|
On Wed, 8 Oct 2003 13:46:46 -0500, Key Largo wrote
(in message pYYgb.58797$Ms2.28397@fed1read03): Anyone who would be posting with their REAL callsign would not be stirring up fights with anyone on a newsgroup, would they? Or course not. Believe me -- even if you do not flame or stir up a fight, Even if you are very diplomatic in taking exceptions. Or if you are female. The nuts will sooner or later come after you. Anon In Key Largo Most of them can't - they're impotent. Gray Shockley ----------------------- DX-392 DX-398 RX-320 DX-399 CCradio w/RS Loop Torus Tuner (3-13 MHz) Select-A-Tenna ----------------------- Vicksburg, MS US |
Jeff Renkin wrote in message ...
In an emergency anyone is broadcasting to ANYONE that is listening. If you think a ham or anyone else in an emergency is not going to want a non-ham to help, or will refuse to deal with a non-ham you are crazy. If I'm on a ham band calling for help, I don't expect non hams to be listening. Actually MORE people who are not hams could be listening with their scanners than hams with their 2-meter radios. You just don't know they are there because they can't talk back, but they are listening. Just like when the cops say things they shouldn't on their radios because they think the only ones listening are the other cops. I'm not talking about 2 meters. If I'm close enough to use a repeater, I'm probably just as close to a phone or able to hit a cell site with my phone. Any emergency that I would use a radio to call for help will likely be so far away from any civilization, 2 meters will be useless. I know when I'm on the highway, 2 meters is useless most of the time. Thats why I live on 40m in the day, and 75m at night when I'm on the road. I like to actually be able to talk to people on a regular basis. But just to ease your mind, I can work any band from 160m to 70cm when mobile or portable. If there are, well, so much the better, but I would never *expect* any to be listening. If I get on a ham band, I'm transmitting to other hams, and other hams only. Even with that mindset, MOST hams don't understand morse code, especially those that would be on 2-meters which would most likely the band you would use to call for help. Where do you get this 2 meter mindset at? The chances of me ever using 2 meters to call for help is very remote at best. Also where do you get these weird ideas about who and who doesn't know cw? Sure, many of the no-coders on 2 meters don't know the code. But I wouldn't use 2 meters. It's obvious you must not know too many people on HF. If I want a non ham, I would get on my cell phone or yell real loud. Ham or not, you would use the cellphone if you had one over any ham radio. Maybe, maybe not. My cell phone is useless in many parts of the country. IE: lets say I drive out to the Fort Davis area in west Texas. Cell phones don't work worth a hoot there. But my radio sure will. My radio works everywhere in the world on some particular band. No cell site or repeater required. In an emergency you can even use frequencies and radios at your access that you would not normally be licensed to operate on. We are talking about EMERGENCIES here. No time to waste playing morse code or taking the time to pound out a cry for help one letter at a time in a mode that only ends up sounding like silly beeps to most of the people listening on the other end that would otherwise be hearing your cry for help. B.S. Most hams on the HF bands know code well enough to get a simple message through. Most hams only learn the code to pass the test, then never use it after that. So you say...Quite a few still use it after the test. Maybe you don't, but you ain't everybody. You are also not going to be using an HF radio to call for help, you would use the 2-meter radio. You must be high. The HF radio is the only one I would ever be likely to use. If I have to use a ham radio to call for help, I'm too far away for 2m or my cell phone to be of any use. If I'm not far way, I wouldn't use a radio to call for help. None of them. God help you if you had to use the HF radio to get help! What do you think the sailboat I mentioned was using? A 70 cm HT? We were on 40m. That is HF. Being they were well off the coast of Mexico out in the Pacific, what would you suggest they use? Tin cans and a string? Flipper, with a message in a bottle tied around his neck? Oh, I get it. You would insist they waste their time and valuable battery power, and uselessly holler for hours on end on 2 meters...:/ I'm starting to think you are the troll... Keep in mind what frequencies and bands the police, fire and paramedics use, and why they don't use HF for emergency radio use. What do they have to do with anything we are talking about? I'm not going to get on a radio and talk to the police or whoever directly. They throw you in jail for that around here. And I don't care to hear about any emergency clauses...I'm not getting on any public service freq with my uncertified radio. I wouldn't trust the *******s any more than I could throw them. I've seen people go to jail for that here in Houston. One was a "in training" police officer who had a handheld motorola sabre radio in his car. He didn't even use it. He was just caught in possesion of it. They dialed around and heard police officers. They noticed it could transmit. He went to jail. If the emergency requires that I talk on a public service freq, I guess the poor *******s will just have to die. I'm not risking my ass over it. Besides, my radio is not opened up, and is incapable of such a thing anyway. In other words, it's useless speculation. They also don't know or ever use morse code in any emergency. In fact in disasters such as hurricanes and earthquakes when we assist them with our equipment and resources, we don't ever use morse code either, we use voice every time. So what? I wouldn't expect them to. I do expect at least one of those hams to be capable of it though...If they can't, they ain't much of an emergency station in my book. I've actually dealt with a marine emergency on the radio. Have you? No, all mine have been on land, but I am prepared to do so. Not using CW you aren't, if you can barely handle an SOS...I hope the boat can hit a repeater...:/ The testing requirements for getting a GROL means you know what frequencies to monitor, and at what times you have to be monitoring them and all that other good stuff relating to marine emergencies, even though I got the license for broadcast use. Actually, now the GROL doesn't even have any broadcast use, but some stations still like to see that you have it if you want to be chief engineer. It is not required, but they like if you have it. But getting it means you are tested on all this stuff too. Interesting enough, morse code was never a requirement for that. What does getting a GROL have to do with being capable of holding a CW qso in an emergency? Even when there was the First Class Radiotelephone Operators License for chief engineers of Broadcast stations, there was no code requirement. You could be working on and operating transmitters operating on 50,000 watts of power and not need to know code, but for a citizen's hobby ham radio license where most are using substantially less power, you needed to know code. It was an international requirement, although Japan found a nice way to get around it, and the US decided that you could get out of the international agreement by getting a doctor's note. Again, what does this have to do with being able to hold a CW qso in an emergency? I could give a rats rectum what the broadcasters do. Lazy handicapped people? You said it, not me. Or is it that when you are handicapped or injured in an emergency, you may not be able to operate a code key, only a microphone??? Aha! If I can push a mike button, I can work a paddle. Besides, the mike on my 706mk2g can be used as a code key in a pinch. Looks like I just knocked down those lame ass excuses. Wanna know how the boat got our attention though all the noise on 40m? CW. That doesn't do any good to those monitoring for a "mayday" like every GROL licensee is doing. What does GROL have to do with being able to work a cw qso in an emergency? , or even noise in general? Do GROL'ers constantly listen to the 40m phone band for emergencies? Sounds like a waste of time to me... No mention of Morse Code is ever brought up. So? Most are probably too lazy to learn it anyway...Sounds like a bunch of rubber duck commando's most likely...I envy them. They really are OFFICIAL LOOKING radio operators. I wish I could hang 5 or 6 HT's on my beltline without my pants falling down around my ankles. I'd be a Ūreal operator then... You are to ask for help with the international distress call of MAYDAY. They were too weak to get through on fone until we actually knew they were there. After they got our attention, yes, we went to phone. Of course you did. You needed to know where they were and all the other details. If they had to pound it out one letter of the alphabet at a time with morse code, they would have been dead before the message ever got out. Do you really believe all this dribble you are spewing out? You need to come by and watch me work CW. I'll straighten you out real fast. It's obvious you have no earthly idea what you are talking about when it comes to CW. I can receive CW faster than many of these rednecks here in TX can talk. The coast guard met us on our freq , not the other way around. If the boat had CW only, I'm sure they would have dealt with it. How? They would let me do it and I would relay if they had no one capable. See how useful I would be in such a case? See how useless you would be? Kinda like tits on a bore hog... You'd let them drown, not me. Mainly because the coast guard station in Miami was on phone. That's right. They don't use morse code, and neither does the military. I think they are capable of it. "coast guard" Pretty sure they are as a matter of fact. They usually have someone in the office that can work a little CW if it's really needed. They wouldn't be much of a coast guard if they couldn't. Who cares about the military. I'm not planning on bombing a small country. Neither do ANY emergency services like Police, Fire, Paramedics. No time to play around with morse code in a real emergency. If it had ANY sort of advantage at all, they would require the military, police, fire and paramedics to learn it. But they don't, do they? Of course not. Case closed. You have all these various agencies stuck so far up your heinie, it's clouded your mind. I could give a flying #$%^ what they do. I'm only concerned about what I can do, or have done as far as this thread is concerned. I'm a ham, not a policeman or EMS. Why would I care what they do? The only thing I care about is their being able to find my ass, after I call them. Next time you are stranded in your car and need a tow, why don't you call on your cell phone and punch our your problem in morse code with the touch tone pad Wow, you didn't even comprehend what you read, did you? It was meant to be a goofy scenarios that would never happen, it was an example of the type of crap the morse code people always bring up. Is this phenomena related to the ridiculous crap some non coders bring up? Myself, I haven't brought up anything like that. You said in an earlier post that no one ever works emergencies using CW. Fine. That's your right. But, I'm flat out telling you that you are full of crap. You are wrong and you are too stubborn to even consider otherwise. In other words, you don't seem to like code, or even be willing to concede it could be useful in some cases. I would call this a mental block. It seems you think everyone should be like you and ignore a potentially useful mode. But many of us aren't you. I learned code when I was in the 8th grade. "32 years ago". I'm not going to quit using it just because you don't think it's stylish or useful. It may not be too stylish anymore, but it's still quite useful to people who can work it. I could probably handle traffic just as fast on CW than I could voice. Hell, you gotta write it all down anyway. What's the difference? None to me. Maybe a lot to you. My handled traffic would likely be more accurately transcribed if I used CW in bad or noisy band cdx, than if I used phone. No guessing about letters or spelling. Glad to hear you think it is goofy like I do, but too bad you didn't even read what it said before you commented on it. Oh, I read that silly crap just fine... You just proved you are not reading any of these statements, just looking where a paragraph ends and then making up an argument for the sake of argument. You are just proving that even with someone telling you CW has been used in an emergency, "me", you don't want to hear anything about it. You just want to spew back all this uselss GROL crap. I'm not GROL. Can we spell mental block? Now everyone here knows you are a troll. Well, I'd rather be a troll than someone who has a mental problem dealing with code users. I have no problems with anyone that doesn't want to use code. I could care less. But for someone to get on here and spread ignorant falsehoods about it, that *will* get my goat. You aren't really qualified to comment on the subject, if you can't hardly work CW well enough to make out an SOS. It's like reading the other day that PSK31 is hard to "tune" and operate, being so narrow. Again, B.S... Only someone who hasn't used it would say that. See a connection? I can handle emergency traffic on any band, using any mode, including cw. I'm ready for anything. You seem not to be. I have no problems with that, as long as you don't mistakenly claim to be just as useful an operator. If you can't work CW, you are inferior as an operator when compared to me. Thats a fact, not speculation. Notice I didn't say ham. I said OPERATOR. MK |
Jeff Renkin wrote in message ...
Anyone who would be posting with their REAL callsign would not be stirring up fights with anyone on a newsgroup, would they? Ha...You haven't seen me in action. I've verbally gouged out the eyeballs of a few people on this group when they got a bit rectal with me. But they have to earn it first. Some do manage though. And I post my real call. I'm not scared of anyone. I live at 11119 Burdine in Houston. Anyone want to make my day? I'll blow so many freaking holes in any troublemakers, they will need a good quality stop leak to make it back home. I have nearly a zero tolerance for horsecrap and smartasses. I can't stand a smartass in particular...I'll tear them a new one every time. And I'll do it right here in front of everyone and their sisters. NM5K said that... |
I've actually dealt with a marine emergency on the radio. Have you?
No, all mine have been on land, but I am prepared to do so. Not using CW you aren't, Point is, CW is not used for marine emergencies anymore. The testing requirements for getting a GROL means you know what frequencies to monitor, and at what times you have to be monitoring them and all that other good stuff relating to marine emergencies, even though I got the license for broadcast use. Actually, now the GROL doesn't even have any broadcast use, but some stations still like to see that you have it if you want to be chief engineer. It is not required, but they like if you have it. But getting it means you are tested on all this stuff too. Interesting enough, morse code was never a requirement for that. What does getting a GROL have to do with being capable of holding a CW qso in an emergency? What it has to do is, every ship has to have someone with with this license, and if you had the license, you would know that CW is not used anymore in emergencies. The test insures you know what frequencies to monitor and use, and the procedures, and to call using MAYDAY, not CW. substantially less power, you needed to know code. It was an international requirement, although Japan found a nice way to get around it, and the US decided that you could get out of the international agreement by getting a doctor's note. Lazy handicapped people? You said it, not me. But we both agree on this. Or is it that when you are handicapped or injured in an emergency, you may not be able to operate a code key, only a microphone??? Aha! If I can push a mike button, I can work a paddle. Besides, the mike on my 706mk2g can be used as a code key in a pinch. Looks like I just knocked down those lame ass excuses. Exactly! So why are handicapped people excused from learning the code then? Besides, the test today only requires you to LISTEN to code not pound it out. So there should be no excuse why a handicapped person is excused from the code, but no one else is! Fine tuning in to hear someone on sideband, and being able to do all the other more complicated adjustments other than a simple closure of two contacts to send code, requires a lot more dexterity and I don't see how these handicapped people are excused because they don't want to use code, but the rest of us who also don't want to use code had to learn and pass it, only to go and forget it again because we had no intentions of ever using it. Wanna know how the boat got our attention though all the noise on 40m? CW. That doesn't do any good to those monitoring for a "mayday" like every GROL licensee is doing. What does GROL have to do with being able to work a cw qso in an emergency? , or even noise in general? Do GROL'ers constantly listen to the 40m phone band for emergencies? No, but there were two frequencies you were required to monitor, and at specific times of the hour to, not any HF frequencies, and you were listening for a mayday, not CW. This changes constantly, and unless I am going to be in a marine situation, I don't need to find out what frequency or frequencies are monitored now unless I am going to be doing that, then I will update my self on what has changed since I was last tested. But the point here is that there were only two frequencies I had to monitor, and anyone else in a distress situation would know to use those two frequencies since he had the same license. He would also then know that no one would be listening for morse code. So? Most are probably too lazy to learn it anyway... Is the reason you never learned every language of every country in the world is because you are lazy, or because you don't waste time learning things you don't intend to use? Everytime you tell someone who never intends to use code that they are lazy for not learning it, they can come back at you with thousands of things YOU must therefore also be too LAZY to learn. Did you ever learn how to perform brain surgery? French Law? How to produce fuel for the space shuttle? Marine biology? Russian sentence structure? Rules of the road in Japan? Egyptian Hieroglyphics? Why not? Because you are LAZY? Now what if I told you you had to learn one of more of those before you were allowed to talk into a microphone on HF? You would tell me I was friggin crazy! Now you know how everyone else feels when told they have to learn morse code before they can use a microphone. I am surprised that people that had to learn the code like I did, never found it and odd thing when they were told they had to do it. I understand NOW why some people want the requirement.... because "if we had to learn the worthless crap, so does everyone else." Well I had to learn it too, but I am mature and smart enough to realize that it is a silly requirement that makes no sense, and can deal with the fact that others will not have to learn and do what I had to do. I just take satisfaction in the idea that society has gotten rid of a silly law, rather than be upset that I had to do something and now no one else has to do it, like a little spoiled child. Imagine former slaves getting mad that future generations will no longer have to get whipped and be slaves but they had to go through it. I am sure they are all happy that no one has to go through that hell anymore, rather than fight to keep slavery legal. In essence, people fighting to keep the code requirement are doing the same thing as a black man fighting to keep slavery around. They were too weak to get through on fone until we actually knew they were there. After they got our attention, yes, we went to phone. Of course you did. You needed to know where they were and all the other details. If they had to pound it out one letter of the alphabet at a time with morse code, they would have been dead before the message ever got out. Do you really believe all this dribble you are spewing out? If I was wrong and you were right, then the military would not have dropped the code worldwide, the international requirement for ham radio would not have been dropped as it just was, and police fire and paramedics would be required to learn the code. But it is NOT that way, it is the way things are now, and that backs up my position, not yours. You need to come by and watch me work CW. I'll straighten you out real fast. It's obvious you have no earthly idea what you are talking about when it comes to CW. I can receive CW faster than many of these rednecks here in TX can talk. Impossible. CW requires each letter be sent as up to several beeps each. Speech can get entire words out faster than just some individual letters of a word using CW. Plus, you can hear the distress and urgency in someone's voice needing urgent attention, but with CW, a distressful emergency message sounds just the same as a friendly chat to someone tuning across the dial quickly and passing it. The coast guard met us on our freq , not the other way around. The coast guard doesn't go around scanning frequencies other that those they are required to in the idea that you are out there and don't know the rules or didn't bother to carry a radio with the proper frequencies as required by law. If the boat had CW only, I'm sure they would have dealt with it. How? They would let me do it and I would relay if they had no one capable. So all around the world, you will be there at a seconds notice for this situation. See how useful I would be in such a case? No, everyone out there who is LEGALLY out there knows what radios, frequencies, and procedures are practiced in such a situation and knows that no one at the coast guard is going to be trained in decoding morse code. Now if someone is out there who doesn't know this, it is better off they never be found rather than living in our world endangering our lives and taking our jobs because they don't follow the laws. See how useless you would be? Kinda like tits on a bore hog... You'd let them drown, not me. Let them drown for not following proper procedure? That's like me accusing you of letting someone die because they entered our country illegally, then called you for help in a language you didn't understand and you were unable to help them or know what was wrong. Mainly because the coast guard station in Miami was on phone. That's right. They don't use morse code, and neither does the military. I think they are capable of it. We are all capable of learning how to fly the space shuttle, but most people on the planet have no idea how to fly one. MOST people in the world do not know morse code. Using that as a cry for help means most of those that would be able to receive your signal would not understand your message. Same would go for a foreign language in voice, and that is why all pilots and air traffic controllers all over the world in every country must know and speak English. They do not learn morse code. a matter of fact. They usually have someone in the office that can work a little CW if it's really needed. They wouldn't be much of a coast guard if they couldn't. You are wrong. The coast guard made an official statement when they were no longer going to be using code. From AP news archive: Months after the code was abandoned under international convention for ships in trouble, the only private U.S. network of coastal radio stations using Morse has turned off the transmitters. Simple but slow, the telegraph was overtaken decades ago by the telephone, by data systems capable of reproducing printed words at the receiving end, and by satellite for most forms of communication. But until the newest generation of satellite and computer technology took hold, Morse code endured for mariners. Now e-mail is within easy reach for many at sea and modern ships have automated emergency beacons designed to allow rescuers to zero in on them. ``Morse code has finally met its match,'' says Tim Gorman, operations director for Globe Wireless, the company that dropped the curtain on commercial radiotelegraphy by ceasing transmissions at its four stations in Half Moon Bay, Calif., and Slidell, La. Last week the World War II-era Liberty ship Jeremiah O'Brien, docked in San Francisco harbor, transmitted a Morse farewell to President Clinton. ``History is made on this day as we embark on a new era of communication,'' it began. The message was translated back into English and sent to the White House the modern way, via e-mail. The International Maritime Organization officially phased out Morse code Feb. 1 for ships in peril, replacing it with the high-tech Global Maritime Distress and Safety System. Here is the IMPORTANT PART for you to read.... The U.S. Coast Guard ceased Morse operations several years ago and no longer monitors radio frequencies used for the code. ``There's no government facility listening,'' he said. And now with the loss of the radio stations, there is ``nobody privately listening,'' So, now this incorrect argument of yours can be put to rest! :) |
The U.S. Coast Guard ceased Morse operations several years ago and no
longer monitors radio frequencies used for the code. ``There's no government facility listening,'' he said. |
On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 18:50:39 -0400, N8KDV
wrote: smithxpj wrote: On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 16:08:17 GMT, Jeff Renkin wrote: Now instead of trying to find my address so you can pull your pranks, why not read the rest and learn.... Gee...a straight shootin' lateral thinker (like me) for a change! Yair... we have the same problem in Oz where some idiots think that putting a ham callsign at the end of a usenet post is going to provide some golden aura of revelation about the individual placing the post and that anyone who doesn't put their ham callsign (if they have one) on usenet is anonomously 'hiding'. I mean...you're dead right (and my line of thinking is) that *all* anyone is going to be able to do with a ham callsign is to run off like a snivvelling little sneak to a database and (possibly) get a name and an address. Then what? Are they going to send a posse around and blow up your household mailbox? Or sit scouring the airwaves hoping to come across you on-air so that they can give you an earful? And the argument that putting a ham callsign into a post provides 'credibility' is a load of hooey. Let's face it, if anyone can pirate a ham callsign on-air...they can sure as hell do it on usenet as well. And the average newsgroup player would be absolutely *none* the wiser about the person or the personality on the other end of the post. Is a mere ham callsign going to tell them anything more about an already anonomous situation? It is going to tell them whether you're a beer-swilling yobbo or a connoisseur of fine red wines, or whether you drive a beat up jalopy or drive a Rolls-Royce. As I profess, a ham callsign is nothing more than a mere *radio* transmission identifier and usenet is all about computers, landlines and stuff. But, no doubt, you have your fair share of poor misguided souls who seem to think that a ham callsign is some sort of extension of their personality. What he's really saying is that if he did have a callsign, (he doesn't), then he wouldn't even give it out on the air for fear that someone actually might look it up in a database. LMAO Who says it's "fear"? That so far seems to be the *most* popular conjecture as to why someone won't tag their callsign on usenet. What if it's a bit of human power play thing? I mean, the world's full of all these sticky beaks (you probably call them nosey Parkers in the US) who want to know information for no other reason than wanting to know. Some of us reckon that sticky beaks should be kept in their box and be told what they need to know when they need to know. That's certainly how I operate. The key thing here though is that poor Jeff doesn't have a call, and won't have one till the Morse requirement is dropped. That seems to be a common affliction in most nations at the moment...no different here in Oz. There are plenty of existing non-Morse licence holders here sitting tight waiting for our communications authority to implement the recent WARC recommendation so that they get a freebie upgrade to our unrestricted licence. That's their prerogative, I guess, if they are prepared to wait. Same deal with anyone launching into ham radio for the first time...if they are prepared to wait until the licencing conditions change rather than learn Morse code, then again that's their choice. |
Jeff Renkin wrote in message ...
I've actually dealt with a marine emergency on the radio. Have you? No, all mine have been on land, but I am prepared to do so. Not using CW you aren't, Point is, CW is not used for marine emergencies anymore. Says who? I or the victim in distress can use any mode we/they choose. Thank you very much. What it has to do is, every ship has to have someone with with this license, and if you had the license, you would know that CW is not used anymore in emergencies. The test insures you know what frequencies to monitor and use, and the procedures, and to call using MAYDAY, not CW. Who is talking about ships or commercial marine operations? Again , you are confused. note. Lazy handicapped people? You said it, not me. But we both agree on this. We do? I said you said it, not me. I gave no input on that subject. Or is it that when you are handicapped or injured in an emergency, you may not be able to operate a code key, only a microphone??? Aha! If I can push a mike button, I can work a paddle. Besides, the mike on my 706mk2g can be used as a code key in a pinch. Looks like I just knocked down those lame ass excuses. Exactly! So why are handicapped people excused from learning the code then? Besides, the test today only requires you to LISTEN to code not pound it out. So there should be no excuse why a handicapped person is excused from the code, but no one else is! Who cares. I guess the fcc decided to give them a break. I guess this bothers you, but that is a personal problem. I could care less. Fine tuning in to hear someone on sideband, and being able to do all the other more complicated adjustments other than a simple closure of two contacts to send code, requires a lot more dexterity and I don't see how these handicapped people are excused because they don't want to use code, but the rest of us who also don't want to use code had to learn and pass it, only to go and forget it again because we had no intentions of ever using it. Again this is a personal problem. It takes no more dexterity to work phone on my rig as it does CW. Probably less. Wanna know how the boat got our attention though all the noise on 40m? CW. That doesn't do any good to those monitoring for a "mayday" like every GROL licensee is doing. What in the hell are you talking about? Who cares about GROL? I don't have anything to do with GROL. I don't really care what they do. It has nothing to do with me, or amateur radio. Hams don't monitor for maydays. If a ham has an emergency, he gets on the radio and calls someone in a precise, orderly, military manner. Gasping out histrionic calls of mayday is not the normal procedure used. What does GROL have to do with being able to work a cw qso in an emergency? , or even noise in general? Do GROL'ers constantly listen to the 40m phone band for emergencies? No, but there were two frequencies you were required to monitor, and at specific times of the hour to, not any HF frequencies, and you were listening for a mayday, not CW. This changes constantly, and unless I am going to be in a marine situation, I don't need to find out what frequency or frequencies are monitored now unless I am going to be doing that, then I will update my self on what has changed since I was last tested. But the point here is that there were only two frequencies I had to monitor, and anyone else in a distress situation would know to use those two frequencies since he had the same license. Again, you are utterly confused. Get off this GROL crap. Amateur radio is NOT GROL in any form or fashion. He would also then know that no one would be listening for morse code. No, probably not on a GROL freq....Good grief...You are numb aren't you. What ever it is you are using, can you send me some? I'll even pay the shipping. After reading all this crap, I think I need a new wonder drug to be able to cope. :/ So? Most are probably too lazy to learn it anyway... Is the reason you never learned every language of every country in the world is because you are lazy, or because you don't waste time learning things you don't intend to use? No , the reason is I live in the U.S. I already know the most commonly used language of english. I've had to waste countless hours learning stuff I'll never use. So what? Life's a bitch. Some divorce one. Some more than one. Everytime you tell someone who never intends to use code that they are lazy for not learning it, they can come back at you with thousands of things YOU must therefore also be too LAZY to learn. You are a silly man. I could care less if they learn it or not. I'm too lazy to do lots of things. So what? Who gives a rats rectum. How does this pertain to your original claim that no one ever uses CW in an emergency. Which I proved you wrong by the way... Did you ever learn how to perform brain surgery? No, sounds like fun though. Do I get to stick my finger in it and wiggle it around? French Law? Naw, I'd rather find a good french whore. How to produce fuel for the space shuttle? Naw, the only fuel I produce is when I fart. Unfortunately, not enough energy to propel the shuttle to any decent altitude. I did make some printed circuit boards that are on the shuttle and in JSC though. Does that give me 2 points extra? Marine biology? Yep, I like to dive with the fishes. I even met Mr. Limpett once. Even he knows morse code. Russian sentence structure? Can we spell VODKA? Rules of the road in Japan? They have none. Egyptian Hieroglyphics? Yes, lots of fun. But you would never be able to deal with those. If you can't master a measly 5 wpm of morse code with only 26 letters and 10 numbers involved, those hieroglyphics are sure to bite you in the ass big time. Now what if I told you you had to learn one of more of those before you were allowed to talk into a microphone on HF? Well, I would do it. Like I actually did. Hell, I was copying 18 wpm when I took my first novice test. The dog ass slow 5 wpm test gave me time to twiddle my thumbs, fart, and belch all while still maintaining 100% solid copy. You would tell me I was friggin crazy! Now you know how everyone else feels when told they have to learn morse code before they can use a microphone. Well, hell yes I know. I grew up in the ham radio of the not so distant past, where ALL hams had to know morse code. It didn't bother me at all. I thought it was fun. I worked nothing but CW the first 7 years I was a ham. Didn't even own a mike. I am surprised that people that had to learn the code like I did, never found it and odd thing when they were told they had to do it. I understand NOW why some people want the requirement.... because "if we had to learn the worthless crap, so does everyone else." As I read on further down , it occurs to me, I'd be here another 45 min or more answering all your questions and goofball quotes of commercial radio regulations, etc. I have better things to do than banter with someone who is totally confused, and doesn't know the difference between commercial and amateur radio. Or GROL and amateur radio...Soooooooooo SKIP.............................................. .......................... Here is the IMPORTANT PART for you to read.... Whoa daddy! stand back! The U.S. Coast Guard ceased Morse operations several years ago and no longer monitors radio frequencies used for the code. Where ever did you get the idea that I'm in the coast guard? What the coast guard does doesn't mean jack to me. ``There's no government facility listening,'' he said. Who cares. I have my own station. More than one, in fact. And now with the loss of the radio stations, there is ``nobody privately listening,'' Are you kidding me? You really are confused. So, now this incorrect argument of yours can be put to rest! :) Argument? The orignal "argument" was that you said no one ever uses CW for emergencies. As one who has been involved with one myself, I proved you wrong. You retort with a bunch of confused, non relevant jibber jabber. As far as the code- no code argument, you are barking up the wrong tree. I could care less. I will not involve myself with that. I have better things to do. I have my ticket. I passed ALL the code tests with a perfect score. What you do is not really a concern of mine. If you want to go through life as a confused code whiner, doomed to a life of multiple rubber duck misadventures, don't let me stop you. It's a free country. If you spent 1/4 as much time practicing the code as you do whining about it, you would be at 40 wpm by now. We now return to our regularly scheduled program. MK |
"Never anonymous Bud" wrote in message ... Having skipped an E.L.F. meeting to be here, (Mark Keith) scribbled: Point is, CW is not used for marine emergencies anymore. Says who? I or the victim in distress can use any mode we/they choose. Thank you very much. Well, knowing that the U.S. Coast Guard, and many other equivalent services in other countries DO NOT monitor CW any more, AND CW being slower and more cumbersome than voice, you'd have to be pretty damned stupid to USE CW in an emergency situation! What are you going to use when HF propagation is too weak to support voice??? Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message . com...
"Never anonymous Bud" wrote in message ... Having skipped an E.L.F. meeting to be here, (Mark Keith) scribbled: Point is, CW is not used for marine emergencies anymore. Says who? I or the victim in distress can use any mode we/they choose. Thank you very much. Well, knowing that the U.S. Coast Guard, and many other equivalent services in other countries DO NOT monitor CW any more, AND CW being slower and more cumbersome than voice, you'd have to be pretty damned stupid to USE CW in an emergency situation! I couldn't find the original post, but.... Another one hung up on the coast guard...How many times does a person have to say they have nothing to do with the frigging coast guard. Jeez....Ham radio operators are INDIVIDUALS!!! Not a section of the coast guard, GROL, or any other funky alphabet soup letters. The ONLY time I will ever deal with the coast guard is if I call them on freq myself, which I have done in the past. And CW is not slower and more cumbersome to ME. Maybe to you 5 wpm slow pokes, but not my 55-60 wpm ass. I'm like a frigging CW machine, and I don't even have to write it down unless I need a hard copy for something.. Using CW to ME, is no different than any other mode. Well unless the band is noisy or in bad shape, then it's superior to most others. You no-code people need to get a grip...I'll use whatever works the best at the time, or whatever is first sent to me. If someone calls me on CW for help, I will stay on CW unless they request otherwise. To do anything else would be pretty damn stupid. Some qrp rigs are CW ONLY!!! I know that must chap many asses all around the country, but you all need to get over it! What are you going to use when HF propagation is too weak to support voice??? They will whip out their 2m HT's. What else? This thread is unbelievable... Sheesh...Who gives a damn what mode I use, if I get the job done. And I DO get the job done. MK |
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
In emergencies hams are NOT broadcasting to the public. They are using their skills to pass messages from the public and emergency services to the public and emergency services via the ham network. No one has to be able to understand the message while it is in transit except the hams. Thus hams can and will use any means at their disposal appropriate to the situation, that includes voice, computer digital modes and good old Morse code. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Bravo!!! It's nice to find some common sense out here in the wilderness. You summed it all up in a nutshell that maybe even ole Jeff can grasp and understand. Then again, maybe not...:( Most "live" emergencies that a ham would handle on the air, are from other hams in trouble. The sailboat I mentioned was a ham in a sailboat. Not a commercial vessel. I would think it quite rare to hear a commercial vessel call a ham for help. But we can handle traffic to and from anyone that might need it. But we can do it any ole way we please. If the general public can't decipher it, thats just too bad. MK |
Even the people who want to drop the code testing requirement will
eventually discover that CW is still quite useful for that situation. I think if the testing is dropped, a fairly large number of hams will decide to learn it for that very reason. The difference will be that these hams will have had a chance to experience HF and its many thrills and challenges THEMSELVES before they learn the code, which means that learning the code will be that much more rewarding because they can see the practical application of it. Not everyone has the foresight to understand this about the CW mode without having experienced it themselves, and forcing the issue through testing can't change that; the testing merely attempts to make hams prepare themselves for HF work. - Doug "Dee D. Flint" wrote in message om... What are you going to use when HF propagation is too weak to support voice??? Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
What are you going to use when HF propagation is too weak to support voice??? Dee D. Flint, N8UZE 1. Change frequency. 2. Use relaying to get messages through. (After all isn't that we supposedly train for, as well as one of the principles of the Nation Traffic System?? Nowhere is it said that in an emergency that the message MUST make it in ONE "hop." (i.e. no relaying) I am quite sure that message traffic from larger incidents like the big earthquake in California quite a few years ago didn't make it out of the area in within just one hop. (The traffic being sent around the country that is) Ryan KC8PMX |
"Ryan, KC8PMX" wrote in message ... What are you going to use when HF propagation is too weak to support voice??? Dee D. Flint, N8UZE 1. Change frequency. 2. Use relaying to get messages through. (After all isn't that we supposedly train for, as well as one of the principles of the Nation Traffic System?? Nowhere is it said that in an emergency that the message MUST make it in ONE "hop." (i.e. no relaying) I am quite sure that message traffic from larger incidents like the big earthquake in California quite a few years ago didn't make it out of the area in within just one hop. (The traffic being sent around the country that is) Ryan KC8PMX If HF isn't supporting voice propagation, to what frequency would you suggest changing? Oh yeah, VHF/UHF when you're too far out to reach anybody. Right. Disasters don't just happen in only in areas small enough where you can relay out. If some of the island nations (or states like Hawaii) get hard hit, say by a hurricane, your only chance may very well be HF. VHF/UHF is fine for short distances but if the next active station is over 20 or 30 miles away, there is often very little chance of a relay. Many islands are far more than 20 or 30 miles from the next nearest inhabited land mass. On the other hand, with HF, one can reach hundreds of miles even with minimal antennas. This gives you a chance to set up a relay. But if propagation is poor, voice may not be intelligible yet CW will often come through quite clearly under those conditions. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
Point is, CW is not used for marine emergencies anymore.
Says who? I or the victim in distress can use any mode we/they choose. Thank you very much. Well, knowing that the U.S. Coast Guard, and many other equivalent services in other countries DO NOT monitor CW any more, AND CW being slower and more cumbersome than voice, you'd have to be pretty damned stupid to USE CW in an emergency situation! Let's all hope and pray that he DOES use CW in an emergency. |
What are you going to use when HF propagation is too weak to support
voice??? That was already answered higher up in the thread, I will requote that part: The International Maritime Organization officially phased out Morse code Feb. 1 for ships in peril, replacing it with the high-tech Global Maritime Distress and Safety System. So that answer would be, the Global Maritime Distress and Safety System. Satellites and GPS are far more reliable than HF. Keep in mind code was invented and used because there were no microphones invented yet. Likewise, HF was ok before we had satellites and GPS. When a friend of mine recently traveled overseas, I was able to track the entire flight from several free websites that you just enter in the flight number and you get a constant read out of speed, altitude, location and maps to show you exactly where the plane was the whole time. With technology like this, no one even needs to call for help anymore, when the signal stops, we know exactly where it was when it stopped and can go looking for it. Why do so many people want to throw all this technology away and force everyone to stay with antiquated forms of communication like HF and Morse Code? What next? Will they start a movement to force all of us to get rid of our washing machines and have to use old washboards instead so THEY will be happy? I for one, gladly embrace new technology that makes life easier and better. Wanting to play around with HF and Morse Code for a hobby to get a nostalgic feeling of yesteryear is fine, but be realistic and don't come up with ridiculous ideas to force others to use it. People who bowl or play golf don't force everyone else to do that either. Hams that use microphones don't tell morse code lovers they have to use microphones, so why can't the stubborn headed morse code loving hams just enjoy their hobbies without forcing everyone else in the world to do what THEY want to do. |
1. Change frequency.
Preferably to the legal one you should have been using in the first place that we know is being monitored. 2. Use relaying to get messages through. Or ... The International Maritime Organization officially phased out Morse code for ships in peril, replacing it with the high-tech Global Maritime Distress and Safety System. If HF isn't supporting voice propagation, to what frequency would you suggest changing? If you were ever out in that situation LEGALLY, you would know the answer, because you are supposed to know the frequencies before you leave shore. The International Maritime Organization officially phased out Morse code for ships in peril, replacing it with the high-tech Global Maritime Distress and Safety System. Satellites and GPS. To HF as microphones are to morse code keys. To HF as telephones are to telegraph systems. To HF as cars are to horses and camels. |
"Jeff Renkin" wrote in message ... What are you going to use when HF propagation is too weak to support voice??? That was already answered higher up in the thread, I will requote that part: The International Maritime Organization officially phased out Morse code Feb. 1 for ships in peril, replacing it with the high-tech Global Maritime Distress and Safety System. So that answer would be, the Global Maritime Distress and Safety System. So this system is installed on all boats and planes of all sizes both private and commercial? I seriously doubt that. Satellites and GPS are far more reliable than HF. Keep in mind code was invented and used because there were no microphones invented yet. Likewise, HF was ok before we had satellites and GPS. When a friend of mine recently traveled overseas, I was able to track the entire flight from several free websites that you just enter in the flight number and you get a constant read out of speed, altitude, location and maps to show you exactly where the plane was the whole time. With technology like this, no one even needs to call for help anymore, when the signal stops, we know exactly where it was when it stopped and can go looking for it. Why do so many people want to throw all this technology away and force everyone to stay with antiquated forms of communication like HF and Morse Code? No we do not wish to throw away all the new technology. We want to keep a viable communications mode in case that new technology fails. That is all. The invention of the typewriter and later the word processor does not make handwriting completely obsolete. What next? Will they start a movement to force all of us to get rid of our washing machines and have to use old washboards instead so THEY will be happy? I for one, gladly embrace new technology that makes life easier and better. Wanting to play around with HF and Morse Code for a hobby to get a nostalgic feeling of yesteryear is fine, but be realistic and don't come up with ridiculous ideas to force others to use it. This new technology that you embrace was invented by the same people who want to keep code. Complex infrastructures should always be backed up by simple basic methods. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 02:50:49 GMT, "Dee D. Flint"
wrote: "Never anonymous Bud" wrote in message .. . Having skipped an E.L.F. meeting to be here, (Mark Keith) scribbled: Point is, CW is not used for marine emergencies anymore. Says who? I or the victim in distress can use any mode we/they choose. Thank you very much. Well, knowing that the U.S. Coast Guard, and many other equivalent services in other countries DO NOT monitor CW any more, AND CW being slower and more cumbersome than voice, you'd have to be pretty damned stupid to USE CW in an emergency situation! What are you going to use when HF propagation is too weak to support voice??? Dee D. Flint, N8UZE If you are smart, you have a 406 Mhz EPIRB. One that is GPS equipped will transmit you ID and location, and if GPS equipped, the signal is relayed via Sat in Geo synch orbit. Alarms identifying the ID and location withing a few meter go off in literally minutes. Beats the hell out of CW. If it isn't GPS equipped, it can take up to 90 minutes to get a descent fix on the location (derived from doppler shift data from orbiting sats). |
Jeff Renkin wrote:
Jeff Renkin wrote in message ... What are you going to use when HF propagation is too weak to support voice??? That was already answered higher up in the thread, I will requote that part: The International Maritime Organization officially phased out Morse code Feb. 1 for ships in peril, replacing it with the high-tech Global Maritime Distress and Safety System. FOR COMMERCIAL VESSELS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So that answer would be, the Global Maritime Distress and Safety System. Right...A guy on a 20 ft sailboat is going to buy a system that costs more than his boat...Good grief....Get a grip. Satellites and GPS are far more reliable than HF. Keep in mind code was invented and used because there were no microphones invented yet. Likewise, HF was ok before we had satellites and GPS. When a friend of mine recently traveled overseas, I was able to track the entire flight from several free websites that you just enter in the flight number and you get a constant read out of speed, altitude, location and maps to show you exactly where the plane was the whole time. With technology like this, no one even needs to call for help anymore, when the signal stops, we know exactly where it was when it stopped and can go looking for it. How many people do you know with small private boats, that have the normally COMMERCIALLY USED GMDSS system onboard? This is not a trick question...You can take your time, if this hurts your brain. Most people running 20 ft sailboats do not have the resources of American Airlines, or a large shipping company. Also, in most cases, the info you see on that airnav website will be estimated much of the time. The only time the aircraft will be spitting out that info is if they send it out via ACARS. And they don't do that every few minutes. That and any radar transponder info from air traffic controllers. I receive ACARS direct on my rig, so I'm familiar with how they operate, what they send, and how often they usually spit out coordinates. It's really not that often. Some hardly ever do...If a plane crashed, it's not going to instantly show up on airnav software. Why do so many people want to throw all this technology away and force everyone to stay with antiquated forms of communication like HF and Morse Code? There is no one throwing anything away. We have nothing to do with commercial marine systems. I've never heard of a single ham that suggests they should do away with their COMMERCIALLY used GMDSS system. What next? Will they start a movement to force all of us to get rid of our washing machines and have to use old washboards instead so THEY will be happy? If we decided to change all commercial vessels back to 500kc morse, you might have a point. But we aren't , so you don't. I for one, gladly embrace new technology that makes life easier and better. Yea, I bet you will install all that stuff on a 20 ft sailboat. Real soon...At O-clock I bet... I use all the latest technology too, but that doesn't mean I'm dumping all my older ones just to look stylish. The newer ones just add to the ones I already have at my disposal. Wanting to play around with HF and Morse Code for a hobby to get a nostalgic feeling of yesteryear is fine, but be realistic and don't come up with ridiculous ideas to force others to use it. There is no one forcing anyone to do anything. Trying to compare requirements for a commercial marine system to amateur radio is ridiculous. You are the one that needs to get realistic. Why do you keep trying to force this down everyones throat when it's not even a system that private boats use with any regularity at all? As far as I know, the "least" vessel required to use that system is one that carries over 12 passengers on *international* voyages. What do you suggest the people with 20 ft sailboats, carrying 3 people on a short hop down the coast use? This is not a trick question. Take your time. People who bowl or play golf don't force everyone else to do that either. Hams that use microphones don't tell morse code lovers they have to use microphones, so why can't the stubborn headed morse code loving hams just enjoy their hobbies without forcing everyone else in the world to do what THEY want to do. How are we forcing anyone to do anything? We amateurs don't make the rules #1. Why do some seriously misguided people insist on telling me how I should operate my radio station when handling emergency traffic to someone who wouldn't ever be likely to have GMDSS gear at all? Why on earth would you even care what mode I use. I don't tell you what modes you should use. I could care less. Like I said the other day, hell will be freezing over before I would ever be likely to handle emergency traffic from a large commercial vessel. I don't care what gear they use. Yea, maybe in 1912 when the titanic took a swim, but not now, or even when they still used the old system in recent years. You need to get a grip and quit confusing a commercial marine system with amateur radio. All you seem to care about is being able to use a frigging microphone on the HF ham bands without taking that dog slow 5 wpm code test. What on earth does this have to do with commercial marine GMDSS systems? Crap, it only takes about two weeks to learn 5 wpm code. Maybe a month at the most for people like you who have a mental block. You can say anything you want, but to me, anyone that will not even attempt to pass that test is just plain lazy if they really want a ticket. And I have no problems with that either, until they start whining about it. I bet I could teach code to the piano playing chickens at the "IQ Zoo" in Hot Springs AR. faster than you will ever get it. Why, because all you seem to want to do is whine about it. Truly pitiful if you ask me. Those chickens won't whine. All they will want is a small treat of food after they pass each letter. I had to learn stuff for the written tests that I will never use, but you don't see me whining about it. If the US drops code testing, fine. But they haven't yet, and whining about it will do you no good at all. The FCC could care less about whining no-code advocates. MK P.S I reposted this on my server cuz google crapped negative on me when I pulled the trigger. If it dupes, oh well... -- http://web.wt.net/~nm5k |
So that answer would be, the Global Maritime Distress and Safety System.
So this system is installed on all boats and planes of all sizes both private and commercial? I seriously doubt that. Where it is needed, and a simple marine channel 16 radio would not be good enough. Check into the rules and laws if you want a real good answer to this question. Satellites and GPS are far more reliable than HF. Keep in mind code was invented and used because there were no microphones invented yet. Likewise, HF was ok before we had satellites and GPS. When a friend of mine recently traveled overseas, I was able to track the entire flight from several free websites that you just enter in the flight number and you get a constant read out of speed, altitude, location and maps to show you exactly where the plane was the whole time. With technology like this, no one even needs to call for help anymore, when the signal stops, we know exactly where it was when it stopped and can go looking for it. Why do so many people want to throw all this technology away and force everyone to stay with antiquated forms of communication like HF and Morse Code? No we do not wish to throw away all the new technology. We want to keep a viable communications mode in case that new technology fails. Do you keep a horse in your garage in case your car fails? No one is going to carry around an HF radio with a code key in case the real radio fails. If anything, you would have an extra radio that would work on the same standard emergency channels. That is all. The invention of the typewriter and later the word processor does not make handwriting completely obsolete. Try to send an email with handwriting on a piece of paper. Perhaps you should post to these groups with handwriting too. What next? Will they start a movement to force all of us to get rid of our washing machines and have to use old washboards instead so THEY will be happy? I for one, gladly embrace new technology that makes life easier and better. Wanting to play around with HF and Morse Code for a hobby to get a nostalgic feeling of yesteryear is fine, but be realistic and don't come up with ridiculous ideas to force others to use it. This new technology that you embrace was invented by the same people who want to keep code. Wow, what bull**** talk. It is the people who find code so easy to learn that have the problems with the theory and technical stuff, so they can't design or invent anything. And so many of the engineers that do design the technology we use, are not allowed to operate hobby ham radios on certain frequencies because they don't know morse code. Human society is a joke. Complex infrastructures should always be backed up by simple basic methods. Yes, but talking into a microphone is the most simple basic method we have in radio, using complex codes is what no one needs to know. For the last time...... The military, police, fire, paramedics, etc. all do NOT learn or use morse code. It has no use, even for back up or emergencies, or they would be using it. |
The International Maritime Organization officially phased out Morse code Feb.
1 for ships in peril, replacing it with the high-tech Global Maritime Distress and Safety System. FOR COMMERCIAL VESSELS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So, if you are out in your row boat, carry a channel 16 marine walkie talkie with you. So that answer would be, the Global Maritime Distress and Safety System. Right...A guy on a 20 ft sailboat is going to buy a system that costs more than his boat... He doesn't need one, the VHF channel 16 radio will be good enough for as far as he should ever be going out. And we don't feel sorry for stupid people who take stupid risks, so them dying is how nature weeds out the weak and stupid. Satellites and GPS are far more reliable than HF. Keep in mind code was invented and used because there were no microphones invented yet. Likewise, HF was ok before we had satellites and GPS. When a friend of mine recently traveled overseas, I was able to track the entire flight from several free websites that you just enter in the flight number and you get a constant read out of speed, altitude, location and maps to show you exactly where the plane was the whole time. With technology like this, no one even needs to call for help anymore, when the signal stops, we know exactly where it was when it stopped and can go looking for it. How many people do you know with small private boats, that have the normally COMMERCIALLY USED GMDSS system onboard? This is not a trick question...You can take your time, if this hurts your brain. None of my friends with small private boats go out farther than the range of the channel 16 marine radios will cover. But yes, everyone I know does have a GPS system on board. My friends don't fool around and like to have the best of everything. If you can afford a boat, you can afford the fancy radios that go in it. Most people running 20 ft sailboats do not have the resources of American Airlines, or a large shipping company. And we don't have this stuff on our bicycles either, because it is not needed. But if you are going to be in THE MIDDLE OF THE OCEAN, then yes, they ALL have this stuff. The only time the aircraft will be spitting out that info is if they They ALL do it. The only flights that turned it off, were the ones on 9/11 that were taken off line to purposely avoid detection. This is a requirement, not a choice. Why do so many people want to throw all this technology away and force everyone to stay with antiquated forms of communication like HF and Morse Code? What next? Will they start a movement to force all of us to get rid of our washing machines and have to use old washboards instead so THEY will be happy? If we decided to change all commercial vessels back to 500kc morse, you might have a point. Or decided to make all ham operators in the year 2003 learn Morse Code before they are allowed to use a microphone. But we aren't , SURE you are. I for one, gladly embrace new technology that makes life easier and better. Yea, I bet you will install all that stuff on a 20 ft sailboat. No, just as you don't see any HF radios with code keys installed on them either. You don't have a gas gauge on your bicycle either like on your car do you? Be realistic. Row boats and canoes don't need this stuff. I use all the latest technology too, but that doesn't mean I'm dumping all my older ones just to look stylish. Oh, then you DO have a washboard around and a horse in the garage. The newer ones just add to the ones I already have at my disposal. Interesting. I don't use coal to heat my home. Wanting to play around with HF and Morse Code for a hobby to get a nostalgic feeling of yesteryear is fine, but be realistic and don't come up with ridiculous ideas to force others to use it. There is no one forcing anyone to do anything. Oh yes there is. People who want to use microphones on HF are being FORCED to learn morse code, even though they will never be using it or remembering it after taking the test. Trying to compare requirements for a commercial marine system to amateur radio is ridiculous. I wasn't the one comparing HF morse code use on a commercial marine system. LOL! You are the one that needs to get realistic. ROLFFL! People who bowl or play golf don't force everyone else to do that either. Hams that use microphones don't tell morse code lovers they have to use microphones, so why can't the stubborn headed morse code loving hams just enjoy their hobbies without forcing everyone else in the world to do what THEY want to do. |
Jeff Renkin wrote: The International Maritime Organization officially phased out Morse code Feb. 1 for ships in peril, replacing it with the high-tech Global Maritime Distress and Safety System. FOR COMMERCIAL VESSELS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So, if you are out in your row boat, carry a channel 16 marine walkie talkie with you. So that answer would be, the Global Maritime Distress and Safety System. Right...A guy on a 20 ft sailboat is going to buy a system that costs more than his boat... He doesn't need one, the VHF channel 16 radio will be good enough for as far as he should ever be going out. And we don't feel sorry for stupid people who take stupid risks, so them dying is how nature weeds out the weak and stupid. Satellites and GPS are far more reliable than HF. Keep in mind code was invented and used because there were no microphones invented yet. Likewise, HF was ok before we had satellites and GPS. When a friend of mine recently traveled overseas, I was able to track the entire flight from several free websites that you just enter in the flight number and you get a constant read out of speed, altitude, location and maps to show you exactly where the plane was the whole time. With technology like this, no one even needs to call for help anymore, when the signal stops, we know exactly where it was when it stopped and can go looking for it. How many people do you know with small private boats, that have the normally COMMERCIALLY USED GMDSS system onboard? This is not a trick question...You can take your time, if this hurts your brain. None of my friends with small private boats go out farther than the range of the channel 16 marine radios will cover. But yes, everyone I know does have a GPS system on board. My friends don't fool around and like to have the best of everything. If you can afford a boat, you can afford the fancy radios that go in it. Most people running 20 ft sailboats do not have the resources of American Airlines, or a large shipping company. And we don't have this stuff on our bicycles either, because it is not needed. But if you are going to be in THE MIDDLE OF THE OCEAN, then yes, they ALL have this stuff. The only time the aircraft will be spitting out that info is if they They ALL do it. The only flights that turned it off, were the ones on 9/11 that were taken off line to purposely avoid detection. This is a requirement, not a choice. Why do so many people want to throw all this technology away and force everyone to stay with antiquated forms of communication like HF and Morse Code? What next? Will they start a movement to force all of us to get rid of our washing machines and have to use old washboards instead so THEY will be happy? If we decided to change all commercial vessels back to 500kc morse, you might have a point. Or decided to make all ham operators in the year 2003 learn Morse Code before they are allowed to use a microphone. But we aren't , SURE you are. I for one, gladly embrace new technology that makes life easier and better. Yea, I bet you will install all that stuff on a 20 ft sailboat. No, just as you don't see any HF radios with code keys installed on them either. You don't have a gas gauge on your bicycle either like on your car do you? Be realistic. Row boats and canoes don't need this stuff. I use all the latest technology too, but that doesn't mean I'm dumping all my older ones just to look stylish. Oh, then you DO have a washboard around and a horse in the garage. The newer ones just add to the ones I already have at my disposal. Interesting. I don't use coal to heat my home. Wanting to play around with HF and Morse Code for a hobby to get a nostalgic feeling of yesteryear is fine, but be realistic and don't come up with ridiculous ideas to force others to use it. There is no one forcing anyone to do anything. Oh yes there is. People who want to use microphones on HF are being FORCED to learn morse code, even though they will never be using it or remembering it after taking the test. Hey Jeff, there is no one forcing anyone to do ANYTHING, get it through your extremely thick skull. If you want the ticket, you learn the code. If you don't want the ticket then so be it. But NO ONE is FORCING ANYONE to learn the code. Trying to compare requirements for a commercial marine system to amateur radio is ridiculous. I wasn't the one comparing HF morse code use on a commercial marine system. LOL! You are the one that needs to get realistic. ROLFFL! People who bowl or play golf don't force everyone else to do that either. Hams that use microphones don't tell morse code lovers they have to use microphones, so why can't the stubborn headed morse code loving hams just enjoy their hobbies without forcing everyone else in the world to do what THEY want to do. |
On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 20:31:22 GMT, "Dee D. Flint"
wrote: "Jeff Renkin" wrote in message ... What are you going to use when HF propagation is too weak to support voice??? That was already answered higher up in the thread, I will requote that part: The International Maritime Organization officially phased out Morse code Feb. 1 for ships in peril, replacing it with the high-tech Global Maritime Distress and Safety System. So that answer would be, the Global Maritime Distress and Safety System. So this system is installed on all boats and planes of all sizes both private and commercial? I seriously doubt that. It is legal requirement on all commercial vessels. In fact all commercial vessels require a class I device, which means it will deploy itself if the vessel goes down. Most Aircraft rafts also now have them. In pleasure craft, you are supposed to have one once you get to a size that can get out of sight of land. The major advantage of these systems is you don't have to know your position. The SARSAT system can find you to within about 10km if you GMDSS isn't GPS equipped. If it is GPS equipped, your position is transmitted along with the distress call and your ID, and those signals are picked up by Geo Synchronous sats as well as SARSAT birds, so the time from deployment to raising the alarm world wide is on the order of 5 minutes. It is all automatic. If you don't have GPS, it may take several SARSAT bird passes to get a good fix. The 10Km number is plenty good enough, since the 406Mhz GMDSS buoy also transmits a low power 121.5Mhz beacon to home on. Obviously with GPS, there isn't much homing to be done. You have a position that is probably good to about 10 meters. Recently it became legal for GMDSS devices to be used other then at sea. We now carry on Pains Wessex Fast Find Plus on a light aircraft. Weighs about a pound, can be carried around your neck, and costs about $900. The bad news is these things are relatively pricey. Figure about $600 for a Class I without GPS, and about $900 with GPS, Class II, which are not self deploying are a little less expensive. That about 4 times what a 121.5Mhz device costs, but when you compare the capabilities, it is worth every penny of it. Satellites and GPS are far more reliable than HF. AMEN. BTW, the 406Mhz transmitter in a GMDSS operates at 5 watts, and 406Mhz is not allocated to any other service, so it is 'clear channel'. Keep in mind code was invented and used because there were no microphones invented yet. Likewise, HF was ok before we had satellites and GPS. When a friend of mine recently traveled overseas, I was able to track the entire flight from several free websites that you just enter in the flight number and you get a constant read out of speed, altitude, location and maps to show you exactly where the plane was the whole time. With technology like this, no one even needs to call for help anymore, when the signal stops, we know exactly where it was when it stopped and can go looking for it. Why do so many people want to throw all this technology away and force everyone to stay with antiquated forms of communication like HF and Morse Code? No we do not wish to throw away all the new technology. We want to keep a viable communications mode in case that new technology fails. That is all. The invention of the typewriter and later the word processor does not make handwriting completely obsolete. What next? Will they start a movement to force all of us to get rid of our washing machines and have to use old washboards instead so THEY will be happy? I for one, gladly embrace new technology that makes life easier and better. Wanting to play around with HF and Morse Code for a hobby to get a nostalgic feeling of yesteryear is fine, but be realistic and don't come up with ridiculous ideas to force others to use it. This new technology that you embrace was invented by the same people who want to keep code. Complex infrastructures should always be backed up by simple basic methods. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
Jeff Renkin wrote in message
So, if you are out in your row boat, carry a channel 16 marine walkie talkie with you. Who said anything about a row boat... just another typical lame ass retort from you.... So that answer would be, the Global Maritime Distress and Safety System. Right...A guy on a 20 ft sailboat is going to buy a system that costs more than his boat... He doesn't need one, the VHF channel 16 radio will be good enough for as far as he should ever be going out. I was expecting you to say something like that. And we don't feel sorry for stupid people who take stupid risks, so them dying is how nature weeds out the weak and stupid. Well, don't then. We won't feel sorry about you whining about the code test's every day. Satellites and GPS are far more reliable than HF. GPS??? Who talks on a GPS? And no, not all satellites are more reliable than hf. Not all satellites are in geosync orbits. But, I can see someone using sat's on a boat at times. But I sure wouldn't want to rely on one in an emergency. The only sat's I can use are amateur sats. I'd be better off on HF. Keep in mind code was invented and used because there were no microphones invented yet. You sound like a broken freaking record...Polly want a code test? Polly want a code test? Swqaaaaawwwwwkkkkkkkk! How many people do you know with small private boats, that have the normally COMMERCIALLY USED GMDSS system onboard? This is not a trick question...You can take your time, if this hurts your brain. None of my friends with small private boats go out farther than the range of the channel 16 marine radios will cover. I rest my case. Who cares about a radio that will be lucky to do 80 miles at best.."the only reason I give it that much credit is because of the water you would be floating over" None of your friends with small private boats go out farther than the range of a VHF radio, probably because they are a bunch of chicken**** code weasels. I know people that LIVE on sailboats. And they aren't afraid to use them. And they have BOTH VHF marine AND amateur radio. GPS too. But yes, everyone I know does have a GPS system on board. So what? Many people I know have a GPS in the car. So what? What good is a GPS, except for telling you where you are? You are ducking behind tepid horsecrap now.... My friends don't fool around and like to have the best of everything. I bet...What does this have to do with the GMDSS system you have touted for the past few days as the best thing since sliced bread? Are you telling me they have this gear, or are you just spouting more B.S.? A simple GPS doesn't qualify. If you can afford a boat, you can afford the fancy radios that go in it. Right...If you can afford to whine about the code for days on end, you can afford to spend two weeks learning it, if you want a ticket. But I guess you really don't want one that bad. If you are not lazy, then you are admitting to me that you surely must have total **** for brains. I bet you have to tie a red blinking light to your car antenna just to find it in a deserted K-mart parking lot. I've worked 7 year old girls on the air that have more on the ball than you do. And that ain't no crap either. I actually have worked 5-6-7 year olds on the air that passed that code test. And they were working CW on the air, not using a mike. And not a whiner in the pack. If I were you, I'd be ashamed. And we don't have this stuff on our bicycles either, because it is not needed. But if you are going to be in THE MIDDLE OF THE OCEAN, then yes, they ALL have this stuff. Again, you are full of crap. Trying to back peddle your way out of your mess now huh? And who said anything about the MIDDLE of the ocean. But no, if you are in the middle of the ocean with a private vessel that carries less than 12 people, and you are not taking an international trip, you don't have to have that stuff. The only time the aircraft will be spitting out that info is if they They ALL do it. The only flights that turned it off, were the ones on 9/11 that were taken off line to purposely avoid detection. This is a requirement, not a choice. Nearly all larger aircraft have transponders going, but that doesn't mean those internet airnav programs are updated instantly. There is quite a lag involved, in which time, the data you see is estimated. Why do so many people want to throw all this technology away and force everyone to stay with antiquated forms of communication like HF and Morse Code? What next? Will they start a movement to force all of us to get rid of our washing machines and have to use old washboards instead so THEY will be happy? If we decided to change all commercial vessels back to 500kc morse, you might have a point. But like I said, we haven't , so you don't.... Or decided to make all ham operators in the year 2003 learn Morse Code before they are allowed to use a microphone. They decided this many, many years ago. Hell, you code whiners are lucky they dropped the test down to snail speed, even for extra class. But you all still whine like a bunch of lazy ass 7 year old children even after that. I for one, gladly embrace new technology that makes life easier and better. Yea, I bet you will install all that stuff on a 20 ft sailboat. No, just as you don't see any HF radios with code keys installed on them either. I rest my case again. Whupped your ass on that one, huh? You don't have a gas gauge on your bicycle either like on your car do you? I don't ride a bicycle. Be realistic. Row boats and canoes don't need this stuff. Who said anything about row boats and canoes? What other horsecrap are you going to come up with? I ride canoes and kayaks down rivers. Some ride them on the ocean, but I'm not going to try to tell them how to run their boats. I know one thing, they would be lucky to fit all that GMDSS gear in the canoe, and still have room to sit. I use all the latest technology too, but that doesn't mean I'm dumping all my older ones just to look stylish. Oh, then you DO have a washboard around and a horse in the garage. No, but I still use CW. Never have had a washboard or a horse. I have watched bonanza though. The newer ones just add to the ones I already have at my disposal. Interesting. I don't use coal to heat my home. That makes a lot of sense... I'm starting to think you ARE a 7 year old girl... I guess the use of coal to make electricity would strike you as silly too, huh? Too damn old fashioned to possibly be of any use at all....I guess we should just cut your power off...Being you are so damn high tech, surely you can whip up a mini nuclear power plant real fast. There is no one forcing anyone to do anything. Oh yes there is. People who want to use microphones on HF are being FORCED to learn morse code, even though they will never be using it or remembering it after taking the test. OK, the FCC forces you to take a code test...Who cares? I'm glad. You need to take a code test. Will make a man out of you. Trying to compare requirements for a commercial marine system to amateur radio is ridiculous. I wasn't the one comparing HF morse code use on a commercial marine system. LOL! Right, you are about a stupid dip**** aren't you....You been doing that for the last 5 days. BTW, you paragraph doesn't really make sense. You should have said: I wasn't the one comparing HF morse code TO a commercial marine system. And if you say that you haven't been, you are plain full of it. I am on google you know. I see ALL posts. Want me to refresh your memory? You are the one that needs to get realistic. ROLFFL! ..-. --- .-.. ..-. ..-. .-.. ! so there...na-na-na-na-naaa-naaa People who bowl or play golf don't force everyone else to do that either. Hams that use microphones don't tell morse code lovers they have to use microphones, so why can't the stubborn headed morse code loving hams just enjoy their hobbies without forcing everyone else in the world to do what THEY want to do. Again, no one is trying to do anything, you twit. If that were the case, I and all of us stubborn headed morse code lovers would be on the horn to the FCC every day badgering them to keep useless ******s like you off the air. What makes you think *we* have anything to do with this? The last time I was at an FCC office was when I took my general. "13 wpm, which I passed 100% by the way. Eat yer heart out! The only reason I comment about this is because you make me sick to my stomach with all your petty ass code whining and I like to slap you around. More fun than watching "the no-spin zone" I think someone surely must have porked you in the ass when you were a child. Either that, or you got your pecker caught in a box fan and was changed overnight to a whining little girl. So damn sad...:/ MK |
The bad news is these things are relatively pricey. Figure about $600
for a Class I without GPS, and about $900 with GPS That is not expensive at all. When you buy a car, the dealer wants around this price if you want the good stock radio. When buying a car, this ad on price is nothing. When people have enough money to buy boats, this ad on price for the accessory is even less of a big deal. |
Or decided to make all ham operators in the year 2003 learn Morse Code before they
are allowed to use a microphone. Nope. You wouldn't be forced to give up anything at all, be it a microphone or a washing machine. That doesn't make any sense as a reply to what it is replying to, but oh well. Only to be able to recognise it and prove as much by copying at a ridiculuosly low speed than even a 5-yr-old can easily master in a short time. Actually the lowering of the speed has NOTHING to do with it. If you ARE going to learn the code, it makes more sense to learn it at the fastest speed right away. If you learn it at 5 wpm, it makes it much harder later to go faster with it. Lowering the speed to 5 wpm was idiotic. As if that made it easier or something. Ever hear of the Farnsworth system? Learning the code is like learning a language, you hear the musical sounds of the letters and words, slowing it down only makes it harder. And many 5 year olds also get their extra license in one testing session. Yet many who are yelling at people to learn the code, don't have their extra licenses, so they are hypocrites. Hypocrites that can learn the code easy, but don't have the brains to figure out common sense questions on the written part that you don't even need to study for to pass, you should know all that stuff before you even set up a CB radio system. It is proven that there are those people who can master the code without any problem and yet can't seem to pass the written tests, and those that master the written tests never having studied but can't seem to learn the code. It is also proven that the later type of person is the more intelligent one too. Many an engineer don't have HF ham licenses because of the code, and they have more knowledge and experience in radio than many hams who have no right playing with what they are playing with as they only memorized answers and cause all sorts of problems. Then you have those that could master the written part AND learn the code. :) We in this class are even more intelligent and realize how stupid the code requirement is today. We also have the curiosity to want to know why it ever WAS a requirement in the first place. It DID have a purpose back when Ham operators were considered a reserve during war when the military needed people to be able to decode their morse code messages and relay the messages. But since the military no longer uses code at all, this requirement has no purpose today. But many idiots out there think that the code requirement is just something to make it harder to get a license! As if the laws were made just to keep a large group of people from being hams and helping out their country during emergencies and to keep the pool of public service radio people smaller than it could be. Some think it is to keep CB people from getting a license. Ridiculous. But with that insane thinking, when talk of removing the code requirement comes up, they want to know what you will replace the code with so that getting the license is still hard to get. These people have no clue at all. These are the same morons that vote for Republicans and Democrats thinking there is really a difference between the two, and continue to vote for them no matter how many times their taxes are raised, and laws are passed taking away their rights and freedoms. Think of it this way. The test you take to get your driver's license is not to make it harder for people to get a license, it is because you need to know those things before you are allowed to be on the road with the rest of us. If you like to ride horses as a hobby, that is fine, but you are not required to be tested on riding horses to get a license to drive a car. And let's say, that all of us had to learn what to do when you see a flashing yellow light, and then one day, the government bans the use of any flashing yellow lights for some reason. Do we still make everyone learn what to do when they come up to a yellow flashing light if that situation is NEVER going to occur and they don't need to know this anymore? Of course not, but then there will be those that think we have to replace that part of the test with something else, so that it is not too easy to get a driver's license, right? Idiots. The original REASON for having the code requirement is no longer, since the military doesn't use it any more. Thus.... No reason to force people to learn it anymore. Common sense folks! But it is fun to see all those that don't have the brains to realize this. It amazes me also, how many people that are for keeping the code requirement don't even KNOW why it was a requirement in the first place. That just REALLY is outrageous. And it is 100% of them that don't know, because if they DID know, they couldn't possible be for keeping the requirement. The proper analogy would be that of "only requiring that you can recognise and know (in a most basic manner) how to use a washboard. There would be *no* requirement to actually use one at all. Ok, agreed. But it is still a stupid requirement! (funny how you didn't see that!) Why should anyone be tested on if they know how to use a washboard before they are allowed to use a washing machine?????? Likewise... Why should one be tested and required to know morse code before being allowed to talk into a microphone on HF?? They DON'T. The world has finally realized this and made the decision this year! Other countries have already dropped the requirement that they ONLY kept this long because of international agreement. Now that there is no international agreement, the US keeping it would be ridiculous. Especially since ham operators were essential during 9/11, and since we can expect many more such attacks, thanks to Bush, it is in the US' best interest to open the doors to as many of those that wish to volunteer their time and services with ham radio, rather than keep many qualified people out of it because they don't want to learn something they never intend to use. They just want to help serve their country. Keeping the code requirement, is sort of like "letting the terrorists win" ! I think any terrorist would agree that keeping the code requirement and having less hams to help during the next retaliation attack of theirs, is something THEY would all like to see. If you are for the code requirement, you are no different than the terrorists. Think about it. Then go and learn Egyptian Hieroglyphics. Don't be lazy! |
This whole argument is pointless. The code requirement will be eliminated.
No thinking person would dispute that. The only reason we still have it now is international agreement. I firmly believe that if people feel that a code requirement is necessary (and not enough do to keep it a requirement anyway) that they should go ahead and require it. About 1 word per lifetime should do it. |
This whole argument is pointless. The code requirement will be eliminated.
No thinking person would dispute that. The only reason we still have it now is international agreement. I firmly believe that if people feel that a code requirement is necessary (and not enough do to keep it a requirement anyway) that they should go ahead and require it. About 1 word per lifetime should do it. |
"Jeff Renkin" wrote in message ... The point just keeps flying over your head. What if someone kept saying to you, if you want a driver's license, you have to learn Egyptian Hieroglyphics first? Actually Jeff, you don't get the point. When you get the license for HF amateur operation, you get privileges that include code. Code proficiency is part of the requirement. Code does happen to represent a significant part of HF operation. It has nothing to do with Egyptian Hieroglyphics, boating, GPS, driving, etc. It has to do with demonstrating you know what you are doing in areas that are pertinent to the license. craig I bet you would be whining too, and I would love to see you ask what learning that has to do with getting a driver's license and then someone comes back at YOU with: "Stop whining, you want to drive a car, learn Egyptian Hieroglyphics." No point to go on with anything else. You need to understand THIS concept FIRST before anything else. :) |
CW wrote:
This whole argument is pointless. The code requirement will be eliminated. No thinking person would dispute that. You would think so, wouldn't you? Yet this thread proves that people are either not thinking, or their way of thinking makes no ****ing sense. (Since the FCC says you can now use the word "****ing" on radio and TV, then we can now use it on newsgroups too.) The only reason we still have it now is international agreement. And that finally is now gone. So the real reason we have it now in the US when other countries got their act in gear and already eliminated it, is that in the US government moves really slow unless it is something unimportant like renaming french fries to freedom fries, that they can move really fast on legislating. I firmly believe that if people feel that a code requirement is necessary, that they should go ahead and require it. Right, those that want to learn the code should by all means learn it. Those that want to use microphones and don't like to use code, don't have to learn it. But what about affirmative action? Since people who didn't want to use code had to learn it all this time, perhaps now the government should make those that want to use code to learn something else they don't like before they can get licenses now. You know, just like the reverse discrimination and racism of affirmative action to make up for the past mistakes. I say if you want to use morse code on HF, you have to learn and be tested on Egyptian Hieroglyphics. |
Jeff Renkin wrote: CW wrote: This whole argument is pointless. The code requirement will be eliminated. No thinking person would dispute that. You would think so, wouldn't you? Yet this thread proves that people are either not thinking, or their way of thinking makes no ****ing sense. (Since the FCC says you can now use the word "****ing" on radio and TV, then we can now use it on newsgroups too.) The only reason we still have it now is international agreement. And that finally is now gone. So the real reason we have it now in the US when other countries got their act in gear and already eliminated it, is that in the US government moves really slow unless it is something unimportant like renaming french fries to freedom fries, that they can move really fast on legislating. I firmly believe that if people feel that a code requirement is necessary, that they should go ahead and require it. Right, those that want to learn the code should by all means learn it. Those that want to use microphones and don't like to use code, don't have to learn it. But what about affirmative action? Since people who didn't want to use code had to learn it all this time, perhaps now the government should make those that want to use code to learn something else they don't like before they can get licenses now. You know, just like the reverse discrimination and racism of affirmative action to make up for the past mistakes. I say if you want to use morse code on HF, you have to learn and be tested on Egyptian Hieroglyphics. You are truely an idiot. |
The point just keeps flying over your head. What if someone kept
saying to you, if you want a driver's license, you have to learn Egyptian Hieroglyphics first? Actually Jeff, you don't get the point. Crap, why the hell can't any of you just concentrate and deal with that point before you avoid it and jump to something else??? When you get the license for HF amateur operation, you get privileges that include code. No, you have the privileges to use code on VHF and UHF if you want to and don't ever have to pass a code test. In case you are not aware, parts of those bands are set aside for code as well. Code proficiency is part of the requirement. It was part of the requirement to get a technician's class license too, wasn't it? But that was dropped, right? It would have been dropped all across the board for every class of license, but the international agreement between countries was the ONLY reason it had to stay with the HF licenses. Now that the world finally got to vote on this, they did away with the requirement. The requirement is NO LONGER. Other countries were quick to remove the requirement from their local laws, the US is just very slow at changing laws. It will happen, it just takes a government like ours months of boring useless discussion to come to an obvious conclusion. Have you ever watched C-span? Then you would know how ****ed up our government is. Code does happen to represent a significant part of HF operation. So does voice. It has to do with demonstrating you know what you are doing in areas that are pertinent to the license. "Knowing what you are doing" is a technical reasoning since you are dealing with equipment that can cause interference and even death if not used properly. Not knowing how to send morse code properly is not going to interfere with any other licensed services or cause anyone to die. Now, try to answer this without avoiding it.... What if to get a driver's license, you had to learn Egyptian Hieroglyphics first? |
Jeff Renkin wrote: The point just keeps flying over your head. What if someone kept saying to you, if you want a driver's license, you have to learn Egyptian Hieroglyphics first? Actually Jeff, you don't get the point. Crap, why the hell can't any of you just concentrate and deal with that point before you avoid it and jump to something else??? When you get the license for HF amateur operation, you get privileges that include code. No, you have the privileges to use code on VHF and UHF if you want to and don't ever have to pass a code test. In case you are not aware, parts of those bands are set aside for code as well. Code proficiency is part of the requirement. It was part of the requirement to get a technician's class license too, wasn't it? But that was dropped, right? It would have been dropped all across the board for every class of license, but the international agreement between countries was the ONLY reason it had to stay with the HF licenses. Now that the world finally got to vote on this, they did away with the requirement. The requirement is NO LONGER. Other countries were quick to remove the requirement from their local laws, the US is just very slow at changing laws. It will happen, it just takes a government like ours months of boring useless discussion to come to an obvious conclusion. Have you ever watched C-span? Then you would know how ****ed up our government is. Code does happen to represent a significant part of HF operation. So does voice. It has to do with demonstrating you know what you are doing in areas that are pertinent to the license. "Knowing what you are doing" is a technical reasoning since you are dealing with equipment that can cause interference and even death if not used properly. Not knowing how to send morse code properly is not going to interfere with any other licensed services or cause anyone to die. Now, try to answer this without avoiding it.... What if to get a driver's license, you had to learn Egyptian Hieroglyphics first? What if to learn Morse code, you finally had to pull your head out of your ass Jeff? The sound would probably equal that of Krakatoa erupting! Steve Holland, MI Proficient in Morse code. |
Bottom line, it's too bad the trend is toward dropping the requirement.
Until now, the morse code requirement served the dual purpose as a de facto "intelligence test" to get in to ham radio, and it also required some committment (which in turn gets hams to respect the medium). What I think worries everyone is that without this requirement, the bar will be lowered to the extent of becoming glorified Citizens Band radio. And that would be a shame. -- Stinger "N8KDV" wrote in message ... Jeff Renkin wrote: The point just keeps flying over your head. What if someone kept saying to you, if you want a driver's license, you have to learn Egyptian Hieroglyphics first? Actually Jeff, you don't get the point. Crap, why the hell can't any of you just concentrate and deal with that point before you avoid it and jump to something else??? When you get the license for HF amateur operation, you get privileges that include code. No, you have the privileges to use code on VHF and UHF if you want to and don't ever have to pass a code test. In case you are not aware, parts of those bands are set aside for code as well. Code proficiency is part of the requirement. It was part of the requirement to get a technician's class license too, wasn't it? But that was dropped, right? It would have been dropped all across the board for every class of license, but the international agreement between countries was the ONLY reason it had to stay with the HF licenses. Now that the world finally got to vote on this, they did away with the requirement. The requirement is NO LONGER. Other countries were quick to remove the requirement from their local laws, the US is just very slow at changing laws. It will happen, it just takes a government like ours months of boring useless discussion to come to an obvious conclusion. Have you ever watched C-span? Then you would know how ****ed up our government is. Code does happen to represent a significant part of HF operation. So does voice. It has to do with demonstrating you know what you are doing in areas that are pertinent to the license. "Knowing what you are doing" is a technical reasoning since you are dealing with equipment that can cause interference and even death if not used properly. Not knowing how to send morse code properly is not going to interfere with any other licensed services or cause anyone to die. Now, try to answer this without avoiding it.... What if to get a driver's license, you had to learn Egyptian Hieroglyphics first? What if to learn Morse code, you finally had to pull your head out of your ass Jeff? The sound would probably equal that of Krakatoa erupting! Steve Holland, MI Proficient in Morse code. |
Jeff Renkin wrote in message
Actually the lowering of the speed has NOTHING to do with it. If you ARE going to learn the code, it makes more sense to learn it at the fastest speed right away. If you learn it at 5 wpm, it makes it much harder later to go faster with it. Nope, it doesn't. If that were the case, I would be in the same speed league as you. If you are going to take a 20 wpm test, and ditch the code upon passing the test, it might make sense, but to someone that intends to actually use the code, it does not. You would be a "one speed wonder" .. The first person that came along at 9 wpm would cause you to vapor lock. I started at -5 wpm and went up. Quickly. It sure didn't seem to hurt me, being I peaked at my limits of "clean" manual "paddle" keying. My abilty to send cleanly using a paddle determined my real world limit. Not my abilty to receive. I can't send cleanly with a paddle over about 55-60 wpm and thats pushing it to the edge. After that I get too sloppy for my tastes. Being I refuse to use a keyboard, which I hate, that was my limit. If I used the keyboard, I probably could have eventually hit 70-75-80 wpm. The dots are so fast at those speeds, even at 60, that you don't really listen for individual dots. You gauge from the length in ms of the string. It's almost a blur. To be a decent CW operator, you must gradually work through all the speeds. Your theory does not hold water. But to be expected from someone who doesn't work cw. Lowering the speed to 5 wpm was idiotic. As if that made it easier or something. Well, being many upgraded to extra in one fell swoop after they dropped speed, it must have made some difference if the rest couldn't get 13 or 20 wpm. Of course, I suspect the vast majority of those didn't really practice enough. Ever hear of the Farnsworth system? Duh... Learning the code is like learning a language, you hear the musical sounds of the letters and words, slowing it down only makes it harder. Slowing it down only makes it harder to keep track of previously sent letters, if head copying. That makes it harder to make words out of the copy. You have to copy behind a bit. But slowing it down does not make it harder to copy the characters. Trust me, for a rank beginner, it's easier to learn and pass 5 wpm, than it is to learn and pass 20 wpm. That is, unless they alter the proper timing, and leave huge gaps between letters on the test. And thats not 20 wpm any more. The farnsworth method teaches incorrect character spacing, and overall lousy timing. You learn lousy timing from day one, and that is no way to live. Not what I consider good. An *actual* 20 wpm at normal spacing will cause a beginner to vapor lock when they test, if they learned with the improperly spaced farnsworth method. The Farnsworth method is NOT a good method to use for people that intend to use the code in the real world. MK |
Jeff Renkin wrote in message
When you get the license for HF amateur operation, you get privileges that include code. No, you have the privileges to use code on VHF and UHF if you want to and don't ever have to pass a code test. In case you are not aware, parts of those bands are set aside for code as well. In case you are not aware, the international treaty did not include VHF. Code proficiency is part of the requirement. It was part of the requirement to get a technician's class license too, wasn't it? But that was dropped, right? In case you are not aware, it was only dropped because international treaty did not include VHF. Next...MK |
I find my self in agreement with you Stinger. The worth of anything in life
is only how hard was it to obtain? Why would anyone buy a Rolex when a Timex does the exact same thing an order of magnitude cheaper? The Rolex is a sign of achievement by the wearer. Those of us who worked to learn the code hate to see our Rolex turned in to a Timex by a group of people who can't afford a Rolex. I guess in a world where achievement is disdained, because it makes the under-achiever feel bad, the move is not unexpected. Fred W4JLE Ex V3CB V31GR (Hamming for over 47 years and still loving it!) "Stinger" wrote in message ... Bottom line, it's too bad the trend is toward dropping the requirement. Until now, the morse code requirement served the dual purpose as a de facto "intelligence test" to get in to ham radio, and it also required some committment (which in turn gets hams to respect the medium). |
"w4jle" W4JLE(remove this to wrote in message
Those of us who worked to learn the code hate to see our Rolex turned in to a Timex by a group of people who can't afford a Rolex. It doesn't really bother me. The only bummer part is there will be fewer and fewer CW ops in the next years. I could really care less if they drop the code tests. With 5 wpm, for all practical purposes, they already have. I just can't stand the whiners...Whine, whine, whine....Such a waste of energy, particularly being they are wasting it in the totally wrong direction. They should tell it to the fcc, not other hams, or SWL's on NG's. It's like whining about the broken cruise control in your Ford truck at a J.C. Penny's. :/ We don't have any control over it, so whining to us is a total waste of time. It makes me laugh that someone would spend so much time and energy trying to convince people that have absolutely no control over the matter. Better than the freaking comedy channel if you ask me. MK |
amateur radio is going to survive if the gatekeepers continue to limit
access to those who can prove a working knowlege of morse code. The code was at one time one of several useful tools for communicating, but it has been outpaced by other faster technologies that are easier to learn. Military and commercial use of the code has all but ceased. So who's left - HAM's. Is there a need for HAM's to use the code in emergency situations? Posssibly, but I haven't heard of any recent successes. Several years ago I tried to listen in on a logjam of ham's trying to run an H&W net after one particularly nasty carribean hurricane. It was a babble of voice and code - everyone running over one another. Sorting out the multiple code transmissions was all but impossible. I truly think managment of emergency communications is best left to the professionals with up-to-date tools. Should amateur radio licenses be subject to passing a test? Absolutely. However the test should require knowlege of skills that are appropriate for todays world. Knowlege of radio technology and electronics are an absolute must for safe operation of poetntially lethal equipment. Proficiency in communicating by voice and one or more digital modes on several bands should be a requirement. The Morse code should not be one of those required digital skills however, because it has little useful application in todays world. The gatekeepers of the hobby should be looking for ways to reduce the average age of the licensed ham by enticing new entrants into the hobby. Requiring them to learn a technology that is slower than a 78rpm record played at 33rpm is not the way. (Mark Keith) wrote in message . com... Jeff Renkin wrote in message Actually the lowering of the speed has NOTHING to do with it. If you ARE going to learn the code, it makes more sense to learn it at the fastest speed right away. If you learn it at 5 wpm, it makes it much harder later to go faster with it. Nope, it doesn't. If that were the case, I would be in the same speed league as you. If you are going to take a 20 wpm test, and ditch the code upon passing the test, it might make sense, but to someone that intends to actually use the code, it does not. You would be a "one speed wonder" . The first person that came along at 9 wpm would cause you to vapor lock. I started at -5 wpm and went up. Quickly. It sure didn't seem to hurt me, being I peaked at my limits of "clean" manual "paddle" keying. My abilty to send cleanly using a paddle determined my real world limit. Not my abilty to receive. I can't send cleanly with a paddle over about 55-60 wpm and thats pushing it to the edge. After that I get too sloppy for my tastes. Being I refuse to use a keyboard, which I hate, that was my limit. If I used the keyboard, I probably could have eventually hit 70-75-80 wpm. The dots are so fast at those speeds, even at 60, that you don't really listen for individual dots. You gauge from the length in ms of the string. It's almost a blur. To be a decent CW operator, you must gradually work through all the speeds. Your theory does not hold water. But to be expected from someone who doesn't work cw. Lowering the speed to 5 wpm was idiotic. As if that made it easier or something. Well, being many upgraded to extra in one fell swoop after they dropped speed, it must have made some difference if the rest couldn't get 13 or 20 wpm. Of course, I suspect the vast majority of those didn't really practice enough. Ever hear of the Farnsworth system? Duh... Learning the code is like learning a language, you hear the musical sounds of the letters and words, slowing it down only makes it harder. Slowing it down only makes it harder to keep track of previously sent letters, if head copying. That makes it harder to make words out of the copy. You have to copy behind a bit. But slowing it down does not make it harder to copy the characters. Trust me, for a rank beginner, it's easier to learn and pass 5 wpm, than it is to learn and pass 20 wpm. That is, unless they alter the proper timing, and leave huge gaps between letters on the test. And thats not 20 wpm any more. The farnsworth method teaches incorrect character spacing, and overall lousy timing. You learn lousy timing from day one, and that is no way to live. Not what I consider good. An *actual* 20 wpm at normal spacing will cause a beginner to vapor lock when they test, if they learned with the improperly spaced farnsworth method. The Farnsworth method is NOT a good method to use for people that intend to use the code in the real world. MK |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:12 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com