at home when they can just talk on the telephone?

Back in the late 1940s - a time well before cell phones, personal
computers, with (mostly) only sound broadcasting - there was NO
great "novelty" or "interest" in morse code communications.

Sure there was. Ham radio was growing by leaps and bounds then. You
were not part of it.

Been
there, seen that, see no difference now.

IOW, nobody should do what *you* don't enjoy.

But
Morse Code is completely different. That's what draws many young people
- just look at the acceptance of the Harry Potter books.

So, write the author of the "Harry Potter" series and have
her (J. K. Rowling) "introduce" morse code as "magic." :-)

BWAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHAA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

* M A G I C M O R S E *

BWAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHAA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

??


But some things can be preserved - values, skills, culture. Even if the
people and places change.

Preservation of the Past is the job of MUSEUMS.

Preservation of values, skills and culture is everyone's job.

Why do you insist on keeping a "living museum" in amateur
radio through federal license testing for morse code in
only AMATEUR radio?

It's not a living museum.

YOU had to test for it so everyone else has to...

Nope. Morse Code should be a license requirement because amateurs use
it. The skill is part of being a qualified radio amateur. Simple as
that.

Fraternal order HAZING having NO tangible value
except to amuse those ALREADY tested for code.

It's not about hazing, Len. It's about being qualified. You're not
qualified.

wrote in message
oups.com...

Opus- wrote:
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 08:19:27 -0400, jawod spake
thusly:

Who the **** are YOU to make such a statement? You snot nosed,
arrogant PRICK! You do NOT know the kind of person that I am!! Wake up
and smell the cappuccino! Code is obsolete! Knowing code does NOTHING
to make somebody an "asset to the service". And, could you explain
what makes a person an "asset to the service"?

Jeez,
Chill out, eh?

Sorry, but I get upset with people who make statements that are easily
taken as personal insults.

"Stuff happens."

BTW, this "Jawod" signed a message on rec.radio.amateur.homebrew
as "AB8O." I found a blank on that call sign at QRZ.


Yes it's obsolete. Yes, it's fun.

I found it to be cold and impersonal.

I agree. Manual radiotelegraphy has NONE of the body language
or tone of voice or much of anything that is normal in everyday
person-to-person contacts. Using this monotonic form of
very early radio allows any user to be anything they want with
no real references to anything but the ability to send telegraphy.


Should it be used to qualify? Let the FCC decide (soon).

Here in Canada, they already have. I believe the FCC will soon.

If it is eliminated, will that change the "Service"? Maybe.

Probably not.

Heh heh...if the test is eliminated the expressed outrage,
anguish, and horror will be a horrendous wail never to be
silenced until the last code key is pried from cold, dead
fingers! :-)


Will CW disappear? Probably not.
Historically, it defined ham radio, so it has a special place in the
hearts of very many hams. It's natural that they sort of cling to it.

Let them cling, they are free to do so.

I'd say "clog" as in cholesterol clogging those "hearts."

"Jawod" uses "many" AS IF it were quantitative. Not so much
in the USA now. The US Technician class licensees now
number about 49% of all, twice as large a number as the
General class. I doubt they want to hear such facts.


Will CW's elimination be the end of ham radio? Of course not.
Ham radio will cease when all the hams die off. New hams are needed,
with or without code.

I totally agree.

In the USA the number of newcomers is not able to keep pace
with the expirations of licensees. That trend has been evident
for more than a year. [see www.hamdata.com] The majority of
new licensees are Technician class. Novice class, the
supposed traditional "beginner" license has been expiring at a
steady rate for years before the US changes in 2000.


My personal hope is that a significant minority of these new hams will
take up CW and learn to enjoy this mode. It truly is a fun mode. I
hope people will WANT to learn it.

I always found it to be boring.

"Jawod" and other morsemen think that all will "like" what they
like. They really don't understand what other citizens want.


Compulsory things are seldom welcome,,,some are necessary. Is CW a good
requirement for ham radio? I guess it has probably outlived its day.

A requirement related to other digital modes would make a good
replacement. True?

I completely agree. If you want to filter out the less serious, then
use a relevant method. Here in Canada, in order to get a no-code
licence, you must get at least 80% on the technical. And technical
prowess will always be important regardless of the mode of
communication.

That sounds fair. In general I've approved what Industry Canada
does on communications regulations...a bit more than what the
FCC does for US civil radio services.




Im sure the numbers would look even wose if the licenses expired sooner.
Most of the new hams I know lose interest in a couple of years, long befor
the licence expires.

Jimmie D wrote:

Im sure the numbers would look even wose if the licenses expired sooner.
Most of the new hams I know lose interest in a couple of years, long befor
the licence expires.

Those darned new hams. They never should have been licensured in the
first place. Didn't have the ooomph to get licensed when the tests
were harder so they weren't really that innerested in the first place.
Didn't show the proper dedication.

wrote:
Jimmie D wrote:

Im sure the numbers would look even wose if the licenses expired sooner.
Most of the new hams I know lose interest in a couple of years, long befor
the licence expires.

Those darned new hams. They never should have been licensured in the
first place. Didn't have the ooomph to get licensed when the tests
were harder so they weren't really that innerested in the first place.
Didn't show the proper dedication.

and of course none of the failure of hams to reamin hams is due to
bull**** they must endure from other hams

an_old_friend wrote:
wrote:
Jimmie D wrote:

Im sure the numbers would look even wose if the licenses expired sooner.
Most of the new hams I know lose interest in a couple of years, long befor
the licence expires.

Those darned new hams. They never should have been licensured in the
first place. Didn't have the ooomph to get licensed when the tests
were harder so they weren't really that innerested in the first place.
Didn't show the proper dedication.

and of course none of the failure of hams to reamin hams is due to
bull**** they must endure from other hams

Of course not! Ham radio is a swell fellowship of men. What you see
on RRAP n't ham radio.

wrote:
an_old_friend wrote:
wrote:
Jimmie D wrote:

and of course none of the failure of hams to reamin hams is due to
bull**** they must endure from other hams

Of course not! Ham radio is a swell fellowship of men. What you see
on RRAP n't ham radio.
realy it isn't that much different from what i encounters on air with a
sad frequency

"an_old_friend" wrote in message
ups.com...

wrote:
an_old_friend wrote:
wrote:
Jimmie D wrote:

and of course none of the failure of hams to reamin hams is due to
bull**** they must endure from other hams

Of course not! Ham radio is a swell fellowship of men. What you see
on RRAP n't ham radio.
realy it isn't that much different from what i encounters on air with a
sad frequency


Well then Mark, do you think, just for a second, that possibly, just maybe,
that it could be YOU that brings out the best in everyone?

"Jimmie D" wrote in
:


wrote in message
oups.com...

Opus- wrote:
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 08:19:27 -0400, jawod spake
thusly:

Who the **** are YOU to make such a statement? You snot nosed,
arrogant PRICK! You do NOT know the kind of person that I am!! Wake
up and smell the cappuccino! Code is obsolete! Knowing code does
NOTHING to make somebody an "asset to the service". And, could you
explain what makes a person an "asset to the service"?

Jeez,
Chill out, eh?

Sorry, but I get upset with people who make statements that are easily
taken as personal insults.

"Stuff happens."

BTW, this "Jawod" signed a message on rec.radio.amateur.homebrew
as "AB8O." I found a blank on that call sign at QRZ.


Yes it's obsolete. Yes, it's fun.

I found it to be cold and impersonal.

I agree. Manual radiotelegraphy has NONE of the body language
or tone of voice or much of anything that is normal in everyday
person-to-person contacts. Using this monotonic form of
very early radio allows any user to be anything they want with
no real references to anything but the ability to send telegraphy.


Should it be used to qualify? Let the FCC decide (soon).

Here in Canada, they already have. I believe the FCC will soon.

If it is eliminated, will that change the "Service"? Maybe.

Probably not.

Heh heh...if the test is eliminated the expressed outrage,
anguish, and horror will be a horrendous wail never to be
silenced until the last code key is pried from cold, dead
fingers! :-)


Will CW disappear? Probably not.
Historically, it defined ham radio, so it has a special place in the
hearts of very many hams. It's natural that they sort of cling to
it.

Let them cling, they are free to do so.

I'd say "clog" as in cholesterol clogging those "hearts."

"Jawod" uses "many" AS IF it were quantitative. Not so much
in the USA now. The US Technician class licensees now
number about 49% of all, twice as large a number as the
General class. I doubt they want to hear such facts.


Will CW's elimination be the end of ham radio? Of course not.
Ham radio will cease when all the hams die off. New hams are needed,
with or without code.

I totally agree.

In the USA the number of newcomers is not able to keep pace
with the expirations of licensees. That trend has been evident
for more than a year. [see www.hamdata.com] The majority of
new licensees are Technician class. Novice class, the
supposed traditional "beginner" license has been expiring at a
steady rate for years before the US changes in 2000.


My personal hope is that a significant minority of these new hams
will take up CW and learn to enjoy this mode. It truly is a fun
mode. I hope people will WANT to learn it.

I always found it to be boring.

"Jawod" and other morsemen think that all will "like" what they
like. They really don't understand what other citizens want.


Compulsory things are seldom welcome,,,some are necessary. Is CW a
good requirement for ham radio? I guess it has probably outlived its
day.

A requirement related to other digital modes would make a good
replacement. True?

I completely agree. If you want to filter out the less serious, then
use a relevant method. Here in Canada, in order to get a no-code
licence, you must get at least 80% on the technical. And technical
prowess will always be important regardless of the mode of
communication.

That sounds fair. In general I've approved what Industry Canada
does on communications regulations...a bit more than what the
FCC does for US civil radio services.




Im sure the numbers would look even wose if the licenses expired sooner.
Most of the new hams I know lose interest in a couple of years, long
befor the licence expires.


That's what happens when something gets dumbed down. It cheapens it, and
people find no value in maintaining or continuing with it.

SC