Jeff Renkin wrote in message

Actually the lowering of the speed has NOTHING to do with it. If you ARE going to
learn the code, it makes more sense to learn it at the fastest speed right away. If
you learn it at 5 wpm, it makes it much harder later to go faster with it.

Nope, it doesn't. If that were the case, I would be in the same speed
league as you.
If you are going to take a 20 wpm test, and ditch the code upon
passing the test, it might make sense, but to someone that intends to
actually use the code, it does not. You would be a "one speed wonder"
.. The first person that came along at 9 wpm would cause you to vapor
lock. I started at -5 wpm and went up.
Quickly. It sure didn't seem to hurt me, being I peaked at my limits
of "clean" manual "paddle" keying. My abilty to send cleanly using a
paddle determined my real world limit. Not my abilty to receive. I
can't send cleanly with a paddle over about 55-60 wpm and thats
pushing it to the edge. After that I get too sloppy for my tastes.
Being I refuse to use a keyboard, which I hate, that was my limit. If
I used the keyboard, I probably could have eventually hit 70-75-80
wpm. The dots are so fast at those speeds, even at 60, that you don't
really listen for individual dots. You gauge from the length in ms of
the string. It's almost a blur. To be a decent CW operator, you must
gradually work through all the speeds. Your theory does not hold
water. But to be expected from someone who doesn't work cw.

Lowering the speed to 5 wpm was idiotic. As if that made it easier or
something.

Well, being many upgraded to extra in one fell swoop after they
dropped speed, it must have made some difference if the rest couldn't
get 13 or 20 wpm. Of course, I suspect the vast majority of those
didn't really practice enough.

Ever hear of the Farnsworth system?

Duh...

Learning the code is like
learning a language, you hear the musical sounds of the letters and words, slowing it
down only makes it harder.

Slowing it down only makes it harder to keep track of previously sent
letters, if head copying. That makes it harder to make words out of
the copy. You have to copy behind a bit. But slowing it down does not
make it harder to copy the characters. Trust me, for a rank beginner,
it's easier to learn and pass 5 wpm, than it is to learn and pass 20
wpm. That is, unless they alter the proper timing, and leave huge gaps
between letters on the test. And thats not 20 wpm any more. The
farnsworth method teaches incorrect character spacing, and overall
lousy timing. You learn lousy timing from day one, and that is no way
to live. Not what I consider good. An *actual* 20 wpm at normal
spacing will cause a beginner to vapor lock when they test, if they
learned with the improperly spaced farnsworth method. The Farnsworth
method is NOT a good method to use for people that intend to use the
code in the real world. MK

amateur radio is going to survive if the gatekeepers continue to limit
access to those who can prove a working knowlege of morse code. The
code was at one time one of several useful tools for communicating,
but it has been outpaced by other faster technologies that are easier
to learn. Military and commercial use of the code has all but ceased.
So who's left - HAM's.

Is there a need for HAM's to use the code in emergency situations?
Posssibly, but I haven't heard of any recent successes. Several years
ago I tried to listen in on a logjam of ham's trying to run an H&W net
after one particularly nasty carribean hurricane. It was a babble of
voice and code - everyone running over one another. Sorting out the
multiple code transmissions was all but impossible. I truly think
managment of emergency communications is best left to the
professionals with up-to-date tools.

Should amateur radio licenses be subject to passing a test?
Absolutely. However the test should require knowlege of skills that
are appropriate for todays world. Knowlege of radio technology and
electronics are an absolute must for safe operation of poetntially
lethal equipment. Proficiency in communicating by voice and one or
more digital modes on several bands should be a requirement. The
Morse code should not be one of those required digital skills however,
because it has little useful application in todays world.

The gatekeepers of the hobby should be looking for ways to reduce the
average age of the licensed ham by enticing new entrants into the
hobby. Requiring them to learn a technology that is slower than a
78rpm record played at 33rpm is not the way.



(Mark Keith) wrote in message . com...
Jeff Renkin wrote in message

Actually the lowering of the speed has NOTHING to do with it. If you ARE going to
learn the code, it makes more sense to learn it at the fastest speed right away. If
you learn it at 5 wpm, it makes it much harder later to go faster with it.

Nope, it doesn't. If that were the case, I would be in the same speed
league as you.
If you are going to take a 20 wpm test, and ditch the code upon
passing the test, it might make sense, but to someone that intends to
actually use the code, it does not. You would be a "one speed wonder"
. The first person that came along at 9 wpm would cause you to vapor
lock. I started at -5 wpm and went up.
Quickly. It sure didn't seem to hurt me, being I peaked at my limits
of "clean" manual "paddle" keying. My abilty to send cleanly using a
paddle determined my real world limit. Not my abilty to receive. I
can't send cleanly with a paddle over about 55-60 wpm and thats
pushing it to the edge. After that I get too sloppy for my tastes.
Being I refuse to use a keyboard, which I hate, that was my limit. If
I used the keyboard, I probably could have eventually hit 70-75-80
wpm. The dots are so fast at those speeds, even at 60, that you don't
really listen for individual dots. You gauge from the length in ms of
the string. It's almost a blur. To be a decent CW operator, you must
gradually work through all the speeds. Your theory does not hold
water. But to be expected from someone who doesn't work cw.

Lowering the speed to 5 wpm was idiotic. As if that made it easier or
something.

Well, being many upgraded to extra in one fell swoop after they
dropped speed, it must have made some difference if the rest couldn't
get 13 or 20 wpm. Of course, I suspect the vast majority of those
didn't really practice enough.

Ever hear of the Farnsworth system?

Duh...

Learning the code is like
learning a language, you hear the musical sounds of the letters and words, slowing it
down only makes it harder.

Slowing it down only makes it harder to keep track of previously sent
letters, if head copying. That makes it harder to make words out of
the copy. You have to copy behind a bit. But slowing it down does not
make it harder to copy the characters. Trust me, for a rank beginner,
it's easier to learn and pass 5 wpm, than it is to learn and pass 20
wpm. That is, unless they alter the proper timing, and leave huge gaps
between letters on the test. And thats not 20 wpm any more. The
farnsworth method teaches incorrect character spacing, and overall
lousy timing. You learn lousy timing from day one, and that is no way
to live. Not what I consider good. An *actual* 20 wpm at normal
spacing will cause a beginner to vapor lock when they test, if they
learned with the improperly spaced farnsworth method. The Farnsworth
method is NOT a good method to use for people that intend to use the
code in the real world. MK

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.

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

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