wrote in
:

no the Nation party to the ITU treaty to change the the lange first to
drop the requirement above 50MHZ then in 2003 to remove the langage
all together

I never heard about dropping the code requirement above 50mhz. Perhaps I
missed something, fill me in. I do remember when the no-code Tech license
came into being and the code requirement was dropped above 30mhz for that
class license only. Is that what your referring to?

The purpose of proficiency testing was to insure you can send and
receive code with a minimum of effort.

and yet it does not assure any ability to USE the mode at all

Sure it does. If you practice cw and the procedures used in it, the
effort to operate is minimized as opposed to someone who knows little
about operating procedures behind that particular mode let alone the code
itself.

The one pitfall in cw testing that I think your pointing out, is that it
was one sided. You only tested on what you could hear, not send. A good
VE will conduct classes giving a turn at the key. Keep in mind that a
person can send code much faster than they recieve it.

If your saying there is no guarantee an operator will use it, I agree.
On the other hand just because you won't use it does not mean I will not.

Consequent to receiving your license, you
also took a commitment and seriously I might add, to assist and render
aid should you hear a distress call.

as I can even in the unlikely event I receive a MorseCoded
http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/


Anyone, licensed or not who can operate radio equipment can assist in a
distress call. However, if you don't know squat about cw, you don't know
that code or procedures, how do you know how to respond to it? Answer,
you can't. Thats the sad fact.

What will be next, to many controls on a radio? Mandate that radios are
produced with only essential controls to make it easier?

Where does it end? I just don't see how eliminating cw made the hobby
better. I think it makes us more dependent rather than self-reliant.

I can see the cw pileups during contest time now. TNC's don't have the
same ability as the human ear, good filtering and technique.

Wrong. If you took the test and passed, you have proven your ability to
operate. Otherwise what's the point of testing?. If you ever took a cw
course or test you would understand the comment.

I was extending a personal opinion before where I commented on code
courses and the testing procedures. There's always room for improvement.

I don't concede to the fact that just because YOU believe testing does
nothing to enhance ones ability to operate, that it's true.

Your response about distress calls proves the point I have been making.
You admit to not having knowledge of cw beyond the ability to decipher
only two letters, S and O.

You can distinguish 2 of 26 letters and learning anymore according to you
is to difficult. I think you can learn more, you just won't make an
effort.

BTW, not all distress calls start out as SOS like in the movies. How
would you know you were hearing one, by looking at a computer screen all
the time?

To determine the effectiveness of a particular band you go looking for a
beacon signal. How do you know if your tuned on the right station if you
can't understand cw?

You admit the lack of cw knowledge would make it a necessity for you to
"call around" locating someone who could help if you heard a distress
call. If cw is not required anymore to obtain a license, locating someone
who does know cw might take a little while.

You want the opportunity to operate below 30 mhz without a cw test. Then
you shouldn't be allowed in the freq ranges allocated to cw until you are
endorsed for it. I certainly wouldn't desire less than a fully qualified
pilot in the cockpit or doctor in the operating room.

With your way of thinking, testing should allow full privileges and it
shouldn't have to be difficult so you can pass it without studying. That
is how I define the degradation of ham licensing.

You want to take the easy way out and I can't stop you, just don't expect
any pats on the back from those of us who had to work for what we got. At
least we can appreciate what we got. Here goes the neighborhood!

Your a riot, CW is as out of date as smoke signals or beating on drums to
communicate.
Welcome to the 21st century, through mans existance we have always looked
for better
ways to communicate, telegraph was replaced by telephones, spark gap
transmissions were
'replaced' by 'phone' service in 2 way radios, AM modulation was replaced
(pretty much)
by FM modulation, and now is transitioning to digital.

Sure your 'free' to use CW to communicate ( to whowever will still have the
outdated skills to
do so in the near future), you are also 'free' to drive a horse and buggy to
work, and use an
outhouse if you so desire. Just don't 'EXPECT' the rest of the modern world
to hold on to
your outdated and archaic ideas.

"Clem" wrote in message
. 97.136...
Diana Satyr wrote in
:

In article 36,
Clem wrote:

"Douche Bag" wrote in
ps.com:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/27/bu...l?_r=1&em&ex=1
167 368400&en=19d9459b705ce909&ei=5087%0A&oref=slogin

That ancient code as you put it is a language made in heaven.

When Amtor, Pactor, this TOR or that TOR, SSTV and even phone can't
make it through, the Lord was kind enough to provide us with cw.

One thing you failed to notice was that the FCC did not do away with
CW. No no no ... it can still be used. Wait until contest time you
witless twit!

CW blows phone away when conditions are tough. If you want to see
skill and savvy at work then build a Captain Decoder kit and "listen"
in. Of course that's providing you have such skills.

You think your all that because you took a written test and passed?
HA! Dig out a test sheet from before the age of transistors and
chips.

You'll fast discover my friend that earlier on in this world people
developed skills, real skills, not a fast or cheap introduction with
a yellow and black book befittingly described as "For Dummies!"

I can see the day when the station you want to talk to the most can't
hear a peep out of you because you don't have the skills or knowledge
to do much more than turn equipment on or off.

Yes sir, that's where Amateur Radio it's heading to, a bargain
basement of radio licenses because nobody could set the kid straight
and teach him a few dits and dahs. Impress me and learn a new trick
besides roll over and play dead!



Now things are just as they should be. Folks (mostly old) who like
code are free to use it. The few folks who want to learn it are
likewise free to do so. But no-one anymore has to go through said
agonizingly boring process just to become a ham.

Moonman

No, things are NOT as they should be. CW never was and never will be an
"older generation" issue. There was a purpose and reason for knowing cw
and being required to pass a cw test to hold a license.

Unfortunately, the F.C.C. lost sight of that issue and grew weary of ham
want-to-be's screaming Gimmie! Gimmie! This new ruling is just another
example of how higher authority gets tired of the whining and crying and
gives in. Bad move.

I stand on what I said earlier. Some people think getting a license should
be as easy as ordering a Big Mac. I suppose we should do the same thing
for
drivers and pilots licensing too. Makes me feel real secure. NOT!

Perhaps you never came across an instructor or training package suited to
your level of learning. That doesn't mean it's difficult to learn or your
incapable.

I was a VE and I have taught people between 7 and 80, literally. I have
taught cw to people with disabilities who rather than opt for a waiver
that
would have made licensing easier for them, kept at it until they passed.

There is more than one way to pass a cw test. Only once had I witnessed
someone who after 5 attempts was allowed to take the test by other than
conventional means. When he was told he passed he almost fell out of his
chair.

New hams today just want it easier. You didn't win anything because the
F.C.C. lifted the requirment, you lost the ability to be apart of
something
that could have expanded your horizons. Don't you feel better now that you
impossed a self limitation on yourself?

"labtech1" wrote in
:

You're a riot, CW is as out of date as smoke signals or beating on
drums to communicate.
Welcome to the 21st century, through mans existence we have always
looked for better
ways to communicate, telegraph was replaced by telephones, spark gap
transmissions were
'replaced' by 'phone' service in 2 way radios, AM modulation was
replaced (pretty much)
by FM modulation, and now is transitioning to digital.

Sure your 'free' to use CW to communicate ( to whowever will still
have the outdated skills to
do so in the near future), you are also 'free' to drive a horse and
buggy to work, and use an
outhouse if you so desire. Just don't 'EXPECT' the rest of the modern
world to hold on to
your outdated and archaic ideas.



You are obviously one of the lethargic few who will debate until your
last breath that something like a TNC will do all the work, so why bother
to learn something new?

Let me pass on some facts:

CW retains characteristics not lost over distance. You won't find this
with other modes.

Since CW relies on only an on-off keyed radio signal, it requires less
complex equipment than other forms of radio communication, and it can be
used in very high noise / low signal environments.

It requires less bandwidth than voice communications, typically 100-150
Hz as compared to the roughly 2400 Hz of single-sideband voice.

Transmitted energy is concentrated into a very small bandwidth, making it
possible to use narrow receiver filters, that suppress or eliminates
interference on nearby frequencies.

The narrow signal bandwidth also takes advantage of the natural aural
selectivity of the human brain, further enhancing weak signal
readability.

What does that mean? Your brain will be able to decode the signal long
after your TNC loses the ability to. If you want to learn more, open a
book and read.

The extensive use of pro-signs, Q codes, and the restricted format of a
typical messages, facilitates CW communication between amateur radio
operators who do not share a common mother tongue. Geeze, learn a new
language like morse code and you can converse with minimal difficulty to
people who normally don't speak your language.

This proves that CW is worth preserving. It provides a fundamental means
of communications between operators of different continents.

This hobby is fast losing that ability with mindless twits like you!

Until 2003 the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) mandated
Morse code proficiency as part of the amateur radio licensing procedure
throughout the world.

In some countries, certain parts of the amateur radio bands are still
reserved for transmission of Morse code signals only. Have you looked at
our band plan lately?

You probably don't know this, but the FCC has a "use it or lose it"
policy. Look what happened to the 11 meter band now called C.B. or the
bottom half of the 220 band that was sold off.

We stand a real chance of losing portions of the hf band because of a
loss of qualified CW operators. While the reality of that situation would
take a number of years to surface, it is something we need to think about
and prepare for now, not later.

Just because some operators use a more modern method of communications,
it does not necessarily signify accomplished applications like CW will
automatically become outdated as you try to depict.

What you consider outdated and ancient is still in use today on ships by
the military and on over-seas flights. It is just no longer the standard
or primary form.

Remember those odd TELEX numbers? Today we call it a FAX. Most airline
pilots still have the ability to receive a TELEX from one from their
offices right in the cockpit.

In light of 9/11 they are moving away from that system to satellites
which provide a more instantaneous and reliable form of communications.

You descriptions of old vs. new were hysterical! Let me give you a big
fat history lesson.

Morse code came to being in the mid 1830's. The first use of CW over
radio was in the 1890's.

Now this is where your ignorance really shines. Spark Gap transmitters
were not replaced by phone users.

Spark Gap's were the original transmitters for morse code dating back to
the end of the 19th century. Spark gap transmitters generate fairly broad
signals.

As the more efficient transmission mode of continuous waves (CW) became
easier to produce and band crowding and interference got worse, spark-gap
sets and damped waves were "legislated" (theres that government word
again) off the new shorter wavelengths by international treaty, and
replaced by Poulsen arc converters and high frequency alternators. Later
these too yielded to vacuum tube technology and the 'electric age' of
amateur radio would end.

Long after being stopped for communications, spark gap transmitters were
employed for radio jamming. WW2 vets can attest to that.

Spark gap oscillators are still used to generate high frequency high
voltage to initiate welding arcs in gas tungsten arc welding. If you want
to know the definitive differences between the two, open a book!

With the development of more advanced communication technologies, the
widespread use of CW is now largely outmoded. That does not make it
outdated, unusable or undesirable as you would want me to think.

Before you insert foot in mouth, know what the hell your talking about.

Any nearby village lost an idiot lately? I think I found him.

The telephone did not replace the telegraph. Until 1877, all rapid long-
distance communication depended upon the telegraph. That year, a rival
technology developed, the telephone.

By 1879, patent litigation between Western Union and the infant telephone
system was ended in an agreement that largely separated the two services.
The telegraph continued after the invention of the telephone.

FYI - Western Union sent its last telegram in January of 2006. It took
129 years for the telegraph to succumb to more modern technologies in the
United States. I would say CW must perform remarkably well, just not as
fast.

The telegraph was a format of communications between two locations tied
together by wire. Early systems produced a paper copy with raised dots
and dashes, which were translated later by an operator.

When you saw someone reading a ticker-tape in an old movie, they were
translating morse code or at least faking it for your amusement.

The telegraphs adversary if you need to have one, was the ability to send
code "wireless." signals carrying the same morse code as opposed to using
wires. It later became referred to as CW or (LMAO) SPARK GAP!

Operators discovered accidently that they developed the ability to
distinguish by ear the various "clicks" the code made as it was
transmitted.

The paper strip was discontinued and operators decoded CW by ear up to 40
and sometimes 50 wpm. Boo! Hoo!, young ones today can't copy 5 wpm. Boo
Hoo my ass! People are relying more on conveniences of a TNC than their
own abilities.

AM was not replaced by FM signals. They are two totally different formats
each having their own pros and cons. The transition to digital can be
accomplished with almost any form of signal.

BTW, AM mode transmissions are still used today in private, commercial
and military aircraft. Consult your scanner book for more info. It is FAR
from outdated as you believe.

Don't talk to me about how we're just going to digital. We've been
operating digitally for years, where have you been, under a rock?

Hedy Lamarr, does the name ring a bell? She was a very famous actress in
the 30's and 40's. She invented spread spectrum. Look up U.S. Patent
number 2,292,387. It was applied for June 10, 1941, and received August
11th, 1942.

Spread spectrum is the basis for the communications security of the
strategic $25 billion MILSAT Defense communications system. Based on what
you believe, MILSAT must be outdated too, right?

I found your analogy of a horse and buggy compared to CW amusing. What
you apparently failed to learn in life is the appreciation one puts into
the craftsmanship of the buggy. We still make them, still make the
bridles and even the saddles when we want to ride high atop of the horse.

How many CW contests have you been in on the radio? Do you know what one
is? Do you know why we have them? Do you know what the various code types
are for?

I have observed for years that the older one gets the more knowledgeable
that person usually become. It's just a scheme of life. You on the other
hand disappoint me very much.

You might have gained the ability to operate hf through the changes of a
few laws, yet you fail to appreciate what is gained from the experience.

You have the temerity to say I am wrong for having and defending all the
knowledge I have gained over the years, when you can't even comprehend
how stupid you made yourself look by not knowing just some simple facts
about this hobby.

Until you can show one ounce of appreciation for what you have and for
what others like myself have gone through to get OUR tickets, your no
radio operator in my eyes, you're just an arrogant snob.


BTW, look up outdated and archaic. They both mean the same thing. Stutter
too?

Marc

-snip-

What a Troll!