Wow.... so you could almost say the reason there was such a disaster
[notwithstanding the time period and simple circumstance] is that all these
radio operators [and companies] were acting like a bunch of egotistical
morons, each thinking their way to be better, and that most
vessels communications, wireless ops and policies were almost..............
amateur........... in nature?

LOL...
rb



"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" wrote in message
...
clfe wrote:
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
It was before the Titanic hit the iceberg that the Titanic
CW operator told the Californian CW operator to get off the
air. He considered his normal Titanic CW message traffic to
have priority over any CW traffic that the Californian might
need to pass. Turns out the Californian's CW operator was
the only person in the world who could have saved the life
of the Titanic's CW operator.
--
73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

In that case then - I stand corrected, I was unaware of that.

It's totaly untrue. The Californian's radio operator ignored the
Titanic's distress signals because the Titanic was a Marconi ship and
the Californian was a Telefunken ship. The operators were not allowed to
communicate with the competing company's operators under any
circumstances under penalty of being put off the ship at first landing,
with no hope of getting home or being hired by the other company.

I recently blogged about it:

http://geoffstechno.livejournal.com/2006/06/22/

Geoff.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel N3OWJ/4X1GM
IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 IL Fax: 972-2-648-1443 U.S. Voice:
1-215-821-1838
Visit my 'blog at http://geoffstechno.livejournal.com/

And I say I agree with the problem that mentioned for the cw being needed
and life saving station for the pc with no code.
It'll never work and if it does it will only be working a pc and if that is
not the person then it is not the same
so you can say it didn't work anyway because it wasn't a person that needed
it.
So there.
rb

"Bill Turner" wrote in message
...
ORIGINAL MESSAGE:

On 12 Jul 2006 10:24:55 -0700, "an old freind"
wrote:

if i was at my home station is no they would not die

and I am as no code as they come I down right hate the mode and yet y
pc and station is quite able to work cw as needed to save a life if it
was needed

------------ REPLY SEPARATOR ------------

He apparently hates English too.

Bill, W6WRT

Well there ya have it folks.... 50wpm saves lives. So how does it work?
Turn up the speaker really loud and place it [face down] on the person's
chest, while
an op in South America tapped out universally accepted words that would
mimic an atrioventricular rhythm?

Wrong theatre? OK...

Maybe if a person is trapped on a sinking ship in the Indian Ocean you, in
Siberia, could tap out a message to someone in Madagascar [who happened to
be awake at an odd hour] and that person also owned a large SAR chopper,
they could jump in it, saving the time of relaying to anyone else, and go
pluck them from certain death?

OH, or better yet... if your neighbor is also a ham.... and your wife fell
over with an AMI, you could call your neighbor, give him a freq, then the
two of you
get set up and running, then you can send a 50wpm message asking your
neighbor to call an ambulance? BTW, if the phones are down, you ask him to
get in his
car and drive down to the local EMS agency, and bring them to you. Life
saved!
I'm impressed.
rb



"Dave Oldridge" wrote in message
9...
(Dirk) wrote in :

Ham's care more about operating appliances than knowing how to save a
lives.

The person would not die on my watch, as long as I could get a signal out
and someone on the other end could copy it. I'd probably have to practice
a bit to get back up over 50wpm, but I can do 25 or 30 all day long.


--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667

Not true.... commercial stations ID with CW all the time. It's great for
zero-priority use.
rb


"Alun L. Palmer" wrote in message
. ..
"clfe" wrote in
:

"Alun L. Palmer" wrote in message
. ..
wrote in
s.com:

If you asked the same question to someone who had only passed 5 wpm
and then, like me, never used it, then I suspect the victim wouldn't
make it. But then in most countries there is NO morse code testing any
more, so there are plenty of hams now who've never learnt atall. For
decades there have been no code VHF hams in most countries anyway.


To "some" extent, I "may" have to disagree. I held a class once for "No
Code Tech" and one of the guys - a man in his 70s asked if he could go
for the code test even though I wasn't teaching code. He said he had
learned it years ago in the service - but may be rusty. Let me tell you
- when he was done testing, he had PERFECT copy. Was he practicing all
along? We'll never know - nor did I ask. He has since passed on. Some
people DO have a good memory and retain quite well. Others - lose
things almost immediately if not used. Some of us, it takes a while to
lose it and we usually do.

Lou




It is possible that someone could learn at 5wpm, not use it for years, and
still be able to use it, but I wouldn't want to bet my life on it.

More to the point is I can't magine a scenario in which CW would be the
only mode available, and that hams are about the only remaining users of
CW.

Ha... yeah, only a ham radio operator would use a non-digital camera.....
and then it would have to be a daguerreotype.
rb


"Brian Denley" wrote in message
...
an old friend wrote:
Slow Code wrote:
(Fred McKenzie) wrote in
:

In article , "Alun L.
Palmer" wrote:

"If you came upon a drowning man, and you had to choose whether to
save him or photograph his demise, what kind of film would you use?"


Getting rid of CW is like choosing the kind of film.

Ham radio is drowning and the anti-code hams want us to think
tossing it bricks will make it float better. Dumbing things down is
never an improvement.
nobody is talking about dummbing anything down

you are
indeed you advocate dummbing down radio and giving hf only to the
unintelgent


SC

Knowing CW is NO indication of any level of intelligence, technical or
otherwise!

BTW film is seeing it's last days too. Ask Kodak!

--
Brian Denley
http://home.comcast.net/~b.denley/index.html

Why would they be? 10th graders aren't interested in listening to a bunch of
60yr old men act like 8th graders.
:-)
rb

"Jimmie D" wrote in message
.. .


Yes. That's understandable. Hams these days don't want to act like
hams,
they like to be appliance operators. So kids don't see that CW is
important and fun. All they see is hams gabbing on a microphone like any
CB'er can do.

SC

Actually a lot of tghe boy scouts know morse code, they still arent
intersted in ham radio.

LOL

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Cecil Moore wrote:

Al Klein wrote:
You can hear the change in noise as a carrier goes on and off. It's
extremely difficult to copy high speed CW like that if the signal is
strong, but a weak signal or slower CW is just as easy to copy as
noise as it is to copy as a pure tone. T1 doesn't mean uncopyable, it
just means ragged tone.

So now amateurs and SWL's should be Morse code proficient
not only using tones but using the swishing sound made when
a BFO is not present?

The swishing sound is coming from aliens. Try making the same sounds
back to them. You might get a more intelligent conversation going than
the one in this cross posted thread.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

Yep, and a single point mentioning that if it were anything other than a
simple hobby, your arguments would matter.

But since it isn't...


rb


"Al Klein" wrote in message
...
On 2 Aug 2006 20:05:21 -0700, wrote:

Al Klein wrote:
On 23 Jul 2006 07:26:05 -0700, wrote:

how balanced is to to place CW over all over ham knowledge?

No one is, any more than by requiring people to know the law one is
putting the law "over all ham knowledge".

CW is pass/fail. To fail CW denies all HF privs (except for Alaska).

Theory is also pass/fail. To fail to get the required number of
correct answers denies all privs - HF, VHF, UHF ...

There is no pass/fail practical for SSB, FM, AM, FSTV, SSTV, RTTY, FAX,
Packet, PSK, etc, etc, etc.

There's no test at all, so those claiming that the reason they want a
test for CW dropped because it's not "modern" have no argument - they
want no test for FSTV, SSTV, RTTY (which is also pretty old hat),
packet, PSK, etc. They want no test at all, unless they can memorize
a few answers to "pass" it.

How progressive is it?

How progressive is it to not require people to know ... oh, yeah,
that's progressive, since the new thing is to hand out licenses
because people have some kind of "right" to get on the air.

Then why is it with the prospect of losing the CW Exam, that you'se
guys want to "beef up" the written exams?

We don't.

That is not true.

Sure it is. "Beefing up" the written exam is a counter to "drop CW
because it's old fashioned". If you want modern you want the testing
to be turned from CW to modern modes. Those who want CW dropped just
want what they can't memorize dropped so they can get a ticket without
really being tested on anything. Actually knowing anything is so old
fashioned, isn't it?

We want to get back the level it used to be before it was
dumbed down to the point that you could almost pass it if you never
heard of the FCC, ham radio or electronics.

You're referring to the Conditional license, right?

No, I'm not addressing *where* the test is held at all - I'm
addressing *whether* there's any real test, which there isn't, except
for CW right now. Spitting out something you memorized is only a test
of memory.

Just by guessing at the
answers. It used to require that you draw (was it 3?) schematics.

You tell me? Was it 2 or was it 3?

I don't remember after almost 50 years - but I could still draw them
today, and it's not a test of remembering what's on the test, it's a
test of knowing what's in a radio.

From scratch. Let's see how many people could do that today. A
Colpitts oscillator, a Hartley oscillator and some other circuit that
I've forgotten at the moment.

You should self-modify your license and cease amateur operation until
you remember.

Why? Testing isn't about memory, it's about knowledge.

The amateur is self-policing, and you no longer meet your own standard.

Sure I do. The test wasn't to remember what circuits to draw, it was
to draw them. And I can draw them any time.

They're still as relevant today as they were 50 years ago.

Other things are relevant today that weren't even known 50 years ago.

So let's have them on the test.

Oops, that's right - no more relevant testing, isn't that what people
are asking for? Just give me the answers so I can memorize them and
pick them out on the test.

how loyal is it to denny the nation the benifits of allowing more
operators

What "benefits" does the country get from more people using radios
who
don't know the first thing about them? (Whatever "denny" means.)

It's always been that way. You could even buy Heathkits already
assembled.

But you had to actually *know* a little theory to use one legally.

No you didn't.

Yes, you did - you had to pass a test to show that you did. All you
have to do now is memorize a few answers.

I used radios in the military. I never used a CW key in the military.
I never jammed another operator, although Brandywine asked me to reduce
power once.

But you had to learn how to use the radios. Hams today don't - they
memorize a few answers, buy equipment and get on the air - with no
understanding of what they're doing, and no desire to learn.

That's exactly what he's talking about. Give someone a radio and a
"license" to use it and he'll "acquire the skill to be ready for
service to country and community". That's what Mark said, right up
above. How does one acquire skill by playing radio?

We self-train.

You may, but I can see from many of the comments that have been posted
here that a lot of people don't. They don't want to learn, they want
to get on the air. Period.

It is a continuous process of improvements. You
mistakenly believe that at the conclusion of The Exam, the "operator"
is 100%.

And you mistakenly believe that most hams today want to learn how to
operate properly. Listen to 75 some evenings.

But that's what Mark and his ilk want - we'll have "skilled operators"
if we allow people to buy radios and put them on the air with no skill
or knowledge. By osmosis? Or by magic?

I've listened to emergency responders on a scanner before. They don't
use Morse Code, they don't use CW. They use FM/Voice. Somehow they
are effective at it, not having taken a Morse Code test. How can this
be?

They were trained.

So you'd get a license not knowing CW, build a radio (you couldn't buy
one then) and ... what? Sit and look at it. Some things are just too
obvious to need mentioning.

Please diagram that radio from "Scratch."

Any time. Filter or phasing? BFO receive or quadrature detection?
I've designed them, built them and used them, and still could.

Evidently not, or I'd be the only one in the world advocating that a
test should actually test for something. There are actually millions
of us who don't think lack of instant gratification is the worst thing
in the world.

Dial 911 and tell the operator that you don't need instant
gratification, take your time.

Very bad example of an attempt at sarcasm and a misunderstanding of
"gratification".

What next? DXCC awards for those who *want* to work 100 countries?

You seem to be confused. DXCC is an award offered by the ARRL, not the
FCC. It has nothing to do with licensing.

But an award for wanting has to do with "I want it so it's my right to
have it", which is what I'm talking about. No one has any "right" to
get on the air.

Won't work.... memorizing is learning. You know where you live because you
memorized it. You know what a diode is because you read it somewhere.
Reading a book or taking a class on radio would require you retain
[memorize] what you are told or read.

The information on radio should be kept secret, and the real test would be
this:
Here's a radio. Take it with you. Come back in 30 days and explain how it
works.

Then you get your owner's license, and can buy a radio.

Next test is to listen on-air to the CW [as there is no reason to use phone,
if you already speak a language.] and figure out the code
without any text or charts.

Then you get your operator's license.

When you can do that, then you can act like you've accomplished something.

rb



"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
. ..
K4YZ wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Then why isn't knowledge of Morse code and the CW mode
sufficient? Why must someone be forced to memorize
the individual characters?

Probably, Cecil, since it would then make it difficult to pass the
test.

You missed the point. The Morse code skill exam requires
memorizing the characters. Memorizing is being condemned
as an evil act. Since memorizing is evil, the Morse code
skill exam should be the first thing to be eliminated.
--
73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

This reply has absolutely no significance or meaning. It was just a good
place to add a reply.
Helps even out the sawtooth shape of the posts as I scroll down them.
rb


"an old friend" wrote in message
oups.com...

Bill Turner wrote:
ORIGINAL MESSAGE:

On 4 Aug 2006 14:18:12 -0700, "an old freind"
wrote:

i don't it was pretty for me one day work on one of these bike races
the served organizers heard the reapteer CW id asked what it read I
said hame were no longer required to be to read them and I could not,
time change ignorance fixed

------------ REPLY SEPARATOR ------------

Text like the above is what comes out when I try to copy CW.
can you still read it when you do it

Bill, W6WRT
20 WPM Extra, but just barely