Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
"George Orwell" wrote in message ... Al Klein said: Eliminating a requirement is dumbing things down. But no one would expect you to be able to understand that. Well, let me ask, from the point of view of a potential noob to the hobby. What use is the code requirements? I can't really see in today's era, the need for them? I've been surfing around looking at ham and talking to an old friend that had a license and it look interesting to me. But, given that many professional people like myself are stretched for time, what good does all the licensing and code requirements do for you besides build up boundries to doing something new and fun? If you will read Part 97 (the rules that govern amateur radio), the government doesn't care about you doing something new and fun. The section on basis and purpose makes it quite clear that their objectives are quite different. They want people knowledgeable in ham radio and who are interested in expanding that knowledge. I'm in a pretty technical field, and I study to keep up in that field everyday, the last thing I want to do, is have to spend my weekends studying to talk on a radio. If less stringent requirements were there, I could easily afford the tools of the trade, and would like to just jump in and start working with a ham setup. I'm particularly interested in exploring the amateur radio/computer connections. I have no problem informally looking up information and learning on my own (heck, that's what I'm doing in the USENET group to begin with)...but, I just don't have the time for archaic rules, regulations and codes that as far as I can see...really serve no real purpose but, to keep out busy people that might like to participate. Until and unless you have actually participated in amateur radio in a wide variety of aspects, it is difficult to asses which rules, regulations, knowledge, etc are archaic and which should remain as requirements. Notice that the majority of people advocating ditching requirements are those who have not yet passed those requirements, regardless of their age. Note that the majority of people advocating keeping the requirements have passed them and have experience in amateur radio again regardless of their age. As far as "busy people" go, again refer to the basis and purpose as given in the rules. The government is not concerned about your choice of how you use your time. It has no bearing on what their goals are. Can you give me valid reasons as to what useful purpose in today's age they serve? Every piece of knowledge has its uses. The difficult part is winnowing through it and decide what should be tested and what should not. Here's why I think code should still be tested: 1. It is still one of the basic building blocks of ham radio. For example, one of the "hot" digital modes is PSK31. The developer drew upon personal experience and incorporated features derived from that mode to make a robust digital mode. 2. Because it is not "book learning", too many people will avoid it since it is different than the type of learning they are accustomed to. They will falsely think it is hard when in reality it is different. Requiring them to learn it gets them over that resistance hump. 3. Each and every mode has its strong points and weak points. Each of us that participate in ham radio should attempt to gain personal experience in those modes so that we know by that personal experience what those strengths and weaknesses are. If you are interested, I could construct various scenarios where mode X is the best mode. However, unless you specifically want to know, I won't clutter up the newsgroup at this time with discussions that have been repeated many times by many people already. Dee, N8UZE |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
Dee Flint wrote:
"George Orwell" wrote in message ... Al Klein said: Until and unless you have actually participated in amateur radio in a wide variety of aspects, it is difficult to asses which rules, regulations, knowledge, etc are archaic and which should remain as requirements. Notice that the majority of people advocating ditching requirements are those who have not yet passed those requirements, regardless of their age. Note that the majority of people advocating keeping the requirements have passed them and have experience in amateur radio again regardless of their age. stop lying all the officers of NCI have passed the requirement they support doing away with |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
From: Dee Flint on Tues, Aug 29 2006 4:25 pm
Email: "Dee Flint" Groups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna, rec.radio.amateur.policy, rec.radio.scanner "George Orwell" wrote in message Al Klein said: Eliminating a requirement is dumbing things down. But no one would expect you to be able to understand that. Well, let me ask, from the point of view of a potential noob to the hobby. What use is the code requirements? I can't really see in today's era, the need for them? I've been surfing around looking at ham and talking to an old friend that had a license and it look interesting to me. But, given that many professional people like myself are stretched for time, what good does all the licensing and code requirements do for you besides build up boundries to doing something new and fun? If you will read Part 97 (the rules that govern amateur radio), the government doesn't care about you doing something new and fun. Dee, the "rules that govern amateur radio" are the ENTIRETY of Title 47 C.F.R. I don't care that the ARRL pushes ONLY Part 97. Part 1 has plenty about amateur radio as well as a few other Parts. Look it up. It's free at the US Government Printing Office website. The section on basis and purpose makes it quite clear that their objectives are quite different. The "objectives" of the FCC are to regulate and mitigate ALL civil radio in the USA, Dee. That's what the Communications Act of 1934 and the Telecommunications Act of 1996 chartered them to do (plus quite a bit on wireline comms...which don't apply to amateur radio). The "Basis and Purpose" has a lot of POLITICAL boilerplate in it, just like most of the other Parts for other radio SERVICES. Get real. They want people knowledgeable in ham radio and who are interested in expanding that knowledge. The FCC is mainly interested in all radio services' users FOLLOWING THE REGULATIONS, Dee. That's their job. The FCC doesn't "want" people a certain way, only to FOLLOW THE REGULATIONS. I'm in a pretty technical field, and I study to keep up in that field everyday, the last thing I want to do, is have to spend my weekends studying to talk on a radio. If less stringent requirements were there, I could easily afford the tools of the trade, and would like to just jump in and start working with a ham setup. I'm particularly interested in exploring the amateur radio/computer connections. "George," you've got a whole bunch in this forum who think that amateur radio is some kind of veddy formal "JOB" with absolutes on THE WAY THEY DO IT. It's almost draconian in the insistence of "correct proceedure." No one will get fired from that "job" if they don't use "correct" ways but the way they blabber on you'd think they were "supervisors." I have no problem informally looking up information and learning on my own (heck, that's what I'm doing in the USENET group to begin with)...but, I just don't have the time for archaic rules, regulations and codes that as far as I can see...really serve no real purpose but, to keep out busy people that might like to participate. Until and unless you have actually participated in amateur radio in a wide variety of aspects, it is difficult to asses which rules, regulations, knowledge, etc are archaic and which should remain as requirements. Horsepuckey. Dee, "George" is talking about GETTING INTO amateur radio. Don't give us this olde-tymer morseperson "I've operated all the modes there are" stuff. Dee, I've operated lots more modes on radio than YOU are allowed to as an amateur. Manual morse code ability IS an ARCHAIC mode of communications Dee. ALL the other US radio services have either dropped it for comms or never bothered with it in the first place. ALL. The ARRL and the olde-tyme morsepersons insist that the manual morse test "MUST" remain to "show something" about commitment and dedication. To WHOM, Dee? To YOU? To da Hams in da hood? Notice that the majority of people advocating ditching requirements are those who have not yet passed those requirements, regardless of their age. Dee, before you get to the downright-bitchy stage, may I remind you that some of us professionals in radio and electronics NEVER BOTHERED WITH AN AMATEUR RADIO TEST? I got my First 'Phone in 1956. Considerably more testing involved than a ham license test then. Could YOU get a GROL now? Could YOU get a job working with radio hardware? Note that the majority of people advocating keeping the requirements have passed them and have experience in amateur radio again regardless of their age. Yes, nine-year-old Extras possess the maturity and wisdom of the ages, all through having taken that morse test and gotten that magic certificate (suitable for framing). As far as "busy people" go, again refer to the basis and purpose as given in the rules. The government is not concerned about your choice of how you use your time. It has no bearing on what their goals are. Dee, you are LECTURING again. [just how long have you been in ANY radio?] Dee, go look at some 1990 documents on the creation of the no-code-test Technician license. There's a copy available for free download on the NCI website. Over 16 years ago the FCC said outright that it didn't think the manual morse code test suited their purpose in granting an amateur radio license. The FCC said the same thing in last year's NPRM. I DO have to remind you that the FCC's only job is to REGULATE all civil radio in the USA. Their only task is to do that and mitigate matters of interference with other radio services (plus wireline but that's not concerning amateurs). Theirs is not to brainwash hams...that's the ARRL's task. Can you give me valid reasons as to what useful purpose in today's age they serve? [stand by for the LITANY from the Church of St. Hiram] Every piece of knowledge has its uses. The difficult part is winnowing through it and decide what should be tested and what should not. Ahem, to olde-tyme morsepersons, manual morse code skill MUST be tested for any radio privileges below 30 MHz. That's engraved in everlasting marble and protected by nuclear-blast armor plate. Here's why I think code should still be tested: 1. It is still one of the basic building blocks of ham radio. Horsepucky. It was only the first mode used...had to be in the primitive-technology of early radio using "spark." Spark is outlawed now, Dee. For example, one of the "hot" digital modes is PSK31. The developer drew upon personal experience and incorporated features derived from that mode to make a robust digital mode. More sinning-by-omission, Dee. Peter Martinez, G3PLX, innovated PSK31. Using the available Information Theory rules he knew about, derived from commercial and military technology. It was field-tested for years in Europe by many amateurs there before it got any publicity over here. "Hot" is over a decade OLD, Dee. In 1974 Peter was doing great things with polyphase networks for voice SSB...it was written up in RSGB's member- ship magazine. I doubt the ARRL bothered with publicizing it. 2. Because it is not "book learning", too many people will avoid it since it is different than the type of learning they are accustomed to. They will falsely think it is hard when in reality it is different. Requiring them to learn it gets them over that resistance hump. So...morsemanship really IS a barrier. You admit it. 3. Each and every mode has its strong points and weak points. Each of us that participate in ham radio should attempt to gain personal experience in those modes so that we know by that personal experience what those strengths and weaknesses are. Oh my, there we go on the lecture circuit again. Dee, I started out working as an Illustrator. That's an artist who draws/paints things as they really are. I have an aptitude for that. It is as natural to me to draw, fairly well I might add, as a physically-endowed athlete is to sports or another with a musical aptitude is to playing an instrument. The ability to "advance" in manual morse code skill is NOT a "natural" one but an aptitude in only a few of us. The US military even tested for that aptitude in all recruits of the 1940s and 1950s. [I got okay marks in that, by the way...:-) ] The first radio operators used manual morse code. First, it was fine for the primitive state of the art. Second, it was a mature mode in the wireline communications, a technology even more primitive than radio of that time. Telegraphers weren't taken off the street...they either had the aptitude or they didn't. Once "radio" got going, the telegraphers (downsized from wireline comms by those new-fangled teleprinter thingies) made much of their "abilities" using on-off-keying manual morse. The Morse Mythos was born and grew like wildfire. Good, good newsprint copy! But, as time progressed there came NEW modes, much faster and more accurate, without need of morse specialists at each end of a circuit. The radio telegraphers were downsized. They retired and turned to amateur radio of pre-WW2 times. Morse was still king of the modes and ARRL (by the 1930s) was hailing the king as the "best" for all amateurs. None of this newfangled thing called "voice" for them although they did pay lip-service to it. By 1940 the ARRL was King of the membership organizations (through their publications) and they maintained that morsemanship was the epitome of amateur comms. They kept that up after WW2 and on into the single-channel SSB start in the 1950s...again paying lip- service to this newfangled SSB. And you know what? ARRL is STILL trying to promote morsemanship even if sinning-by omission once more. Back before WRC-03 (that's over three years ago) the IARU took a position that the amateur radio license tests for morse ability was NOT mandatory...make it an option for each administration. Lots of folks went along with that, but NOT the ARRL. League was almost vehement in opposition. OK, the ITU-R amateur radio regulations were CHANGED, going along the lines of the IARU position. [that's the International Amateur Radio Union, Dee] Ah, but NOW the ARRL takes a neutral position, won't go either way...they just say that all amateurs must obey the law...but they lobbied last year to keep SOME manual morse testing for the under-30-MHz privileges. 92 years after being formed, the ARRL just can't give up and change to what OTHER folks want... If you are interested, I could construct various scenarios where mode X is the best mode. "X-Files" was cancelled, Dee. [cousin Gillian got a vacation] However, unless you specifically want to know, I won't clutter up the newsgroup at this time with discussions that have been repeated many times by many people already. Please, go on, Dee. I want to hear from your vast experience in radio and all your guru-like knowledge of what is "best" for radio amateurs. Especially WHY everyone has to emulate the olde-tyme amateur days, the ones before you were born. Beep, beep, Life Member, IEEE |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
wrote in message ups.com... From: Dee Flint on Tues, Aug 29 2006 4:25 pm Email: "Dee Flint" Groups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna, rec.radio.amateur.policy, rec.radio.scanner "George Orwell" wrote in message Al Klein said: Eliminating a requirement is dumbing things down. But no one would expect you to be able to understand that. Well, let me ask, from the point of view of a potential noob to the hobby. What use is the code requirements? I can't really see in today's era, the need for them? I've been surfing around looking at ham and talking to an old friend that had a license and it look interesting to me. But, given that many professional people like myself are stretched for time, what good does all the licensing and code requirements do for you besides build up boundries to doing something new and fun? If you will read Part 97 (the rules that govern amateur radio), the government doesn't care about you doing something new and fun. Dee, the "rules that govern amateur radio" are the ENTIRETY of Title 47 C.F.R. I don't care that the ARRL pushes ONLY Part 97. Part 1 has plenty about amateur radio as well as a few other Parts. Look it up. It's free at the US Government Printing Office website. The section on basis and purpose makes it quite clear that their objectives are quite different. The "objectives" of the FCC are to regulate and mitigate ALL civil radio in the USA, Dee. That's what the Communications Act of 1934 and the Telecommunications Act of 1996 chartered them to do (plus quite a bit on wireline comms...which don't apply to amateur radio). The "Basis and Purpose" has a lot of POLITICAL boilerplate in it, just like most of the other Parts for other radio SERVICES. Get real. They want people knowledgeable in ham radio and who are interested in expanding that knowledge. The FCC is mainly interested in all radio services' users FOLLOWING THE REGULATIONS, Dee. That's their job. The FCC doesn't "want" people a certain way, only to FOLLOW THE REGULATIONS. I'm in a pretty technical field, and I study to keep up in that field everyday, the last thing I want to do, is have to spend my weekends studying to talk on a radio. If less stringent requirements were there, I could easily afford the tools of the trade, and would like to just jump in and start working with a ham setup. I'm particularly interested in exploring the amateur radio/computer connections. "George," you've got a whole bunch in this forum who think that amateur radio is some kind of veddy formal "JOB" with absolutes on THE WAY THEY DO IT. It's almost draconian in the insistence of "correct proceedure." No one will get fired from that "job" if they don't use "correct" ways but the way they blabber on you'd think they were "supervisors." I have no problem informally looking up information and learning on my own (heck, that's what I'm doing in the USENET group to begin with)...but, I just don't have the time for archaic rules, regulations and codes that as far as I can see...really serve no real purpose but, to keep out busy people that might like to participate. Until and unless you have actually participated in amateur radio in a wide variety of aspects, it is difficult to asses which rules, regulations, knowledge, etc are archaic and which should remain as requirements. Horsepuckey. Dee, "George" is talking about GETTING INTO amateur radio. Don't give us this olde-tymer morseperson "I've operated all the modes there are" stuff. Dee, I've operated lots more modes on radio than YOU are allowed to as an amateur. Manual morse code ability IS an ARCHAIC mode of communications Dee. ALL the other US radio services have either dropped it for comms or never bothered with it in the first place. ALL. The ARRL and the olde-tyme morsepersons insist that the manual morse test "MUST" remain to "show something" about commitment and dedication. To WHOM, Dee? To YOU? To da Hams in da hood? Notice that the majority of people advocating ditching requirements are those who have not yet passed those requirements, regardless of their age. Dee, before you get to the downright-bitchy stage, may I remind you that some of us professionals in radio and electronics NEVER BOTHERED WITH AN AMATEUR RADIO TEST? I got my First 'Phone in 1956. Considerably more testing involved than a ham license test then. Could YOU get a GROL now? Could YOU get a job working with radio hardware? Note that the majority of people advocating keeping the requirements have passed them and have experience in amateur radio again regardless of their age. Yes, nine-year-old Extras possess the maturity and wisdom of the ages, all through having taken that morse test and gotten that magic certificate (suitable for framing). As far as "busy people" go, again refer to the basis and purpose as given in the rules. The government is not concerned about your choice of how you use your time. It has no bearing on what their goals are. Dee, you are LECTURING again. [just how long have you been in ANY radio?] Dee, go look at some 1990 documents on the creation of the no-code-test Technician license. There's a copy available for free download on the NCI website. Over 16 years ago the FCC said outright that it didn't think the manual morse code test suited their purpose in granting an amateur radio license. The FCC said the same thing in last year's NPRM. I DO have to remind you that the FCC's only job is to REGULATE all civil radio in the USA. Their only task is to do that and mitigate matters of interference with other radio services (plus wireline but that's not concerning amateurs). Theirs is not to brainwash hams...that's the ARRL's task. Can you give me valid reasons as to what useful purpose in today's age they serve? [stand by for the LITANY from the Church of St. Hiram] Every piece of knowledge has its uses. The difficult part is winnowing through it and decide what should be tested and what should not. Ahem, to olde-tyme morsepersons, manual morse code skill MUST be tested for any radio privileges below 30 MHz. That's engraved in everlasting marble and protected by nuclear-blast armor plate. Here's why I think code should still be tested: 1. It is still one of the basic building blocks of ham radio. Horsepucky. It was only the first mode used...had to be in the primitive-technology of early radio using "spark." Spark is outlawed now, Dee. For example, one of the "hot" digital modes is PSK31. The developer drew upon personal experience and incorporated features derived from that mode to make a robust digital mode. More sinning-by-omission, Dee. Peter Martinez, G3PLX, innovated PSK31. Using the available Information Theory rules he knew about, derived from commercial and military technology. It was field-tested for years in Europe by many amateurs there before it got any publicity over here. "Hot" is over a decade OLD, Dee. In 1974 Peter was doing great things with polyphase networks for voice SSB...it was written up in RSGB's member- ship magazine. I doubt the ARRL bothered with publicizing it. 2. Because it is not "book learning", too many people will avoid it since it is different than the type of learning they are accustomed to. They will falsely think it is hard when in reality it is different. Requiring them to learn it gets them over that resistance hump. So...morsemanship really IS a barrier. You admit it. 3. Each and every mode has its strong points and weak points. Each of us that participate in ham radio should attempt to gain personal experience in those modes so that we know by that personal experience what those strengths and weaknesses are. Oh my, there we go on the lecture circuit again. Dee, I started out working as an Illustrator. That's an artist who draws/paints things as they really are. I have an aptitude for that. It is as natural to me to draw, fairly well I might add, as a physically-endowed athlete is to sports or another with a musical aptitude is to playing an instrument. The ability to "advance" in manual morse code skill is NOT a "natural" one but an aptitude in only a few of us. The US military even tested for that aptitude in all recruits of the 1940s and 1950s. [I got okay marks in that, by the way...:-) ] The first radio operators used manual morse code. First, it was fine for the primitive state of the art. Second, it was a mature mode in the wireline communications, a technology even more primitive than radio of that time. Telegraphers weren't taken off the street...they either had the aptitude or they didn't. Once "radio" got going, the telegraphers (downsized from wireline comms by those new-fangled teleprinter thingies) made much of their "abilities" using on-off-keying manual morse. The Morse Mythos was born and grew like wildfire. Good, good newsprint copy! But, as time progressed there came NEW modes, much faster and more accurate, without need of morse specialists at each end of a circuit. The radio telegraphers were downsized. They retired and turned to amateur radio of pre-WW2 times. Morse was still king of the modes and ARRL (by the 1930s) was hailing the king as the "best" for all amateurs. None of this newfangled thing called "voice" for them although they did pay lip-service to it. By 1940 the ARRL was King of the membership organizations (through their publications) and they maintained that morsemanship was the epitome of amateur comms. They kept that up after WW2 and on into the single-channel SSB start in the 1950s...again paying lip- service to this newfangled SSB. And you know what? ARRL is STILL trying to promote morsemanship even if sinning-by omission once more. Back before WRC-03 (that's over three years ago) the IARU took a position that the amateur radio license tests for morse ability was NOT mandatory...make it an option for each administration. Lots of folks went along with that, but NOT the ARRL. League was almost vehement in opposition. OK, the ITU-R amateur radio regulations were CHANGED, going along the lines of the IARU position. [that's the International Amateur Radio Union, Dee] Ah, but NOW the ARRL takes a neutral position, won't go either way...they just say that all amateurs must obey the law...but they lobbied last year to keep SOME manual morse testing for the under-30-MHz privileges. 92 years after being formed, the ARRL just can't give up and change to what OTHER folks want... If you are interested, I could construct various scenarios where mode X is the best mode. "X-Files" was cancelled, Dee. [cousin Gillian got a vacation] However, unless you specifically want to know, I won't clutter up the newsgroup at this time with discussions that have been repeated many times by many people already. Please, go on, Dee. I want to hear from your vast experience in radio and all your guru-like knowledge of what is "best" for radio amateurs. Especially WHY everyone has to emulate the olde-tyme amateur days, the ones before you were born. Beep, beep, Life Member, IEEE Wow! It took you so long to say so little, Len! Why not simply toss the "personal experience" gauntlet directly into her chops and challenge Dee to a battle of the electronic wits at sunrise? I'm sure it will do wonders for your machismo and, if it makes you feel that you succeeded in one-upman****, perhaps you can even send her to her corner, crying for mercy. Go ahead, Len. Dazzle her with your brilliance and browbeat her if you can. There...don't you feel better already? Was the relief good for you? Feel vindicated? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
Not Lloyd wrote: wrote in message Wow! It took you so long to say so little, Len! so he is long winded? Why not simply toss the "personal experience" gauntlet directly into her chops and challenge Dee to a battle of the electronic wits at sunrise? I'm sure it will do wonders for your machismo and, if it makes you feel that you succeeded in one-upman****, perhaps you can even send her to her corner, crying for mercy. not likely Dee obviously lacks the snece for that Go ahead, Len. Dazzle her with your brilliance and browbeat her if you can. There...don't you feel better already? Was the relief good for you? Feel vindicated? |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
"an old friend" wrote in message ps.com... Not Lloyd wrote: wrote in message Wow! It took you so long to say so little, Len! so he is long winded? Why not simply toss the "personal experience" gauntlet directly into her chops and challenge Dee to a battle of the electronic wits at sunrise? I'm sure it will do wonders for your machismo and, if it makes you feel that you succeeded in one-upman****, perhaps you can even send her to her corner, crying for mercy. not likely Dee obviously lacks the snece for that Go ahead, Len. Dazzle her with your brilliance and browbeat her if you can. There...don't you feel better already? Was the relief good for you? Feel vindicated? "snece"? Care to 'splain that, Lucy? |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Persuing a Career in Electronics, HELP! | Homebrew | |||
Bonafied Proof of LIFE AFTER DEATH -- Coal Mine Rescue | Shortwave |