I find my self in agreement with you Stinger. The worth of anything in life
is only how hard was it to obtain?

Before you make such a statement, be sure to test it out by thinking first if
there are any examples that blow holes through the theory as so many do.

Many people would put a high value on their children, even though they were so
easy to obtain, many were not even planned for. I put a high value on what I
get just from sitting and doing nothing in the middle of nature, and is one of
the easiest things to obtain. In fact, with many things, once the way of
obtaining something is not worth the reward, no one bothers to put more effort
in to something than they can get out of it. For instance, we know this is
how MOST people felt about the code requirement as no one was getting licenses
anymore, then when the requirement was dropped for the tech class license over a
decade ago, there was a flood of new licenses, so many the FCC had a hard time
keeping up with it and it took months for some to get their licenses. That
is all the proof you need to prove that point.

Watch again as soon as the US finally follows the other countries in officially
dropping the code from their local wording the flood of applicants upgrading
from Technician class directly to Extra Class in one sitting, while the code
passing Generals STILL won't be able to get THEIR Extra class licenses because
they can't pass the easy written multiple choice tests.

Why would anyone buy a Rolex when a Timex does the exact same thing an order
of magnitude cheaper?

Because those people don't buy a watch so they know what time it is, they buy it
to SHOW OFF and try to impress other people. Are you saying this is what
people who learn the code are doing?

Only an idiot pays the price of a car for a watch, when you can get a great one
for under $100. If you really like the Rolex style, you can even get an exact
copy for around $20 that is self winding and never needs batteries and keeps
excellent time.

The real question is, what kind of IDIOT spends thousands on a real Rolex when
everyone is going to think it is just a fake $20 one anyway?

I don't need the real one OR the fake one, my digital watch provides so much
more information, like phone numbers, reminders, and all sorts of things the
Rolexes can't do and for much less money. Intelligent people have a knack for
reasoning things out and using common sense, something anyone who buys a Rolex
is not doing. They are just throwing away a lot of money that could have been
used for much better purposes.

The Rolex is a sign of achievement by the wearer.

Well, we know what category YOU fit in now. :)

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.

What a **** poor analogy. How does someone else not learning code make your
code learning and use of it, any less in value? See, again you are only
concerned with OTHER people and not your OWN use for the code and the enjoyment
you may have had learning it. Nothing is going to take that away. If
I produce and build a beautiful radio with my own hands, and no one else has to
build one, that doesn't take away the value of my radio to me at all.

"by a group of people who CAN'T AFFORD a Rolex"

This quote AGAIN shows us what type of person you are. Those that don't have
rich parents like you must of had are not worth anything in life to you. We
need high prices and morse code restrictions so that we can keep most of the
public out of our exclusive clubs of elite snobs. God forbid that a commoner
should be allowed into our hobby that didn't have to go through the "eating live
goldfish" stunts first to be initiated into the jackass club at your high cost
club.

Again, there are many watches that do an exceptional job of keeping time for
much less money, and those that foolishly waste and throw away money based on
expensive name brands are idiots with no intelligence. People don't buy Bose
speakers because they are good, Bose speakers SUCK! People buy them so when
others LOOK at them, they will know how much money they spent (and what boobs
they are that they don't know how ****ty they sound and could have gotten much
better speakers for much less money! :)

I guess in a world where achievement is disdained, because it makes the
under-achiever feel bad, the move is not unexpected.

In the old days, you didn't need to get a license to ride a horse. We didn't
make licenses for cars to keep most of the public from driving a car, or pad it
with worthless extra tests so that most could not pass it, but on the contrary,
we make it easier for everyone (now even illegal alien criminals) to get a
driver's license because the test is just so you know the rules of the road, not
how to use morse code or something that you will never even use when
driving. There would be no test at ALL for a driver's license if not for a
few things you really do need to know before getting behind the wheel.

The same thing applies to ham radio.

If not for the fact that ham operators are allowed to build their own equipment
and can use transmitters that are over Part 15 rules regarding output power and
whatnot, there would be NO test at all!!! There is no test for CB, family
service radios, or even GMRS!! Yes you need a license for GMRS, but there is
no written OR code test, just send away for the license! Why? Because those
people are only going to be using FCC approved equipment instead of playing
around with making their own or using power outputs that are as high as what
hams can use.

We only need be tested on the dangers of the power we are playing with, and how
to safeguard from interfering with other licensed services, and how not to kill
birds and other life with our dangerous equipment.

Otherwise, it would just be sending in a check and getting your ham license like
with GMRS.

Not knowing code doesn't seem to have anything to do with operating CB, FRS, or
GMRS and it doesn't have anything to do with being able to use ham radio either.

Ham radio can be used for remote control model aircraft, sending computer data,
sending VIDEO pictures, and so many things that we are not tested on before
getting the license. Once we have the license, if we are interested in
learning one of the many areas of ham radio like using morse code, or using RC
planes, we will learn them as we use them.

No sense in testing EVERYONE in RC planes and Morse Code just to get the
license, only the RULES and SAFETY need to be learned, the fun and games that
have nothing to do with the dangers of operating RF need not be a requirement
before the license is issued.

You can use a morse code key incorrectly, and you won't kill anyone or cause any
interference that using the code key properly wouldn't have done. But the
transmitter you are using the code key with, you need to know a few things about
that before turning it on and using it!

We don't get tested before getting a driver's license on how to use the car to
go out in the country for a picnic, or use it at a drive in movie, just the
important SAFETY and RULES that go along with operating the vehicle which can be
dangerous if not used properly.

If there was no danger in operating a car, there would be no test, you would
just pay the fee for your license. The testing is not to make it harder for
people to get a driver's license!! The economy would crumble and people
would not be able to get to work if there was a morse code requirement before
you could get a driver's license!!

And right now, in the time we can expect many more terrorist attacks on our soil
(thanks to Bush) we need as many ham operators to assist in those times as they
did during 9/11. The MORE hams the better! Silly worthless restrictions to
keep qualified hams from helping is doing nothing more than HELPING THE
TERRORISTS!!

Ask any terrorist that hate the US and I am sure they will be for keeping the
code requirement too!
They don't want a surplus of hams being able to provide communications and
aiding what they are trying to take down.

The other countries are already on the ball and have dropped the code
requirement, but the one country that should have been the first to do so,
really seems to like endangering our lives. If not, they wouldn't keep
terrorizing the middle east and getting them to retaliate on us so much.

Jeff Renkin wrote:

I find my self in agreement with you Stinger. The worth of anything in life
is only how hard was it to obtain?

Before you make such a statement, be sure to test it out by thinking first if
there are any examples that blow holes through the theory as so many do.

Many people would put a high value on their children, even though they were so
easy to obtain, many were not even planned for. I put a high value on what I
get just from sitting and doing nothing in the middle of nature, and is one of
the easiest things to obtain. In fact, with many things, once the way of
obtaining something is not worth the reward, no one bothers to put more effort
in to something than they can get out of it. For instance, we know this is
how MOST people felt about the code requirement as no one was getting licenses
anymore, then when the requirement was dropped for the tech class license over a
decade ago, there was a flood of new licenses, so many the FCC had a hard time
keeping up with it and it took months for some to get their licenses. That
is all the proof you need to prove that point.

Watch again as soon as the US finally follows the other countries in officially
dropping the code from their local wording the flood of applicants upgrading
from Technician class directly to Extra Class in one sitting, while the code
passing Generals STILL won't be able to get THEIR Extra class licenses because
they can't pass the easy written multiple choice tests.

Why would anyone buy a Rolex when a Timex does the exact same thing an order
of magnitude cheaper?

Because those people don't buy a watch so they know what time it is, they buy it
to SHOW OFF and try to impress other people. Are you saying this is what
people who learn the code are doing?

Only an idiot pays the price of a car for a watch, when you can get a great one
for under $100. If you really like the Rolex style, you can even get an exact
copy for around $20 that is self winding and never needs batteries and keeps
excellent time.

The real question is, what kind of IDIOT spends thousands on a real Rolex when
everyone is going to think it is just a fake $20 one anyway?

I don't need the real one OR the fake one, my digital watch provides so much
more information, like phone numbers, reminders, and all sorts of things the
Rolexes can't do and for much less money. Intelligent people have a knack for
reasoning things out and using common sense, something anyone who buys a Rolex
is not doing. They are just throwing away a lot of money that could have been
used for much better purposes.

The Rolex is a sign of achievement by the wearer.

Well, we know what category YOU fit in now. :)

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.

What a **** poor analogy. How does someone else not learning code make your
code learning and use of it, any less in value? See, again you are only
concerned with OTHER people and not your OWN use for the code and the enjoyment
you may have had learning it. Nothing is going to take that away. If
I produce and build a beautiful radio with my own hands, and no one else has to
build one, that doesn't take away the value of my radio to me at all.

"by a group of people who CAN'T AFFORD a Rolex"

This quote AGAIN shows us what type of person you are. Those that don't have
rich parents like you must of had are not worth anything in life to you. We
need high prices and morse code restrictions so that we can keep most of the
public out of our exclusive clubs of elite snobs. God forbid that a commoner
should be allowed into our hobby that didn't have to go through the "eating live
goldfish" stunts first to be initiated into the jackass club at your high cost
club.

Again, there are many watches that do an exceptional job of keeping time for
much less money, and those that foolishly waste and throw away money based on
expensive name brands are idiots with no intelligence. People don't buy Bose
speakers because they are good, Bose speakers SUCK! People buy them so when
others LOOK at them, they will know how much money they spent (and what boobs
they are that they don't know how ****ty they sound and could have gotten much
better speakers for much less money! :)

I guess in a world where achievement is disdained, because it makes the
under-achiever feel bad, the move is not unexpected.

In the old days, you didn't need to get a license to ride a horse. We didn't
make licenses for cars to keep most of the public from driving a car, or pad it
with worthless extra tests so that most could not pass it, but on the contrary,
we make it easier for everyone (now even illegal alien criminals) to get a
driver's license because the test is just so you know the rules of the road, not
how to use morse code or something that you will never even use when
driving. There would be no test at ALL for a driver's license if not for a
few things you really do need to know before getting behind the wheel.

The same thing applies to ham radio.

If not for the fact that ham operators are allowed to build their own equipment
and can use transmitters that are over Part 15 rules regarding output power and
whatnot, there would be NO test at all!!! There is no test for CB, family
service radios, or even GMRS!! Yes you need a license for GMRS, but there is
no written OR code test, just send away for the license! Why? Because those
people are only going to be using FCC approved equipment instead of playing
around with making their own or using power outputs that are as high as what
hams can use.

We only need be tested on the dangers of the power we are playing with, and how
to safeguard from interfering with other licensed services, and how not to kill
birds and other life with our dangerous equipment.

Otherwise, it would just be sending in a check and getting your ham license like
with GMRS.

Not knowing code doesn't seem to have anything to do with operating CB, FRS, or
GMRS and it doesn't have anything to do with being able to use ham radio either.

Ham radio can be used for remote control model aircraft, sending computer data,
sending VIDEO pictures, and so many things that we are not tested on before
getting the license. Once we have the license, if we are interested in
learning one of the many areas of ham radio like using morse code, or using RC
planes, we will learn them as we use them.

No sense in testing EVERYONE in RC planes and Morse Code just to get the
license, only the RULES and SAFETY need to be learned, the fun and games that
have nothing to do with the dangers of operating RF need not be a requirement
before the license is issued.

You can use a morse code key incorrectly, and you won't kill anyone or cause any
interference that using the code key properly wouldn't have done. But the
transmitter you are using the code key with, you need to know a few things about
that before turning it on and using it!

We don't get tested before getting a driver's license on how to use the car to
go out in the country for a picnic, or use it at a drive in movie, just the
important SAFETY and RULES that go along with operating the vehicle which can be
dangerous if not used properly.

If there was no danger in operating a car, there would be no test, you would
just pay the fee for your license. The testing is not to make it harder for
people to get a driver's license!! The economy would crumble and people
would not be able to get to work if there was a morse code requirement before
you could get a driver's license!!

And right now, in the time we can expect many more terrorist attacks on our soil
(thanks to Bush) we need as many ham operators to assist in those times as they
did during 9/11. The MORE hams the better! Silly worthless restrictions to
keep qualified hams from helping is doing nothing more than HELPING THE
TERRORISTS!!

Ask any terrorist that hate the US and I am sure they will be for keeping the
code requirement too!
They don't want a surplus of hams being able to provide communications and
aiding what they are trying to take down.

The other countries are already on the ball and have dropped the code
requirement, but the one country that should have been the first to do so,
really seems to like endangering our lives. If not, they wouldn't keep
terrorizing the middle east and getting them to retaliate on us so much.

Renkin, you are such an idiot! By the way, I own a real Rolex and I know the code
too! LOL Stop whining and learn the code!

I find that along with the value of my children, came a hell of a lot of
work.

The rest of your stuff. quite frankly, is bafflegab. First you have no idea
how "Most people felt", only the opinions of the noisy few in the
conferences. The rest of your missive is based on conjecture on your part.
More bafflegab...

"Jeff Renkin" wrote in message
...
I find my self in agreement with you Stinger. The worth of anything in
life
is only how hard was it to obtain?

Before you make such a statement, be sure to test it out by thinking first
if
there are any examples that blow holes through the theory as so many do.

Many people would put a high value on their children, even though they
were so
easy to obtain, many were not even planned for

It doesn't really bother me. The only bummer part is there will be
fewer and fewer CW ops in the next years.

Not once the code requirement is dropped. You will see the opposite, MORE CW
will be on the bands. Why? Because when you force someone to learn
something, it is not an enjoyable memory or experience and you avoid it after you
don't have to do it anymore. That is just human nature. How many kids
forced to learn an instrument go on to play and enjoy it during adult life? Not
many. But those kids that picked up a guitar and learned it because they
wanted to, ended up playing it through adulthood.

As soon as the code requirement is dropped in the US as it has already been done
in other countries, we will see a giant wave of people upgrading to HF bands as
well as people becoming hams for the first time and not having to stop after the
tech class test but go straight on to Extra as many electronics engineers will be
doing.

Now what happens next? They are all on the HF bands trying it out, and find
that a certain part of the band is reserved for morse code (as is the way it
should be, no one is advocating banning morse code, just not forcing it as a
requirement) and their curiosity will grow and many will want to get in on and
learn it so they can participate on this part of the band too. See, in order
to USE that part of the band, you DO have to learn the code! (you just don't
need to learn code to use the voice part of the bands on HF) So now people
will be learning the code because they WANT to, not because it is a
requirement! And THAT is why you will have MORE morse code users on the HF
bands than ever.

I did learn the code many decades ago, again only to get the license, and in my
case to operate on VHF, I didn't even want to use HF at all. But once I passed
the test, I never again ever used morse code, in fact I forgot all of it except
for SOS and 2 other letters. (R being one, as it is at the end of just about
every 2-meter repeater id)

But when the morse code requirement is finally dropped in the US like elsewhere,
I will learn it again! I have been wanting to learn it again only for the sake
of being able to know what they are saying in old movies and old time radio
programs where you occasionally hear some morse code. I want to learn it for
myself again because I want to learn it, but have not done so because of the bad
taste in my mouth I get from knowing it was forced opon me when I got my ham
license, and the only way I will learn it again is when it is MY wanting to, and
not a government requirement that makes no sense. I already have my Extra
license, (and the original was one of those that came in a nice certificate, not
the crap laser printer kind you get today) so I don't need to learn the code, I
want to learn it again for OTHER reasons, but I will wait until the requirement
is dropped.

Once it is dropped I may actually get on the CW part of the bands and join in the
new flood of CW communications that will grow from the requirement being dropped
and people learning and using it for their own nostalgic use of it, not because
the government or elite snob ham operator told them they had to do it.

I could really care less if
they drop the code tests. With 5 wpm, for all practical purposes, they
already have.

You don't know much about code then. It is just as easy to learn it at 15 wpm
than it is at 5 wpm and anyone that learns it at 5 is only hurting themselves,
because then it becomes almost IMPOSSIBLE to learn it any faster after that!
That is a proven fact, and why smart people learn the code using the farnsworth
method.

Dropping it to 5 wpm was ridiculous and just shows the FCC doesn't know anything
about learning code, or they wouldn't have done this. Either keep it, or get
rid of it, don't reduce it to 5 wpm, that is the most ridiculous and idiotic
thing to do.

I just can't stand the whiners...Whine, whine,
whine...

Yes, but those doing the whining are those that want to keep the requirement,
even after it has already been dropped over a decade ago, and now even the world
has agreed to drop it for HF. They would have done it sooner, but they had to
wait for 2003 for some reason. I told people years ago it would be dropped at
the 2003 conference because that is how far away they pushed off voting on this,
else had they voted sooner, it would have been dropped sooner.

.Such a waste of energy, particularly being they are wasting
it in the totally wrong direction. They should tell it to the fcc,

They don't have to tell it to anyone, it will be dropped without any effort at
all. The FCC dropped the requirement over a decade ago! The HF part only
stayed for international agreement, or that would have gone too way back then.
It just takes the US government a long time to do something, so you just have to
wait a few months, but they will get to it.

So, why does anyone against the requirement need to whine? No reason as the
requirement is gone. The only ones whining are those that wanted it to
stay. And that whining we will have to listen to for another decade yet.

We don't have any control over it, so whining to us is a total waste
of time.

Then why not stop? :)

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.

How much time did you spend joining this debate about something you have no
control over?
Do as you say, not as you do, eh?

Better than the freaking comedy channel if you ask me.
MK

You can say "****ing" now, the FCC has approved the word for broadcast and
children's ears so long as it is not used in a sexual description, so no reason
to be self censoring ourselves anymore on newsgroups. Besides, how idiotic is
it to make up a new word that means the old word as if one is so much more
offensive than the other when they both mean the same thing.

What a ****ing joke.



------------------------------------------------

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.

Don't change the subject, the point here is that you are not given code privileges
with an HF license as is PROVEN by the fact that a tech class ham can also use code
legally on VHF. Therefore, your statement is false.

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.

Do a search on Farnsworth Method.

Code will be eeiminated. Garanteed. Deal with it.

I send code worse than I spell. :)


"CW" wrote in message
news:Tjijb.777617$YN5.761156@sccrnsc01...
Code will be eeiminated. Garanteed. Deal with it.

On 15 Oct 2003, CW wrote:

I send code worse than I spell. :)


"CW" wrote in message
news:Tjijb.777617$YN5.761156@sccrnsc01...
Code will be eeiminated. Garanteed. Deal with it.






Bet everyone you talk too is glad it's being eliminated then huh :P

--
Alex Devlin
The Ham & Scanner Enthusiast Forum - http://tinyurl.com/qvl7

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.

Do a search on Farnsworth Method.

Why would I need to do that. A friend of mine actually knew and talked
to the guy when he was alive. I don't need to search anything. What
makes you think that your comments about learning CW hold any weight
with me, if you can barely make out an SOS? Get a grip...I'm probably
in the upper 90-95% bracket as far as CW users. I think I have a
fairly good grip on the best methods of learning and using code. The
farnsworth method is bad news to anyone that plans to actually use the
code on the air. It promotes poor timing. MK

Jeff Renkin wrote in message
Don't change the subject, the point here is that you are not given code privileges
with an HF license as is PROVEN by the fact that a tech class ham can also use code
legally on VHF. Therefore, your statement is false.

Yea, right, it's false. Treaty included VHF and above. Right. You do
need to get a grip. MK

I can see why you may have a problem with CW, I too would abhor another
language that required me to spell...

"CW" wrote in message
news:Tjijb.777617$YN5.761156@sccrnsc01...
Code will be eeiminated. Garanteed. Deal with it.

We had to learn morse code to advance in Boy Scouts. I remember thinking we
were all pretty sharp signalling each other with flashlights at campouts.
Then, our scoutmaster (who was a HAM) let us hear some of the code on his
rig. Those guys were FAST.

-- Stinger

"Mark Keith" wrote in message
om...
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.

Do a search on Farnsworth Method.

Why would I need to do that. A friend of mine actually knew and talked
to the guy when he was alive. I don't need to search anything. What
makes you think that your comments about learning CW hold any weight
with me, if you can barely make out an SOS? Get a grip...I'm probably
in the upper 90-95% bracket as far as CW users. I think I have a
fairly good grip on the best methods of learning and using code. The
farnsworth method is bad news to anyone that plans to actually use the
code on the air. It promotes poor timing. MK

Code will be eliminated. All the arguments in the world will not change
that. Get over it.

"

Jeff Renkin wrote in message ...
It doesn't really bother me. The only bummer part is there will be
fewer and fewer CW ops in the next years.

Not once the code requirement is dropped. You will see the opposite, MORE CW
will be on the bands.

Right...When they started novices on 10m fone, the use of code on the
other HF novice bands dropped 50% overnight. When they started the no
code tech, the use dropped even farther. Like I said the other day,
whatever it is that you are using, send me some. I want to become
delusional and bark at the moon also. MK

"Jeff Renkin" wrote in message
...

Try to send an email with handwriting on a piece of paper. Perhaps you
should post to these groups with handwriting too.


Try to send a court summons and a multitude of other legal documents via
email. Both methods of communication have their place.

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.


Your denial of the fact that advances in radio digital technology was due to
code users is silly. It's a documented fact.

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 military does continue to use it under some conditions.

The police, fire, paramedics are operating local communications only so
their requirements are quite different. VHF frequencies are more than
sufficient for their needs.

Your arguments simply demonstrate your lack of knowledge about operating on
the HF frequencies.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

I never said all I wish to communicate is a mere 20 or 30 miles.... you did.


--
Ryan, KC8PMX
FF1-FF2-MFR-(pending NREMT-B!)
--. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-.
... --. .... - . .-. ...

Well if all you are concerned about is communicating a mere 20 or 30 miles
and only care about US, that is your prerogative but even in the mainland
of
the US, it is possible for a hurricane or earthquake to knock everything
out
in larger areas than that.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Dee D. Flint" wrote:
Ryan wrote:
"Dee D. Flint" wrote:
What are you going to use when HF propagation
is too weak to support voice???

1. Change frequency. (snip)

If HF isn't supporting voice propagation, to what
frequency would you suggest changing? (snip)

(snip) But if propagation is poor, voice may not be
intelligible yet CW will often come through quite
clearly under those conditions.


Nonsense, Dee. I've never, ever, saw HF messed up enough not to support
voice on at least some frequency. Regardless, if HF was truly somehow messed
up that badly (enough not to support voice on any frequency), CW probably
wouldn't get through either (CW doesn't get through that much better).


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Mark Keith" wrote:
Jeff Renkin wrote:

The International Maritime Organization (snip)

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. (snip)


Inexpensive Emergency Position Indicating Radio Beacon (EPIRB) units,
Inmarsat, and other relatively low cost emergency related systems are
available for recreational boaters. EPIRB's can be found in boating catalogs
selling marine electronics and information about Inmarsat can be found on
the web (and at many retail locations). SSB marine radio equipment has a
typical range of several hundred miles. Boaters with VHF can also seek
assistance from nearby marine vessels, including Coast Guard, Navy,
commercial, and private, vessels. The Coast Guard recommends a combination
of these for those heading far off shore (VHF, SSB, and EPIRB, for example).
CW is not recommended for emergency use today.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

Dwight,
While I agree with your assertion regarding "some frequency" will
certainly be available for HF voice communications. As a long time CW
operator I must respectfully question your statement that "(CW doesn't get
through that much better)." as I can think of literally thousands of times
when the band in question was to 'weak' for SSB, but good ole faithful CW
was clicking away on the band. Just some food for thought.
73,
Gary WY9Q

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
hlink.net...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote:
Ryan wrote:
What are you going to use when HF propagation
is too weak to support voice???

1. Change frequency. (snip)

If HF isn't supporting voice propagation, to what
frequency would you suggest changing? (snip)

(snip) But if propagation is poor, voice may not be
intelligible yet CW will often come through quite
clearly under those conditions.


Nonsense, Dee. I've never, ever, saw HF messed up enough not to support
voice on at least some frequency. Regardless, if HF was truly somehow
messed
up that badly (enough not to support voice on any frequency), CW probably
wouldn't get through either (CW doesn't get through that much better).


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Mark Pinkerman" wrote:

While I agree with your assertion regarding
"some frequency" will certainly be available for
HF voice communications. As a long time CW
operator I must respectfully question your
statement that "(CW doesn't get through that
much better)." as I can think of literally thousands
of times when the band in question was to 'weak'
for SSB, but good ole faithful CW was clicking
away on the band. Just some food for thought.


I don't disagree, Mark. I acknowledged that CW gets through better. But I
was saying that if HF was somehow screwed up enough to prevent voice on
"ANY" frequency (very unlikely, but that was the argument made), CW probably
wouldn't get through either. In that regard, CW is better, but it's not
"THAT" much better.

Of course, since the very premise described is highly unlikely, the whole
thing is a fairly silly argument.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

Jeezy petes! How long has this guy been around? A week? Two weeks? Anyone
who has been fooling around with shortwave propagation for any amount of
time can cite oodles and oodles of times when CW made it through and voice
did not.
Me thinks this is more an editorial by a guy who either hates the code or
never could cut it.

Smokey
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
hlink.net...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote:
Ryan wrote:
"Dee D. Flint" wrote:
What are you going to use when HF propagation
is too weak to support voice???

1. Change frequency. (snip)

If HF isn't supporting voice propagation, to what
frequency would you suggest changing? (snip)

(snip) But if propagation is poor, voice may not be
intelligible yet CW will often come through quite
clearly under those conditions.


Nonsense, Dee. I've never, ever, saw HF messed up enough not to support
voice on at least some frequency. Regardless, if HF was truly somehow
messed
up that badly (enough not to support voice on any frequency), CW probably
wouldn't get through either (CW doesn't get through that much better).


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 12:13:21 GMT, "Dwight Stewart"
wrote:

"Mark Keith" wrote:
Jeff Renkin wrote:

The International Maritime Organization (snip)

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. (snip)


In much of the world, it isn't an option, and at this point, a GMDSS
beacon without GPS, but with auto deployment is about 600USD.

Forr about $950 you get one with a GPS built in.

That my frined, is very cheap life insurance.

You trip off a GPS equipped GMDSS, and within 5 minutes, half the
world will know it has gone off. In addition because GMDSS beacons
have ID's, they will know who/what you are as well, and on the GPS
equipped versions, will know where you are +/- about 30 meters.

By contrast, EPIRB 121.5Mhz systems may take several hours to come
with a good fix on your location, and tell the authorities nothing
about the unit that has gone off.

Given the choice between a 121.5Mhz EPIRB and a 406Mhz GMDSS, I'll
take the GMDSS anytime and everytime.

"Smokey" wrote:
Jeezy petes! How long has this guy been
around? (snip)


Long enough to know how to read, Smokey. The issue isn't whether CW gets
through better - the issue is whether HF would ever be messed up to the
point of not supporting voice on ANY frequency and whether CW would get
through if HF was ever indeed messed up THAT much. This was the premise
offered by the person I replied to and that premise alone is what I replied
to.


Me thinks this is more an editorial by a guy
who either hates the code or never could
cut it.


And I think you're trying to use this nonsense to distract from what was
actually said. CW does get through better than voice, but there is no reason
to overstate that.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/