|
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
Or just lazy people out? Sc |
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
Off the wall comment.
I learned code in 1956 and haven't had to use it yet. Al "Slow Code" wrote in message link.net... Or just lazy people out? Sc |
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
Allan9 wrote: Off the wall comment. I learned code in 1956 and haven't had to use it yet. Al I learned in 30 years later. Used it 1.5 times. Not worth the effort. |
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
|
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
The Morse test neither helps nor hinders... It is simply another
barrier to be overcome by the motivated... If it weren't for such barriers we would all have certificates as neurosurgeons... If the feds want to drop CW, fine by me... If you want to discuss it look for me on the bottom end of 160 and 80... denny / k8do |
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
"Allan9" wrote in
: Off the wall comment. I learned code in 1956 and haven't had to use it yet. Al You probably don't remember your callsign either, or do you prefer using a CB handle? SC |
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
"Slow Code" wrote in message . net... "Allan9" wrote in : Off the wall comment. I learned code in 1956 and haven't had to use it yet. Al You probably don't remember your callsign either, or do you prefer using a CB handle? SC I learned sufficient code to gain my upgrade to General in 2005 and passed the written test the same evening. I have no interest in using code further. I may change my mind on that later, but given my advanced years, the point may be moot. My primary interest as a Ham is in fiddling with antennas, only one of the 11 antennas scattered about my 7 acres was purchased. There are 5 at my detached shop/shack and 6 more back at the house to use when I desire air conditioning while pursuing my hobby. Three of these are indoor dipoles for use when bad weather threatens, as it often does here in southern Oklahoma. I hope all you other gentlemen continue to enjoy the access to the Amateur Bands allowed by what ever license class you possess. Harold KD5SAK |
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
I'll agree with you 100%. I have a Tech license and enjoy the hobby very
much. I plan on upgrading to General once the code issue is settled. I have always heard that "If you don't use it, you lose it". I have no interest in the code so why should I not be allowed to enjoy Ham radio. BTW, my CB license years back was KLW4194.. "kd5sak" wrote in message .. . "Slow Code" wrote in message . net... "Allan9" wrote in : Off the wall comment. I learned code in 1956 and haven't had to use it yet. Al You probably don't remember your callsign either, or do you prefer using a CB handle? SC I learned sufficient code to gain my upgrade to General in 2005 and passed the written test the same evening. I have no interest in using code further. I may change my mind on that later, but given my advanced years, the point may be moot. My primary interest as a Ham is in fiddling with antennas, only one of the 11 antennas scattered about my 7 acres was purchased. There are 5 at my detached shop/shack and 6 more back at the house to use when I desire air conditioning while pursuing my hobby. Three of these are indoor dipoles for use when bad weather threatens, as it often does here in southern Oklahoma. I hope all you other gentlemen continue to enjoy the access to the Amateur Bands allowed by what ever license class you possess. Harold KD5SAK |
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
Slow Code wrote: Or just lazy people out? Sc I wish it would keep all you "non antenna related" goofballs out of the antenna newsgroup. Why don't you all get some kind of life on a group that pertains to stuff like that. IE: misc.. MK |
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
"ken foshee" wrote in
: I'll agree with you 100%. I have a Tech license and enjoy the hobby very much. I plan on upgrading to General once the code issue is settled. I have always heard that "If you don't use it, you lose it". I have no interest in the code so why should I not be allowed to enjoy Ham radio. BTW, my CB license years back was KLW4194.. That's why you'll never be an asset to the ham radio service. You're too lazy to be an asset. SC |
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 23:25:13 GMT, Slow Code spake
thusly: "ken foshee" wrote in : I'll agree with you 100%. I have a Tech license and enjoy the hobby very much. I plan on upgrading to General once the code issue is settled. I have always heard that "If you don't use it, you lose it". I have no interest in the code so why should I not be allowed to enjoy Ham radio. BTW, my CB license years back was KLW4194.. That's why you'll never be an asset to the ham radio service. You're too lazy to be an asset. Just what makes a person an "asset to the ham radio service"? That sounds just as stupid as an "asset to the telephone service". Like it or not, ham radio is just a means of communication that has world-wide reach. Listen up, the "ham radio service" isn't some illustrious organization. It's just a means for people around to world to chat live. It can have great value in some emergencies, but most of it's use is idle chatter. |
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of hamradio?
|
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
Denny wrote: The Morse test neither helps nor hinders... You are uninformed and only half-right. It does not help, it hinders. |
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
Cecil Moore wrote: wrote: I wish it would keep all you "non antenna related" goofballs out of the antenna newsgroup. Why don't you all get some kind of life on a group that pertains to stuff like that. IE: misc.. I believe that r.r.a.policy was created to keep such off of r.r.a.misc -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com I believe that you are correct. |
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
|
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 23:50:31 GMT, Slow Code spake
thusly: wrote in oups.com: Denny wrote: The Morse test neither helps nor hinders... You are uninformed and only half-right. It does not help, it hinders. Yes, it hinders. It keeps out the stupid and lazy. Individuals that really don't what to be hams if it requires knowledge and skill to get a license. BULL****! Code is NOT KNOWLEDGE!!! I have NO problem learning technical info that helps me use the radio properly. Code is not needed to do that. Get off your high-horse already. Make them stay on CB and FRS. They're not an asset to the service. CB and FRS don't have the range. And neither are you. 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"? What fantasy do you hold that you would believe that your tiny-fisted tantrums would have more weight than that of a leprous desert rat, spinning rabidly in a circle, waiting for the bite of the snake? |
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of hamradio?
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? What fantasy do you hold that you would believe that your tiny-fisted tantrums would have more weight than that of a leprous desert rat, spinning rabidly in a circle, waiting for the bite of the snake? Waxing poetic now? Yes it's obsolete. Yes, it's fun. Should it be used to qualify? Let the FCC decide (soon). If it is eliminated, will that change the "Service"? Maybe. 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. 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. 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. 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? |
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
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. What fantasy do you hold that you would believe that your tiny-fisted tantrums would have more weight than that of a leprous desert rat, spinning rabidly in a circle, waiting for the bite of the snake? Waxing poetic now? Yes it's obsolete. Yes, it's fun. I found it to be cold and impersonal. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. |
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
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. |
Gee...What A Coincidence, Lennie...
|
Gee...What A Coincidence, Lennie...
|
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
Opus- wrote in
: 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. SNIP It's hilarious watching how violent CB'er hams get. ROFL. How's your Code practice coming along? SC |
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 23:59:03 GMT, Slow Code spake
thusly: Opus- wrote in : 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. SNIP It's hilarious watching how violent CB'er hams get. ROFL. ****, but you're stupid. Where is the violence? But that is typical of bigots. Always deflecting, never answering..usually because they lack the ability. How's your Code practice coming along? I'm not, nor will I ever. If code means associating with bigots like you, then I want no part of it. Much rather talk to civilized people. |
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of hamradio?
Opus- wrote:
SNIPPED I'm not, nor will I ever. If code means associating with bigots like you, then I want no part of it. Much rather talk to civilized people. Then we will gladly acknowledge that you desire to leave this NG. We don't need the profanity, the attitude and the whimpering. All in favor, say AYE! ... |
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
Dave wrote in
: Opus- wrote: SNIPPED I'm not, nor will I ever. If code means associating with bigots like you, then I want no part of it. Much rather talk to civilized people. Then we will gladly acknowledge that you desire to leave this NG. We don't need the profanity, the attitude and the whimpering. All in favor, say AYE! ... Aye. SC |
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 08:43:52 -0400, Dave spake
thusly: Opus- wrote: SNIPPED I'm not, nor will I ever. If code means associating with bigots like you, then I want no part of it. Much rather talk to civilized people. Then we will gladly acknowledge that you desire to leave this NG. Are you saying that there are no civilized people in this newsgroup? Talk about attitude. We don't need the profanity, the attitude and the whimpering. Then tell the pro-coders to quit insulting and labeling people. All in favor, say AYE! ... Nay. |
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 23:15:45 GMT, Slow Code spake
thusly: Dave wrote in : Opus- wrote: SNIPPED I'm not, nor will I ever. If code means associating with bigots like you, then I want no part of it. Much rather talk to civilized people. Then we will gladly acknowledge that you desire to leave this NG. We don't need the profanity, the attitude and the whimpering. All in favor, say AYE! ... Aye. What are YOU saying "aye" for? YOU'RE the bigot. |
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
Made Extra in 1995 and had to do 20wpm. I did it and have NEVER used CW
since and have no intention to ever do so..even if "someone is dying!" IMHO it is an outdated requirement and will/should be dropped altogether very very soon.... "Nada Tapu" wrote in message ... On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 23:23:03 GMT, Slow Code wrote: Or just lazy people out? Sc It certainly didn't keep me out, and I wasn't all that crazy about learning it, either. NT |
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
Barry OGrady wrote in
: On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 22:54:46 -0500, Nada Tapu wrote: On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 23:23:03 GMT, Slow Code wrote: Or just lazy people out? Sc It certainly didn't keep me out, and I wasn't all that crazy about learning it, either. More to the point, are there more licensed amateurs since the code requirement was removed years ago? No, numbers are decreasing because ham radio has been dumbed down so having a ham license isn't worth anything anymore and people are leaving. SC |
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of hamradio?
Slow Code wrote:
No, numbers are decreasing because ham radio has been dumbed down so having a ham license isn't worth anything anymore and people are leaving. Therefore, if the ARS required MENSA membership, there would be more hams? -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
|
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
Cecil Moore wrote: Slow Code wrote: No, numbers are decreasing because ham radio has been dumbed down so having a ham license isn't worth anything anymore and people are leaving. Therefore, if the ARS required MENSA membership, there would be more hams? -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com Guys don't have mensas. If they did, this would be called the "Women's League of Coders." ;^) |
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 00:36:36 GMT, Slow Code spake
thusly: Barry OGrady wrote in : On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 22:54:46 -0500, Nada Tapu wrote: On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 23:23:03 GMT, Slow Code wrote: Or just lazy people out? Sc It certainly didn't keep me out, and I wasn't all that crazy about learning it, either. More to the point, are there more licensed amateurs since the code requirement was removed years ago? No, numbers are decreasing because ham radio has been dumbed down so having a ham license isn't worth anything anymore and people are leaving. No, it's dying because of attitudes like yours that scare people away. Nobody wants to be like you. |
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
Opus- wrote: On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 00:36:36 GMT, Slow Code spake thusly: More to the point, are there more licensed amateurs since the code requirement was removed years ago? No, numbers are decreasing because ham radio has been dumbed down so having a ham license isn't worth anything anymore and people are leaving. No, it's dying because of attitudes like yours that scare people away. not scare or not just scare disgust indeed it was the attitude of people like sc and Robeson that served as a the major to each newbie I have helped to obtain a license Nobody wants to be like you. afew do to be fair but not near enough to be usefull nor is the result desiable |
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
Opus- wrote: On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 00:36:36 GMT, Slow Code spake thusly: More to the point, are there more licensed amateurs since the code requirement was removed years ago? No, numbers are decreasing because ham radio has been dumbed down so having a ham license isn't worth anything anymore and people are leaving. No, it's dying because of attitudes like yours that scare people away. not scare or not just scare disgust indeed it was the attitude of people like sc and Robeson that served as a the major to each newbie I have helped to obtain a license Nobody wants to be like you. afew do to be fair but not near enough to be usefull nor is the result desiable |
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
Nada Tapu wrote: On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 16:39:47 -0400, wrote: Call me old fashioned, but I think the code makes amateur radio look rather quaint and charming myself. It's a legacy mode, and just because it's a relic which means you agree with my point but lack the guts to say so it it makes us look like relics |
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
From: Nada Tapu on Sat, Sep 30 2006 2:23 pm
On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 20:56:08 -0400, wrote: no slow code the number are down because with Code testing looks so stpupid The numbers are down for a variety of reasons, but I suspect that computers and the internet are the major factors, not the CW requirement. The ready-built Personal Computer first appeared in 1976, 30 years ago (the "IBM PC" debuted in 1980, 26 years ago). The Internet went public in 1991, 15 years ago. "Restructuring" to drop the morse test rate to 5 WPM for all such tests happened only 6 years ago. The peak licensing of 737,938 happened on 2 Jul 03, just 3 years ago. [they've been dropping at an average of 7K per year ever since] I disagree on your reasons stated in your quote above. When I ask technical people about why they haven't acquired an interest in amateur radio, I never get the CW requirement as a response. Strange, I hear that response. Having been IN radio- electronics for over a half century, I DO know some "technical people." :-) Manual radiotelegraphy was a MUST to use early radio as a communications medium. The technology of early radio was primitive, simple, and not yet developed. On-off keying was the ONLY practical way to make it possible to communicate. Morse code was then already mature and a new branch of communications was open to use by downsized landline telegraphers. They simply view the whole service as outmoded in the face of modern telecommunications. PART of that IS true. NOT all of it. What IS outmoded (technically) is sitting only on HF and "working" other stations with morse radiotelegraphy. Amateur radio is the ONLY radio service still using morse radiotelegraphy for communications purposes. Another thing outmoded is the strict "necessity" to use a formalism in "procedure" AS IF it was "professional" radio. That formalism was established between 50 to 70 years ago. Amateur radio, by definition, is NOT professional. Too many olde-tymers want to PRETEND they are pros in front of their ham rigs. But, there is still an enormous area of the EM spectrum that is still open for experimentation, for just the fun of doing something out of the ordinary above 30 MHz. That can be a very different RF environment, much much different than the technology available in the 20s and 30s. It has exciting possibilities...except for the rutted and mired olde-tymers unable to keep up with new things, secure in their own dreams of youth and simple technological environment. Let's face it.. the romance is gone. Oh, boo hoo...the "romance" of the 1930s is gone? Yes, it IS. The "pioneering of the airwaves" below 30 MHz has been DONE...mostly by the pros of radio (despite what the ARRL claims). DONE a long time ago. The solid-state era came into being about 45 years ago and has revolutionized ALL electronics (radio is a subset of that). Except as memorabilia trinkets of the past, GONE is the analog VFO, GONE is the one-tube regenerative receiver, GONE is the single-crystal-single-frequency Tx, GONE is the big, bulky AM modulator amplifier, GONE is the not- knowing-when-the-bands-are-open (solar activity and ionosonding solved that and HF MUF is a predictable item that can be found by a computer program). Except for the boatanchor afficionados, vacuum tubes are GONE for nearly everything but high-power transmitters. The radio world of today is NOT that of 1950, nor of 1960, nor 1970, nor even 1980s. It keeps changing, advancing, the state of the art never static. For the stuck-in-the-mud olde tymers that is terrible...they feel insecure on not being able to keep up, become aggressive to newcomers ("no kids, lids or space cadets") and retreat to the "secure" mode of their youth, "CW." But, they want to make sure They get the respect they feel they've "earned" (as if) so they try and try and try to bring all down to THEIR level...the code test MUST stay..."because." There are 100 million two-way radios in use in the USA alone, millions more in other countries. Those are the cellular telephones. There are millions of VHF and UHF transceivers in the USA, working daily for public safety agencies, ships, private boats, air carriers as well as private airplanes. There are tens of thousands of HF transceivers in use in the USA, users being everyone from government agencies to private boat owners, ALL exclusive of amateur radio users. Where is the "romance" in all this Plenty from a cornucopia that all have grabbed? It is GONE, yes. But, NEW "romances" await. DIFFERENT ones, I'd say a helluva lot more complex than old, simple "radio." We can't relive old "romances" except in our minds and we can't grow physically younger. Only person-to-person romance is TRUE, the other "romance" is of the imagination, of the fantasy of what was once there. This fantasy "romance" can't be brought back. It can't be legislated into remaining static. The rules and regulations have to change to keep up with the NOW. |
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
Nada Tapu wrote:
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 21:06:23 -0400, wrote: yes you are stupid and anothe rof the usenet cowards This discussion is over. You lose. And to prove it, you had to get personal and I didn't. I will not engage in a reasoned debate with an individual such as you. If you really are an amateur operator, and I sincerely doubt that you are, do us all a favor and keep your seething hatred and childish foot stomping off of the bands. NT If you really are an amateur operator, why can't you give out your license callsign? How DOES one have a "reasoned debate" with an anony-mousie such as "Nada Tapu"? I've not seen that such is possible in here except for two and both of them are self-admitted Canadians. |
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?
wrote: On 30 Sep 2006 22:36:54 -0700, " wrote: From: Nada Tapu on Sat, Sep 30 2006 2:23 pm On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 20:56:08 -0400, wrote: no slow code the number are down because with Code testing looks so stpupid The numbers are down for a variety of reasons, but I suspect that computers and the internet are the major factors, not the CW requirement. The ready-built Personal Computer first appeared in 1976, 30 years ago (the "IBM PC" debuted in 1980, 26 years ago). The Internet went public in 1991, 15 years ago. "Restructuring" to drop the morse test rate to 5 WPM for all such tests happened only 6 years ago. The peak licensing of 737,938 happened on 2 Jul 03, just 3 years ago. [they've been dropping at an average of 7K per year ever since] I disagree on your reasons stated in your quote above. When I ask technical people about why they haven't acquired an interest in amateur radio, I never get the CW requirement as a response. Strange, I hear that response. Having been IN radio- electronics for over a half century, I DO know some "technical people." :-) Manual radiotelegraphy was a MUST to use early radio as a communications medium. The technology of early radio was primitive, simple, and not yet developed. On-off keying was the ONLY practical way to make it possible to communicate. Morse code was then already mature and a new branch of communications was open to use by downsized landline telegraphers. They simply view the whole service as outmoded in the face of modern telecommunications. PART of that IS true. NOT all of it. What IS outmoded (technically) is sitting only on HF and "working" other stations with morse radiotelegraphy. Amateur radio is the ONLY radio service still using morse radiotelegraphy for communications purposes. Another thing outmoded is the strict "necessity" to use a formalism in "procedure" AS IF it was "professional" radio. That formalism was established between 50 to 70 years ago. Amateur radio, by definition, is NOT professional. Too many olde-tymers want to PRETEND they are pros in front of their ham rigs. But, there is still an enormous area of the EM spectrum that is still open for experimentation, for just the fun of doing something out of the ordinary above 30 MHz. That can be a very different RF environment, much much different than the technology available in the 20s and 30s. It has exciting possibilities...except for the rutted and mired olde-tymers unable to keep up with new things, secure in their own dreams of youth and simple technological environment. Let's face it.. the romance is gone. Oh, boo hoo...the "romance" of the 1930s is gone? Yes, it IS. The "pioneering of the airwaves" below 30 MHz has been DONE...mostly by the pros of radio (despite what the ARRL claims). DONE a long time ago. The solid-state era came into being about 45 years ago and has revolutionized ALL electronics (radio is a subset of that). Except as memorabilia trinkets of the past, GONE is the analog VFO, GONE is the one-tube regenerative receiver, GONE is the single-crystal-single-frequency Tx, GONE is the big, bulky AM modulator amplifier, GONE is the not- knowing-when-the-bands-are-open (solar activity and ionosonding solved that and HF MUF is a predictable item that can be found by a computer program). Except for the boatanchor afficionados, vacuum tubes are GONE for nearly everything but high-power transmitters. The radio world of today is NOT that of 1950, nor of 1960, nor 1970, nor even 1980s. It keeps changing, advancing, the state of the art never static. For the stuck-in-the-mud olde tymers that is terrible...they feel insecure on not being able to keep up, become aggressive to newcomers ("no kids, lids or space cadets") and retreat to the "secure" mode of their youth, "CW." But, they want to make sure They get the respect they feel they've "earned" (as if) so they try and try and try to bring all down to THEIR level...the code test MUST stay..."because." There are 100 million two-way radios in use in the USA alone, millions more in other countries. Those are the cellular telephones. There are millions of VHF and UHF transceivers in the USA, working daily for public safety agencies, ships, private boats, air carriers as well as private airplanes. There are tens of thousands of HF transceivers in use in the USA, users being everyone from government agencies to private boat owners, ALL exclusive of amateur radio users. Where is the "romance" in all this Plenty from a cornucopia that all have grabbed? It is GONE, yes. But, NEW "romances" await. DIFFERENT ones, I'd say a helluva lot more complex than old, simple "radio." We can't relive old "romances" except in our minds and we can't grow physically younger. Only person-to-person romance is TRUE, the other "romance" is of the imagination, of the fantasy of what was once there. This fantasy "romance" can't be brought back. It can't be legislated into remaining static. The rules and regulations have to change to keep up with the NOW. a nice peice of writing stored I may lift a peice or for something I am working on Thank you. Feel free to use any part. I would be nice to get credit for it, a common courtesy. but yes their is still magaic I play with it (although yes acess to HF would be a help as I learn the ins and out of EME and other VHF+ modes pity that progress in the ARS is opposed at every turn by hams themslves "Magic" is a subjective term. The "magic" of HF worldwide comms dissolved into reality for me in 1953 on seeing such wholesale "magic" working 24/7 in tying US Army (and other military) into the large network going back to the states. "Different strokes for different folks." ARRL is still fixated on HF and the "magic" of morse. Since they influence (if not brainwash) as many US hams as they can with their huge publishing effort, we aren't supposed to negatively critique them. That's "not nice" to those who've had their brains washed in that way. I've seen "real" magic at the Magic Castle in Hollywood, CA. That's mainly a professional association of magicians/illusionists. One can't gain entrance without being admitted by a member. I've had the marvelous opportunity to go in three times there...and be totally fascinated by the illusions. Whenever I see some ham bring up "magic" I think of the Magic Castle. A lot of hams ascribe "magic" to HF comms but that is their own private illusion (or delusion, as the case may be). Shrug. To each his own but I don't like others trying to cram Their delusions into everyone. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:28 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com