John Smith wrote:

Mark:

Your logic and facts, as you present them, are well taken. Indeed, I
am anxious to see any arguments which are posed to the contrary...

LOL... Argue all you wish, the fact still remains that ANYONE who cannot at
least learn 5 WPM is either too stupid or too lazy to do so!

dxAce
Michigan
USA

http://www.iserv.net/~n8kdv/dxpage.htm

dx-dunce:

Hmmm...

I see I should have clearly stated "logical, reasonable, productive
arguments of merit."

John

"dxAce" wrote in message
...


John Smith wrote:

Mark:

Your logic and facts, as you present them, are well taken. Indeed,
I
am anxious to see any arguments which are posed to the contrary...

LOL... Argue all you wish, the fact still remains that ANYONE who
cannot at
least learn 5 WPM is either too stupid or too lazy to do so!

dxAce
Michigan
USA

http://www.iserv.net/~n8kdv/dxpage.htm

Mark Zenier wrote:
In article ,
John Smith wrote:
Tell me, what is/are a legitimate argument(s) to keep CW a
requirement, which any sane man/woman could argue with real and
logical conviction?

The real reason for the Morse requirement was, (three quarters of a
century ago or so, after WW I), to maintain a pool of people that could
be inducted into the military in times of war to maintain communications
on the battlefield. Learning Morse is not a natural act. Nor, for more
than a small percentage of the population, very easy. Getting a bunch
of Signal Corps cannon fodder to train themselves was a great boon.

Back about 20 years ago, when Digital Signal Processor ICs were first
coming out, I did a bunch of library research on the possiblity of
building a box that could match the performance of a human operator.
The newest paper I could find on the actual use of CW, in the open
literature, was from 1959. They were no longer interested in using it.
It takes too long to train an operator, and the data transmission capacity
is too low. And if the radio operator gets shot...

(There was, reportedly, a lot of expertise in the NSA and its military
affiliates in automated CW intercepts, as the Soviet Union and third
world still had a lot of tactical comm. in CW at that time).

But at that same time, 20 years ago, I got some insight, (at a job
interview), into what the miltary was planning for the future. It was
automating an entire infantry division with packet radio. Not much
reason to learn Morse code when the field radios had 20 kbps (?) packet
modems built in, and the field officers could just plug the Grid portable
into them.

So the military no longer has any need and it's taken 40 years
for the ham "community" to figure this out.

Unfortunately a large portion of the ham community has chosen to ignore
the fact that morse code is not used in any significant communications
in the western world. They cling to the outdated notion that group of
radio amateurs with the ability to transcribe morse code at some slow
speed will serve some useful purpose in an emergency situation. That
none of the professional services could hear them if they were to
transmit morese code in an emergency seems to escape most currently
licensed hams. They seem to enjoy Walter Mitty like daydreams where
the hams all hit the spectrum to save the little community when the
hurricane hits. I have an EE in the family who helps design
communications systems for the defense dept. When the office shop talk
turns to hams and mars operators they just sort of chuckle about how
far out of date those mostly old guys really are.

John S.:

So, the reason is, Alzheimer's? Opium pipe? Psychiatric illnesses?
Alien mind control? Government disinformation (these are really gov't
agents here?)

John

"John S." wrote in message
oups.com...


Mark Zenier wrote:
In article ,
John Smith wrote:
Tell me, what is/are a legitimate argument(s) to keep CW a
requirement, which any sane man/woman could argue with real and
logical conviction?

The real reason for the Morse requirement was, (three quarters of a
century ago or so, after WW I), to maintain a pool of people that
could
be inducted into the military in times of war to maintain
communications
on the battlefield. Learning Morse is not a natural act. Nor, for
more
than a small percentage of the population, very easy. Getting a
bunch
of Signal Corps cannon fodder to train themselves was a great boon.

Back about 20 years ago, when Digital Signal Processor ICs were
first
coming out, I did a bunch of library research on the possiblity of
building a box that could match the performance of a human
operator.
The newest paper I could find on the actual use of CW, in the open
literature, was from 1959. They were no longer interested in using
it.
It takes too long to train an operator, and the data transmission
capacity
is too low. And if the radio operator gets shot...

(There was, reportedly, a lot of expertise in the NSA and its
military
affiliates in automated CW intercepts, as the Soviet Union and
third
world still had a lot of tactical comm. in CW at that time).

But at that same time, 20 years ago, I got some insight, (at a job
interview), into what the miltary was planning for the future. It
was
automating an entire infantry division with packet radio. Not much
reason to learn Morse code when the field radios had 20 kbps (?)
packet
modems built in, and the field officers could just plug the Grid
portable
into them.

So the military no longer has any need and it's taken 40 years
for the ham "community" to figure this out.

Unfortunately a large portion of the ham community has chosen to
ignore
the fact that morse code is not used in any significant
communications
in the western world. They cling to the outdated notion that group
of
radio amateurs with the ability to transcribe morse code at some
slow
speed will serve some useful purpose in an emergency situation.
That
none of the professional services could hear them if they were to
transmit morese code in an emergency seems to escape most currently
licensed hams. They seem to enjoy Walter Mitty like daydreams where
the hams all hit the spectrum to save the little community when the
hurricane hits. I have an EE in the family who helps design
communications systems for the defense dept. When the office shop
talk
turns to hams and mars operators they just sort of chuckle about how
far out of date those mostly old guys really are.

John Smith wrote:
John S.:

So, the reason is, Alzheimer's? Opium pipe? Psychiatric illnesses?
Alien mind control? Government disinformation (these are really gov't
agents here?)
Not sure what you are asking the reason for.

But if it is why hams cling to the need to require prospective hams
take a purposeless test, I think it is mostly because they had to take
the test in a time when knowlege of the code was important. It can be
difficult to realize that times have changed and that the morse code
test no longer provides a pool of hams with a useful (or useable)
skill.

"John S." wrote:

John Smith wrote:
John S.:

So, the reason is, Alzheimer's? Opium pipe? Psychiatric illnesses?
Alien mind control? Government disinformation (these are really gov't
agents here?)
Not sure what you are asking the reason for.

But if it is why hams cling to the need to require prospective hams
take a purposeless test, I think it is mostly because they had to take
the test in a time when knowlege of the code was important. It can be
difficult to realize that times have changed and that the morse code
test no longer provides a pool of hams with a useful (or useable)
skill.

You're still making excuses! The bottom line is that if one cannot learn at
minimum 5 WPM then either they are too stupid or too lazy to do so!

LMAO at the 'tards who cannot do it.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

http://www.iserv.net/~n8kdv/dxpage.htm

John S.:

You are quite correct in pointing out my question was obscure. None
the less, you deduced the correct question.

I guess I just find it hard to believe those guys are that far out of
touch with reality... but I see it all the time, and carry on
arguments on the bands...

John

"John S." wrote in message
oups.com...


John Smith wrote:
John S.:

So, the reason is, Alzheimer's? Opium pipe? Psychiatric
illnesses?
Alien mind control? Government disinformation (these are really
gov't
agents here?)
Not sure what you are asking the reason for.

But if it is why hams cling to the need to require prospective hams
take a purposeless test, I think it is mostly because they had to
take
the test in a time when knowlege of the code was important. It can
be
difficult to realize that times have changed and that the morse code
test no longer provides a pool of hams with a useful (or useable)
skill.

John S. wrote:

Unfortunately a large portion of the ham community has chosen to ignore
the fact that morse code is not used in any significant communications
in the western world.


In fact, you are incorrect about this.


Repeating our message from earlier this week:


Morse Code is used to identify every VOR station in the US. VOR
station identification takes place every 30 seconds. Every VOR radio has
an ident switch that permits the pilot to hear the Morse Code identifier
for the VOR station he's monitoring when navigating by radio. When
flying under IFR conditions, this identifier is essential for correct
location of the aircraft on the grid by the pilot, and identification of
the correct course.

I would hardly call that insignificant. So, your premise on it's face
is incorrect.


Now, to be thorough, here....the Morse identifier for a given station
is printed on the sectional chart for that given region of airspace, so,
it's not necessary that a pilot actually know the code, but if you've
ever tried to read a sectional chart in flight, solo in the cockpit
while trying to navigate it can be an unnecessary and unwanted
distraction, especially when flying under less than optimum conditions.
But many pilots, having learned their Morse Code as Boy Scouts, or in
the military, or as part of the Amateur service, find it much simpler to
simply hear and understand the code, than to take the time to read and
then try to translate it into audible intelligence.

You may also be unaware that many V/UHF repeaters also identify by
Morse Code, so while it's not exactly a requirement that an operator
know the code, even non Code required licensees will find that knowing
the code actually facilitates their operations. Especially under unusual
propagation conditions, as we're experiencing now in Northern Illinois,
where VHF signals are skipping in from greater distances than local
repeaters' operating areas would normally fall. In which case, the Morse
identifier permits an operator to know if he's actually hearing the
correct repeater, or if he's actually hearing a repeater skipping in on
anomalous propragation.

Again, not insignificant. Especially where operation on a repeater is
by membership only and freeloaders are not welcome.

And again, to be thorough, non code licensees would still have to be
able to hear and understand the code to prevent freeloading, or take the
time to look up and translate the audible signal into understandable
language for identification.

So, there you have two significant and relevant, current applications
of Morse Code in the US, alone. There are more, to be sure.



For the record, this debate has been going on for decades. And it
laways boils down to the unwilling badgering the authority to be granted
the privileges that have been otherwise earned through diligent skill
acquisition. Even when I was in Jr High, the code test was a bone of
contention between members of the Ham Radio Club and applicants. And
that was 40 years ago. The fight has only gotten more shrill.

And the code requirement itself was widely misunderstood. It was
assumed that one had to take one's tests in order of rank and that
before one could have phone access to the bands, one was required to
spend no less than two years pounding brass. This alone ran off a lot of
applicants. Truth is that one only had to know the code to get a
license. Which license was largely a matter of preference, with one
exception. I know many hams who never went through the Novice or
Technician classes, but went straight to General and above.

In my own circles, this misunderstood abhorrence of the code drove my
friends to CB, rather than to the more exciting and more useful world of
the Amateur service. I took a different path, learning the code so I
could hear and understand what was on my receiver, but since I had
little interest in actually conversing...most of the people I'd want to
talk to were in the skip zones anyway, I never pursued it further. I've
always enjoyed the listening more than the talking. But, as with many
things in life, I've learned that a skill acquired is never without
practical application, and have found myself brushing up on my code
frequently over the years, for everything from shortwave and ham band
listening, to aviation monitoring, to emergency communications
monitoring, to silly things like movie/tv watching. There is always a
relevant application to the knowledge of Morse Code.

Simply abandoning knowledge of something because there are newer,
better ways is only smart if the newer better ways can and will never
fail. This is fantasy at best. In which case having a fall back,
especially in communications, is prudent, even if it does seem like
filling up your head with useless baggage at the time. Considering how
times emergency communications have failed because of a poor microphone,
high noise, or even partial failure of a radio, OOK in Morse Code is
often the only option left in an emergency. And, as has been explained
here numerous times, unlike any other form of communication which
requires ever increasing layers of technology to get the job done, all
that's required in Morse Code is one human operator on each end, and the
ability to create a signal, regardless of how or what that signal is.

Personally, when my ass is on the line, I'd much rather rely on an
experienced operator than any piece of technology.

Now, like the person sitting in the exitway on an airliner you may be
unable, or unwilling to assist in the event of an emergency, and that's
your right. But have the decency to get out of the way and let those who
are willing and able to assist to do so.


Your premise that "morse code is not used in any significant
communications in the western world," is patently false.

Peter:

Really, you don't expect to take one or two simple points, stretch
them to a whole book with gobs of un-necessary text, then expect
someone to read it to the end, do you? Well, if so, this is just to
inform you I am not... bet I am not the only fool who just doesn't
get how important your long winded rants are! grin

John

"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
John S. wrote:

Unfortunately a large portion of the ham community has chosen to
ignore
the fact that morse code is not used in any significant
communications
in the western world.


In fact, you are incorrect about this.


Repeating our message from earlier this week:


Morse Code is used to identify every VOR station in the US. VOR
station identification takes place every 30 seconds. Every VOR radio
has an ident switch that permits the pilot to hear the Morse Code
identifier for the VOR station he's monitoring when navigating by
radio. When flying under IFR conditions, this identifier is
essential for correct location of the aircraft on the grid by the
pilot, and identification of the correct course.

I would hardly call that insignificant. So, your premise on it's
face is incorrect.


Now, to be thorough, here....the Morse identifier for a given
station is printed on the sectional chart for that given region of
airspace, so, it's not necessary that a pilot actually know the
code, but if you've ever tried to read a sectional chart in flight,
solo in the cockpit while trying to navigate it can be an
unnecessary and unwanted distraction, especially when flying under
less than optimum conditions. But many pilots, having learned their
Morse Code as Boy Scouts, or in the military, or as part of the
Amateur service, find it much simpler to simply hear and understand
the code, than to take the time to read and then try to translate it
into audible intelligence.

You may also be unaware that many V/UHF repeaters also identify by
Morse Code, so while it's not exactly a requirement that an operator
know the code, even non Code required licensees will find that
knowing the code actually facilitates their operations. Especially
under unusual propagation conditions, as we're experiencing now in
Northern Illinois, where VHF signals are skipping in from greater
distances than local repeaters' operating areas would normally fall.
In which case, the Morse identifier permits an operator to know if
he's actually hearing the correct repeater, or if he's actually
hearing a repeater skipping in on anomalous propragation.

Again, not insignificant. Especially where operation on a repeater
is by membership only and freeloaders are not welcome.

And again, to be thorough, non code licensees would still have to
be able to hear and understand the code to prevent freeloading, or
take the time to look up and translate the audible signal into
understandable language for identification.

So, there you have two significant and relevant, current
applications of Morse Code in the US, alone. There are more, to be
sure.



For the record, this debate has been going on for decades. And it
laways boils down to the unwilling badgering the authority to be
granted the privileges that have been otherwise earned through
diligent skill acquisition. Even when I was in Jr High, the code
test was a bone of contention between members of the Ham Radio Club
and applicants. And that was 40 years ago. The fight has only gotten
more shrill.

And the code requirement itself was widely misunderstood. It was
assumed that one had to take one's tests in order of rank and that
before one could have phone access to the bands, one was required to
spend no less than two years pounding brass. This alone ran off a
lot of applicants. Truth is that one only had to know the code to
get a license. Which license was largely a matter of preference,
with one exception. I know many hams who never went through the
Novice or Technician classes, but went straight to General and
above.

In my own circles, this misunderstood abhorrence of the code drove
my friends to CB, rather than to the more exciting and more useful
world of the Amateur service. I took a different path, learning the
code so I could hear and understand what was on my receiver, but
since I had little interest in actually conversing...most of the
people I'd want to talk to were in the skip zones anyway, I never
pursued it further. I've always enjoyed the listening more than the
talking. But, as with many things in life, I've learned that a
skill acquired is never without practical application, and have
found myself brushing up on my code frequently over the years, for
everything from shortwave and ham band listening, to aviation
monitoring, to emergency communications monitoring, to silly things
like movie/tv watching. There is always a relevant application to
the knowledge of Morse Code.

Simply abandoning knowledge of something because there are newer,
better ways is only smart if the newer better ways can and will
never fail. This is fantasy at best. In which case having a fall
back, especially in communications, is prudent, even if it does seem
like filling up your head with useless baggage at the time.
Considering how times emergency communications have failed because
of a poor microphone, high noise, or even partial failure of a
radio, OOK in Morse Code is often the only option left in an
emergency. And, as has been explained here numerous times, unlike
any other form of communication which requires ever increasing
layers of technology to get the job done, all that's required in
Morse Code is one human operator on each end, and the ability to
create a signal, regardless of how or what that signal is.

Personally, when my ass is on the line, I'd much rather rely on an
experienced operator than any piece of technology.

Now, like the person sitting in the exitway on an airliner you may
be unable, or unwilling to assist in the event of an emergency, and
that's your right. But have the decency to get out of the way and
let those who are willing and able to assist to do so.


Your premise that "morse code is not used in any significant
communications in the western world," is patently false.

Peter:

Let me give you an example of what I just said above:

Keep it short if you want it read!

John

"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
John S. wrote:

Unfortunately a large portion of the ham community has chosen to
ignore
the fact that morse code is not used in any significant
communications
in the western world.


In fact, you are incorrect about this.


Repeating our message from earlier this week:


Morse Code is used to identify every VOR station in the US. VOR
station identification takes place every 30 seconds. Every VOR radio
has an ident switch that permits the pilot to hear the Morse Code
identifier for the VOR station he's monitoring when navigating by
radio. When flying under IFR conditions, this identifier is
essential for correct location of the aircraft on the grid by the
pilot, and identification of the correct course.

I would hardly call that insignificant. So, your premise on it's
face is incorrect.


Now, to be thorough, here....the Morse identifier for a given
station is printed on the sectional chart for that given region of
airspace, so, it's not necessary that a pilot actually know the
code, but if you've ever tried to read a sectional chart in flight,
solo in the cockpit while trying to navigate it can be an
unnecessary and unwanted distraction, especially when flying under
less than optimum conditions. But many pilots, having learned their
Morse Code as Boy Scouts, or in the military, or as part of the
Amateur service, find it much simpler to simply hear and understand
the code, than to take the time to read and then try to translate it
into audible intelligence.

You may also be unaware that many V/UHF repeaters also identify by
Morse Code, so while it's not exactly a requirement that an operator
know the code, even non Code required licensees will find that
knowing the code actually facilitates their operations. Especially
under unusual propagation conditions, as we're experiencing now in
Northern Illinois, where VHF signals are skipping in from greater
distances than local repeaters' operating areas would normally fall.
In which case, the Morse identifier permits an operator to know if
he's actually hearing the correct repeater, or if he's actually
hearing a repeater skipping in on anomalous propragation.

Again, not insignificant. Especially where operation on a repeater
is by membership only and freeloaders are not welcome.

And again, to be thorough, non code licensees would still have to
be able to hear and understand the code to prevent freeloading, or
take the time to look up and translate the audible signal into
understandable language for identification.

So, there you have two significant and relevant, current
applications of Morse Code in the US, alone. There are more, to be
sure.



For the record, this debate has been going on for decades. And it
laways boils down to the unwilling badgering the authority to be
granted the privileges that have been otherwise earned through
diligent skill acquisition. Even when I was in Jr High, the code
test was a bone of contention between members of the Ham Radio Club
and applicants. And that was 40 years ago. The fight has only gotten
more shrill.

And the code requirement itself was widely misunderstood. It was
assumed that one had to take one's tests in order of rank and that
before one could have phone access to the bands, one was required to
spend no less than two years pounding brass. This alone ran off a
lot of applicants. Truth is that one only had to know the code to
get a license. Which license was largely a matter of preference,
with one exception. I know many hams who never went through the
Novice or Technician classes, but went straight to General and
above.

In my own circles, this misunderstood abhorrence of the code drove
my friends to CB, rather than to the more exciting and more useful
world of the Amateur service. I took a different path, learning the
code so I could hear and understand what was on my receiver, but
since I had little interest in actually conversing...most of the
people I'd want to talk to were in the skip zones anyway, I never
pursued it further. I've always enjoyed the listening more than the
talking. But, as with many things in life, I've learned that a
skill acquired is never without practical application, and have
found myself brushing up on my code frequently over the years, for
everything from shortwave and ham band listening, to aviation
monitoring, to emergency communications monitoring, to silly things
like movie/tv watching. There is always a relevant application to
the knowledge of Morse Code.

Simply abandoning knowledge of something because there are newer,
better ways is only smart if the newer better ways can and will
never fail. This is fantasy at best. In which case having a fall
back, especially in communications, is prudent, even if it does seem
like filling up your head with useless baggage at the time.
Considering how times emergency communications have failed because
of a poor microphone, high noise, or even partial failure of a
radio, OOK in Morse Code is often the only option left in an
emergency. And, as has been explained here numerous times, unlike
any other form of communication which requires ever increasing
layers of technology to get the job done, all that's required in
Morse Code is one human operator on each end, and the ability to
create a signal, regardless of how or what that signal is.

Personally, when my ass is on the line, I'd much rather rely on an
experienced operator than any piece of technology.

Now, like the person sitting in the exitway on an airliner you may
be unable, or unwilling to assist in the event of an emergency, and
that's your right. But have the decency to get out of the way and
let those who are willing and able to assist to do so.


Your premise that "morse code is not used in any significant
communications in the western world," is patently false.