Be sure to hold onto your hat when [email protected] decides to expell some gas.
 

" wrote in
ups.com:

From: on Tues, Oct 3 2006 3:25 pm

wrote:
From: Nada Tapu on Sat, Sep 30 2006 2:23 pm
On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 20:56:08 -0400, wrote:


Amateur radio is the ONLY radio service still using
morse radiotelegraphy for communications purposes.

So what? Amateurs choose the mode they want to use. What is wrong with
choosing Morse Code and HF operation?

Now, now, Jimmie, you are assigning some "blame" on a plain
and simple factual statement: "Amateur radio is the ONLY
[US] radio service still using morse radiotelegraphy for
communications purposes."

What I wrote is a plain and simple fact.

You seem to be in denial, unable to accept a plain and simple
fact. Your problem, not mine.

Some may say the Morse Code *test* is outmoded. But you are saying the
*use* of Morse Code is outmoded!

Yes, in every other radio service except amateur.

You seem to be in denial, unable to accept a plain and simple
fact. Your problem, not mine.


FM broadcasting is the only radio service that uses stereo multiplex FM
- is it outmoded?

There is NO SUCH THING as "stereo multiplex FM" mode.

FM broadcasting is NOT the "only radio service" using stereophonic
audio modulation. Stereophonic audio modulation is NOT required
by FM band broadcasters. Those broadcasters MAY use stereophonic
audio OR they may use monophonic audio plus a SUBCARRIER separate
audio channel OR they may use stereophonic audio PLUS the
subcarrier audio. The term "multiplex" applies to SEPARATE
information sources, not stereophonic audio. All of that is
very much in use today.

DTV (Digital TeleVision) broadcasting carries QUADRAPHONIC audio
(optional, may be monophonic or stereophonic) with or without
extra separate audio subchannels, with or without audio text
("Teletext") accompanying the video. That is very much in use
today and for the foreseeable future of American TV broadcasting.

Some AM broadcasters are still using the Motorola C-QUAM system
for stereophonic broadcasting where each stereo "channel" takes
one of the two DSB sidebands. While that system works well,
the AM broadcasting listener market has NOT received it well
enough to warrant more than a few broadcasters adopting it or
any similar AM stereophonic system. It appears to be on the
way out due to listener non-acceptance.

"Shortwave" broadcasting is still "testing" Radio Mondial
system which is capable of stereophonic audio transmission.
Technically the system works very well. The increased cost
of receivers and the general downturn in world interest in
"shortwave" broadcasting might result in a future
discontinuance. Note: What was once "shortwave" radio
broadcasting is increasingly shifting over to satellite
relay and VoIP dissemination rather than maintaining the
HF transmitters; program content remains the same.

The International Civil Airways VOR (Very high frequency
Omnidirectional radio Range) system ground stations ALWAYS
broadcast with a subcarrier (9.96 KHz) that is FMed with
the reference magnetic azimuth bearing phase. The RF
output is amplitude modulated with 30% AM so that any
receiver can determine its magnetic bearing to the ground
station by comparing the demodulated reference phase with
the main AM phase. Relatively simple receiver demod that
was devised in vacuum tube architecture times. In use
since 1955 worldwide, no foreseeable discontinuance in the
future despite wider use of GPS.

Multi-channel (many "multis") using FM was once the choice
of trans-continental microwave radio relay, the linkage
across the USA that made national TV and 'dial-anywhere'
long distance telephony possible. It has been largely
replaced by optical fiber relay using digital multiplexing
of voice and TV channels using digital modulation of laser
light. The longest (to date) fiber-optic relay is the
long, long like between London and Tokyo through the
Mediterranean Sea past Saudi Arabia, India, around
southeast Asia, past the Phillippines. Most of it under
water. Optical "pumping" with a second optical wave-
length is used for amplification to avoid electronic
repeater amplifiers. Such optical pumping (amplification)
is not possible with microwave RF radio relay.

There are many different other examples of "FM"-like
modulations at work daily in HF and on up into the micro-
waves. The most common is the various adaptations of the
common dial-up modem using combinatorial amplitude and
phase modulation of an audio carrier wave. Those are the
"TORs" (Teleprinter Over Radio) used for data
communications in maritime service; voice is done via SSB
and may be simultaneous with the data. This is on-going
in use and for the foreseeable future.

The FIRST HF Single Sideband circuits (since the beginning
of the 1930s) used combinatorial modulations. The 12 KHz
bandwidth was composed of four 3 KHz wide separate one-way
channels. Each 3 KHz (voice bandwidth) channel could carry
up to 6 frequency-shift-modulated teleprinter channels.
The common arrangement worldwide (by both commercial and
government users) was to use two 3 KHz channels solely
for voice/telephony and the remaining two for 8 to 12 TTY
circuits (number dependent on the redundancy required to
overcome selective fading). While those "commercial" SSB
circuits were numerous from the 40s on into the 70s, their
number has dwindled due to better throughput and reliability
from satellite radio relay services.

Was there anything else technical about communications
and/or broadcasting that you wanted to erroneously state?



Whewww. That was a gassy one.

SC

Be sure to hold onto your hat when [email protected] decides to expell some gas.
 

On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 00:11:28 GMT, Blow Code spake
thusly:

Whewww. That was a gassy one.

We don't need to hear about your sex life.

Ping [email protected]
 

You seem pretty knowledgeable so I need some assistance at
understanding something.

What I can't understand is the the incredibly childish attitude of
some of the pro-coders here. For me, the confusion stems from having
known several old timer hams while growing up. I looked up to them.
They were older gentlemen that had some fascinating knowledge and
great stories to tell about their ham radio hobby. This was back in
the 60's and early 70's so they are all gone now.

I am sure now that they are spinning in their graves, after the spew
puked up by some of the pro-coders.

Not all of them, to be fair, but a few loud ones stand out.

I still can't figure out how a statement about how CW is just beeps[
as opposed to voice on the same hardware] became transmuted into a
requirement that I should hate usenet.
That kind of blatant mis-direction seems to be quite common.

The statement is quite simple...a voice on the airwaves can convey
much more information than just the words spoken but CW can only
convey the words. Since the medium and usually the hardware is exactly
the same weather or not a microphone or a key is used, why bother with
a key that is much more limited? Somehow, this relates to pixels on my
screen but I have yet to understand why my opponent felt the need to
misdirect, misrepresent and misquote. Can none of the pro-coders make
a valid point?

Why do some of them feel that insulting my daughter will make their
point valid? Are their points so weak that they resort to vulgar
insults instead of engaging in debate? I usually don't killfile people
but I have made a few exceptions lately.

Now, there will be some spew directed towards my post. They can go
ahead and prove that turning ham into CB will most certainly be a
great improvement to the ARS. I NEVER knew anybody on CB that was as
rude and vulgar as some of the pro-coders here. I can have a nasty
mouth too, at times, but it's always in response to stupidity that is
obviously not to be taken seriously.

And, ironically, *I* am the one told to grow up. That's just too
funny.

Ping [email protected]
 

Opus- wrote:

The statement is quite simple...a voice on the airwaves can convey
much more information than just the words spoken but CW can only
convey the words.

Morse Code can convey more than the words - if the operators are
skilled in it.

It's not the same thing as a voice, though. It's a different
communications experience, just as the written word is a different
experience from the spoken word.

Since the medium and usually the hardware is exactly
the same weather or not a microphone or a key is used, why bother with
a key that is much more limited?

Several reasons:

1) It's often *not* the same hardware. You can use much simpler
equipment for Morse Code than for voice modes.

2) It's a different communications experience. (see above). For many of
us, that alone makes it worthwhile.

3) It takes up much less spectrum. With good equipment, five to ten
Morse Code signals can fit in the same spectrum space required by just
one single-sideband voice signal. AM and FM take up even more space on
the band.

4) It's more effective under adverse conditions. A Morse Code signal
typically has about 10-13 dB of advanatage over single-sideband voice.
That's about 2 S-units. Under conditions that make SSB unusable, or
barely usable, Morse Code will often be solid copy with good signals.

There are other reasons, but those four come to mind right now.

Somehow, this relates to pixels on my
screen but I have yet to understand why my opponent felt the need to
misdirect, misrepresent and misquote.

Lots of that going around - on both sides. Don't let it bother you - I
sure don't.

Can none of the pro-coders make
a valid point?

I just made a couple of valid points. That doesn't mean there *must* be
a Morse Code test, just that the mode has some good points.

Jim, N2EY

Ping [email protected]
 

On 5 Oct 2006 04:26:28 -0700, spake thusly:

Opus- wrote:

The statement is quite simple...a voice on the airwaves can convey
much more information than just the words spoken but CW can only
convey the words.

Morse Code can convey more than the words - if the operators are
skilled in it.

One of those old timers once told me that he recognized another
operators "hand" back when I watched him operate. I am not sure how
much more a person can get out of code.

It's not the same thing as a voice, though. It's a different
communications experience, just as the written word is a different
experience from the spoken word.

Fair enough.

Since the medium and usually the hardware is exactly
the same weather or not a microphone or a key is used, why bother with
a key that is much more limited?

Several reasons:

1) It's often *not* the same hardware. You can use much simpler
equipment for Morse Code than for voice modes.

Well, I did say "usually". But wouldn't simpler equipment limit you to
code only?

2) It's a different communications experience. (see above). For many of
us, that alone makes it worthwhile.

I am curious as to what would make it worthwhile.

3) It takes up much less spectrum. With good equipment, five to ten
Morse Code signals can fit in the same spectrum space required by just
one single-sideband voice signal. AM and FM take up even more space on
the band.

Some very valid points here.

4) It's more effective under adverse conditions. A Morse Code signal
typically has about 10-13 dB of advanatage over single-sideband voice.
That's about 2 S-units. Under conditions that make SSB unusable, or
barely usable, Morse Code will often be solid copy with good signals.

I could see the challenge in this. I remember a certain thrill back
when I was a kid, whenever I managed to make out a distant signal and
recognize where it was broadcast from.

There are other reasons, but those four come to mind right now.

Somehow, this relates to pixels on my
screen but I have yet to understand why my opponent felt the need to
misdirect, misrepresent and misquote.

Lots of that going around - on both sides. Don't let it bother you - I
sure don't.

I just don't like the snotty attitude that makes the ARS look so bad.

I am still waiting for my government handout. Never had any government
handouts in the 44 years I have been around.

Can none of the pro-coders make
a valid point?

I just made a couple of valid points. That doesn't mean there *must* be
a Morse Code test, just that the mode has some good points.

Thank you for making some points in a nice, civilized manner.

My neighbor, when I was about 12 or younger, had a nifty tower setup.
He had 2 tall telephone poles in the ground with enough space between
them for a third pole bolted in near the top, adding almost the full
length of another pole, save for about 6 feet where all three were
bolted together. I was self-supporting.

Ping
 

Opus- wrote:
On 5 Oct 2006 04:26:28 -0700, spake thusly:
Opus- wrote:

The statement is quite simple...a voice on the airwaves can convey
much more information than just the words spoken but CW can only
convey the words.

Morse Code can convey more than the words - if the operators are
skilled in it.

One of those old timers once told me that he recognized another
operators "hand" back when I watched him operate.

Yup. Little things about an op's sending can make it as recognizable as
a familiar voice.

btw, the term "fist" is used in the same context as "hand" was used by
that op.

I am not sure how
much more a person can get out of code.

The words, of course. How they are sent can tell a lot, too. It takes a
bit of experience to recognize all the subtleties of Morse Code.

The main point is that skilled Morse Code operators can convey more
than 'just the words'.

It's not the same thing as a voice, though.

I think that is your main point.

It's a different
communications experience, just as the written word is a different
experience from the spoken word.

Fair enough.

Exactly.

Since the medium and usually the hardware is exactly
the same weather or not a microphone or a key is used, why bother with
a key that is much more limited?

Several reasons:

1) It's often *not* the same hardware. You can use much simpler
equipment for Morse Code than for voice modes.

Well, I did say "usually".

Of course.

But wouldn't simpler equipment limit you to code only?

That depends on the exact situation. The important point is that once
you have Morse Code skills, using code-only equipment isn't really a
limitation in most cases.

Simplicity of equipment can be very important in some situations. For
example, if someone wants to actually build their HF Amateur Radio
equipment, it's much simpler and easier to build a Morse Code station
than an equivalent-performance voice station. In portable operations,
the power requirement, size and weight of a Morse Code station can be
less than that of the equivalent voice station.

2) It's a different communications experience. (see above). For many of
us, that alone makes it worthwhile.

I am curious as to what would make it worthwhile.

All sorts of things:

A) You can communicate without talking or typing. (In a world where a
lot of us spend a lot of time on the telephone and computer, being able
to communicate another way can be a real treat!)

B) The exercise of a skill is fun. Consider the person who learns how
to play a musical instrument: do you think making music (performing) is
the same experience as listening to recorded music?

C) Once you have the skills, communicating with Morse Code can be as
easy - or even easier - than using voice.

D) You can use Morse Code in situations where voice could not be used.
For example, suppose you are in a small house, apartment, RV, tent,
etc., and you want to operate without disturbing others (who might be
sleeping, talking, etc.). Of course you can put on headphones so they
don't hear the received signals, but in order to transmit, you have to
talk. Even if you keep your voice down, it can bother others. How many
times have you heard people complain about folks using cell phones in
public? But with Morse Code and a good pair of cans, you can operate
and make less noise than someone typing on a keyboard.

3) It takes up much less spectrum. With good equipment, five to ten
Morse Code signals can fit in the same spectrum space required by just
one single-sideband voice signal. AM and FM take up even more space on
the band.

Some very valid points here.

None of which mean that there *must* be a Morse Code test for an
amateur radio license. I happen to think such a test is a good idea,
but that's just my opinion.

4) It's more effective under adverse conditions. A Morse Code signal
typically has about 10-13 dB of advanatage over single-sideband voice.
That's about 2 S-units. Under conditions that make SSB unusable, or
barely usable, Morse Code will often be solid copy with good signals.

I could see the challenge in this. I remember a certain thrill back
when I was a kid, whenever I managed to make out a distant signal and
recognize where it was broadcast from.

Exactly! The very fact that it takes some skill is part of the fun and
attraction.

There are other reasons, but those four come to mind right now.

Here's one mo

5) The amount of "bad behavior" problems resulting in FCC enforcement
actions is much less from radio amateurs using Morse Code. Just look at
the FCC enforcement letters that address violations of deliberate
interference, obscenity, exceeding license privileges, and other "bad
behavior" problems. Almost all of them are for violations committed
using voice modes, not Morse Code. The difference is much greater than
would be expected from the relative popularity of the modes.

This doesn't mean all voice ops are problems or all Morse Code ops are
saints! All it means is that there's a lot less enforcement problems
from hams actually using Morse Code.

Somehow, this relates to pixels on my
screen but I have yet to understand why my opponent felt the need to
misdirect, misrepresent and misquote.

Lots of that going around - on both sides. Don't let it bother you - I
sure don't.

I just don't like the snotty attitude that makes the ARS look so bad.

Agreed! There's too much of that type of attitude on *both* sides of
the debate.

I am still waiting for my government handout. Never had any government
handouts in the 44 years I have been around.

How does one define "handout"?

For example, is public education of children a government handout? Yes,
many parents with kids in public school pay school taxes, but in most
districts those taxes paid by parents do not cover all of the costs of
the public schools. And the level of taxation does not depend on how
many children the parents have in school. Is public school a government
handout to people with lots of kids?

Or how about tax deductions? Are they a form of government handout? If
you have a mortgage or home equity loan, the interest is deductible. If
you rent, you don't get that deduction. Is that a government handout to
homeowners?

Not trying to be argumentative, just trying to get a clear idea of what
is a handout and what isn't.

Can none of the pro-coders make
a valid point?

I just made a couple of valid points. That doesn't mean there *must* be
a Morse Code test, just that the mode has some good points.

Thank you for making some points in a nice, civilized manner.

My pleasure. Thanks for reading.

My neighbor, when I was about 12 or younger, had a nifty tower setup.
He had 2 tall telephone poles in the ground with enough space between
them for a third pole bolted in near the top, adding almost the full
length of another pole, save for about 6 feet where all three were
bolted together. I was self-supporting.

Cool! I recently saw a similar setup used for a repeater antenna in a
wooded area. It blended in much better than metal tower.

--

The question of whether there should be a Morse Code test for an
amateur radio license really boils down to this: Does such a test do
more good than harm? The answer is always an opinion, not a fact.

Jim, N2EY

Ping
 

wrote:
Opus- wrote:
On 5 Oct 2006 04:26:28 -0700, spake thusly:

Some very valid points here.

None of which mean that there *must* be a Morse Code test for an
amateur radio license. I happen to think such a test is a good idea,
but that's just my opinion.

and yet you try to impose your opinion on the rest
The question of whether there should be a Morse Code test for an
amateur radio license really boils down to this: Does such a test do
more good than harm? The answer is always an opinion, not a fact.

no the answer is not to be based on wether it does more harm than good
the question that must be answered isfirst what regulatory prupose does
it serve

no regulatory purpose and the test is ilegeal even if it could be shown
to do more good than harm

the other question is does the test serve the PUBLIC interest interest
no Procder ever deals with the issue of how Code testing benifits
memebrs of the public such as Len Anderson

Jim, N2EY

Ping
 

Sorry I am late in replying. Holiday weekend here in Canada.

On 5 Oct 2006 17:05:58 -0700, spake thusly:

Opus- wrote:
On 5 Oct 2006 04:26:28 -0700, spake thusly:
Opus- wrote:

The statement is quite simple...a voice on the airwaves can convey
much more information than just the words spoken but CW can only
convey the words.

Morse Code can convey more than the words - if the operators are
skilled in it.

One of those old timers once told me that he recognized another
operators "hand" back when I watched him operate.

Yup. Little things about an op's sending can make it as recognizable as
a familiar voice.

btw, the term "fist" is used in the same context as "hand" was used by
that op.

Never heard the term "fist" used in this context but it's been a while
since I have spent much time with a coder.

I am not sure how
much more a person can get out of code.

The words, of course. How they are sent can tell a lot, too. It takes a
bit of experience to recognize all the subtleties of Morse Code.

The main point is that skilled Morse Code operators can convey more
than 'just the words'.

It's not the same thing as a voice, though.

I think that is your main point.

More than words, but how much more? I also have to believe that code
is slower than speech. Not usually a big issue but an issue none the
less.

It's a different
communications experience, just as the written word is a different
experience from the spoken word.

Fair enough.

Exactly.

Since the medium and usually the hardware is exactly
the same weather or not a microphone or a key is used, why bother with
a key that is much more limited?

Several reasons:

1) It's often *not* the same hardware. You can use much simpler
equipment for Morse Code than for voice modes.

Well, I did say "usually".

Of course.

But wouldn't simpler equipment limit you to code only?

That depends on the exact situation. The important point is that once
you have Morse Code skills, using code-only equipment isn't really a
limitation in most cases.

Simplicity of equipment can be very important in some situations. For
example, if someone wants to actually build their HF Amateur Radio
equipment, it's much simpler and easier to build a Morse Code station
than an equivalent-performance voice station. In portable operations,
the power requirement, size and weight of a Morse Code station can be
less than that of the equivalent voice station.

With todays electronics, size and weight really aren't much of an
issue.

2) It's a different communications experience. (see above). For many of
us, that alone makes it worthwhile.

I am curious as to what would make it worthwhile.

All sorts of things:

A) You can communicate without talking or typing. (In a world where a
lot of us spend a lot of time on the telephone and computer, being able
to communicate another way can be a real treat!)

I dunno..I guess I like hearing things like gender or a foreign accent
to add spice to communication.

B) The exercise of a skill is fun. Consider the person who learns how
to play a musical instrument: do you think making music (performing) is
the same experience as listening to recorded music?

Hmm..well..not really a good analogy. Listening to music is only a one
way street while both performing music, as well as radio
communications, is naturally a two way street.

C) Once you have the skills, communicating with Morse Code can be as
easy - or even easier - than using voice.

Not quite sure how, but I'll take your word for it.

D) You can use Morse Code in situations where voice could not be used.
For example, suppose you are in a small house, apartment, RV, tent,
etc., and you want to operate without disturbing others (who might be
sleeping, talking, etc.). Of course you can put on headphones so they
don't hear the received signals, but in order to transmit, you have to
talk. Even if you keep your voice down, it can bother others. How many
times have you heard people complain about folks using cell phones in
public? But with Morse Code and a good pair of cans, you can operate
and make less noise than someone typing on a keyboard.

Not really a common circumstance, but I see your point here.

3) It takes up much less spectrum. With good equipment, five to ten
Morse Code signals can fit in the same spectrum space required by just
one single-sideband voice signal. AM and FM take up even more space on
the band.

Some very valid points here.

None of which mean that there *must* be a Morse Code test for an
amateur radio license. I happen to think such a test is a good idea,
but that's just my opinion.

4) It's more effective under adverse conditions. A Morse Code signal
typically has about 10-13 dB of advanatage over single-sideband voice.
That's about 2 S-units. Under conditions that make SSB unusable, or
barely usable, Morse Code will often be solid copy with good signals.

I could see the challenge in this. I remember a certain thrill back
when I was a kid, whenever I managed to make out a distant signal and
recognize where it was broadcast from.

Exactly! The very fact that it takes some skill is part of the fun and
attraction.

But some here seem to suggest that if no or little skill is required
then it's really not worth pursuing. I strongly dispute that.

There are other reasons, but those four come to mind right now.

Here's one mo

5) The amount of "bad behavior" problems resulting in FCC enforcement
actions is much less from radio amateurs using Morse Code. Just look at
the FCC enforcement letters that address violations of deliberate
interference, obscenity, exceeding license privileges, and other "bad
behavior" problems. Almost all of them are for violations committed
using voice modes, not Morse Code. The difference is much greater than
would be expected from the relative popularity of the modes.

This doesn't mean all voice ops are problems or all Morse Code ops are
saints! All it means is that there's a lot less enforcement problems
from hams actually using Morse Code.

Perhaps the typical ages of people who prefer code could be a factor.
It does tend to be considerably older people who prefer code.

Somehow, this relates to pixels on my
screen but I have yet to understand why my opponent felt the need to
misdirect, misrepresent and misquote.

Lots of that going around - on both sides. Don't let it bother you - I
sure don't.

I just don't like the snotty attitude that makes the ARS look so bad.

Agreed! There's too much of that type of attitude on *both* sides of
the debate.

I am still waiting for my government handout. Never had any government
handouts in the 44 years I have been around.

How does one define "handout"?

Based on the comments, it would seem that the offending poster was
referring to something that was unique to Canada. About the only thing
I can think of is our medical care system. And THAT'S not really free
at all, as I will explain further below.

For example, is public education of children a government handout? Yes,
many parents with kids in public school pay school taxes, but in most
districts those taxes paid by parents do not cover all of the costs of
the public schools. And the level of taxation does not depend on how
many children the parents have in school. Is public school a government
handout to people with lots of kids?

Or how about tax deductions? Are they a form of government handout? If
you have a mortgage or home equity loan, the interest is deductible. If
you rent, you don't get that deduction. Is that a government handout to
homeowners?

Now as for mortgages and home equity loans, the interest is NOT a tax
deduction here in Canada. That could be considered a handout that
Americans enjoy, something Canadians can't enjoy. Also, Canada is the
second highest taxed nation in the world. Renters get a wee bit of a
break in some provinces but not here in Alberta, Canada's "Texas".

Not trying to be argumentative, just trying to get a clear idea of what
is a handout and what isn't.

Can none of the pro-coders make
a valid point?

I just made a couple of valid points. That doesn't mean there *must* be
a Morse Code test, just that the mode has some good points.

Thank you for making some points in a nice, civilized manner.

My pleasure. Thanks for reading.

My neighbor, when I was about 12 or younger, had a nifty tower setup.
He had 2 tall telephone poles in the ground with enough space between
them for a third pole bolted in near the top, adding almost the full
length of another pole, save for about 6 feet where all three were
bolted together. I was self-supporting.

Cool! I recently saw a similar setup used for a repeater antenna in a
wooded area. It blended in much better than metal tower.

Drove by many many years later. Tower gone. Different house on same
lot. I guess you can never go back.

Ping
 

Opus- wrote:
Sorry I am late in replying. Holiday weekend here in Canada.

I hope it was a good one.

On 5 Oct 2006 17:05:58 -0700, spake thusly:

Opus- wrote:
On 5 Oct 2006 04:26:28 -0700, spake thusly:
Opus- wrote:

The statement is quite simple...a voice on the airwaves can convey
much more information than just the words spoken but CW can only
convey the words.

Morse Code can convey more than the words - if the operators are
skilled in it.

One of those old timers once told me that he recognized another
operators "hand" back when I watched him operate.

Yup. Little things about an op's sending can make it as recognizable as
a familiar voice.

btw, the term "fist" is used in the same context as "hand" was used by
that op.

Never heard the term "fist" used in this context but it's been a while
since I have spent much time with a coder.

Both terms are used. Some folks use the term "swing" as well, but
that's not exactly a compliment.

I am not sure how
much more a person can get out of code.

The words, of course. How they are sent can tell a lot, too. It takes a
bit of experience to recognize all the subtleties of Morse Code.

The main point is that skilled Morse Code operators can convey more
than 'just the words'.

It's not the same thing as a voice, though.

I think that is your main point.

More than words, but how much more?

Quite a bit, but obviously not as much as a voice. The main point is
that skilled operators get more than 'just the words'.

It's a bit similar to the way that one's perception of the written word
is affected by the font, punctuation, capitalization, etc. Not exactly
the same, but similar.

I also have to believe that code
is slower than speech. Not usually a big issue but an issue none the
less.

Like many things, "it depends".

The raw speed of the spoken word is obviously faster.

But when you really listen to the way most people speak, the speed is
limited by many things. There's a lot of redundancy in the way many
people speak, pauses, repeats, "ums" and "ahs', and little phrases
tossed in while the person thinks of what to say next. Meanwhile, the
skilled Morse Code operator is using abbreviations and other shortcuts
that effectively increase the speed way beyond the raw wpm.

For example, the first response in a voice QSO might go like this:

"VE6QRM, victor-echo-six-quebec-romeo-mike, this is N2EY,
november-two-echo-yankee, thanks for the call. You're five and nine,
five-nine here, good clear signals. I am in Wayne, Pennsylvania, that's
Wayne, whiskey-alpha-yankee-november-echo, Pennsylvania, papa-alpha.
Name here is Jim, john-ida-mike, Jim. How do you copy me?....."

while using Morse Code, the same exchange could be:

"VE6QRM DE N2EY TNX CL BT UR 599 599 GUD SIG IN WAYNE PA WAYNE PA BT OP
JIM JIM BT HW?...."

Same information, two different modes. If the Morse Code ops are
reasonably fast, the time is comparable.

It's a different
communications experience, just as the written word is a different
experience from the spoken word.

Fair enough.

Exactly.

Since the medium and usually the hardware is exactly
the same weather or not a microphone or a key is used, why bother with
a key that is much more limited?

Several reasons:

1) It's often *not* the same hardware. You can use much simpler
equipment for Morse Code than for voice modes.

Well, I did say "usually".

Of course.

But wouldn't simpler equipment limit you to code only?

That depends on the exact situation. The important point is that once
you have Morse Code skills, using code-only equipment isn't really a
limitation in most cases.

Simplicity of equipment can be very important in some situations. For
example, if someone wants to actually build their HF Amateur Radio
equipment, it's much simpler and easier to build a Morse Code station
than an equivalent-performance voice station. In portable operations,
the power requirement, size and weight of a Morse Code station can be
less than that of the equivalent voice station.

With todays electronics, size and weight really aren't much of an
issue.

I disagree to a point! Look at the size, weight and performance of HF
rigs that you can carry with you. Is there any HF ham rig that's
SSB-capable that can compete with the Elecraft KX-1?

For fixed-station use, there isn't much size/weight difference, if any.
But when you need to carry the rig and batteries any real distance, the
differences become apparent. This is also when you will find that the
difference in low power performance really matters.

2) It's a different communications experience. (see above). For many of
us, that alone makes it worthwhile.

I am curious as to what would make it worthwhile.

All sorts of things:

A) You can communicate without talking or typing. (In a world where a
lot of us spend a lot of time on the telephone and computer, being able
to communicate another way can be a real treat!)

I dunno..I guess I like hearing things like gender or a foreign accent
to add spice to communication.

Of course. And that's part of the point: different communications
experiences.

B) The exercise of a skill is fun. Consider the person who learns how
to play a musical instrument: do you think making music (performing) is
the same experience as listening to recorded music?

Hmm..well..not really a good analogy. Listening to music is only a one
way street while both performing music, as well as radio
communications, is naturally a two way street.

I was thinking of the person who performs the music for themselves vs.
listening to a recording.

Either way, it's still a different experience.

Or consider this analogy: It's one thing to drive a car with all the
modern conveniences - power steering, automatic transmission, power
brakes, cruise control, climate control, etc., and doing it on a smooth
straight highway. It's a different experience to drive a car without
all those things, on a winding country road where the driver's skill
makes a big difference.

C) Once you have the skills, communicating with Morse Code can be as
easy - or even easier - than using voice.

Not quite sure how, but I'll take your word for it.

D) You can use Morse Code in situations where voice could not be used.
For example, suppose you are in a small house, apartment, RV, tent,
etc., and you want to operate without disturbing others (who might be
sleeping, talking, etc.). Of course you can put on headphones so they
don't hear the received signals, but in order to transmit, you have to
talk. Even if you keep your voice down, it can bother others. How many
times have you heard people complain about folks using cell phones in
public? But with Morse Code and a good pair of cans, you can operate
and make less noise than someone typing on a keyboard.

Not really a common circumstance, but I see your point here.

I think it depends on the amateur's situation. I know plenty of hams
with small children in the house, or with limited space for a shack,
where the sound issue is a big one. Being able to operate quietly can
be the difference between operating and not operating.

3) It takes up much less spectrum. With good equipment, five to ten
Morse Code signals can fit in the same spectrum space required by just
one single-sideband voice signal. AM and FM take up even more space on
the band.

Some very valid points here.

None of which mean that there *must* be a Morse Code test for an
amateur radio license. I happen to think such a test is a good idea,
but that's just my opinion.

4) It's more effective under adverse conditions. A Morse Code signal
typically has about 10-13 dB of advanatage over single-sideband voice.
That's about 2 S-units. Under conditions that make SSB unusable, or
barely usable, Morse Code will often be solid copy with good signals.

I could see the challenge in this. I remember a certain thrill back
when I was a kid, whenever I managed to make out a distant signal and
recognize where it was broadcast from.

Exactly! The very fact that it takes some skill is part of the fun and
attraction.

But some here seem to suggest that if no or little skill is required
then it's really not worth pursuing. I strongly dispute that.

I'm not sure what you mean by "if little or no skill is required, then
it's really not worth pursuing".

There are other reasons, but those four come to mind right now.

Here's one mo

5) The amount of "bad behavior" problems resulting in FCC enforcement
actions is much less from radio amateurs using Morse Code. Just look at
the FCC enforcement letters that address violations of deliberate
interference, obscenity, exceeding license privileges, and other "bad
behavior" problems. Almost all of them are for violations committed
using voice modes, not Morse Code. The difference is much greater than
would be expected from the relative popularity of the modes.

This doesn't mean all voice ops are problems or all Morse Code ops are
saints! All it means is that there's a lot less enforcement problems
from hams actually using Morse Code.

Perhaps the typical ages of people who prefer code could be a factor.
It does tend to be considerably older people who prefer code.

I disagree - for two reasons!

First I have found amateurs of all ages who are interested in Morse
Code. I have found that young people are interested *if* Morse Code is
presented correctly.

Some say that, in the modern world, young people who grew up with cell
phones and the internet aren't going to sit still for something like
Morse Code - or amateur radio. And many won't.

However, the very fact that Morse Code is unusual is a big attraction
to some of them - *because* it's so different and unusual. They've seen
voice comms - they all have cellphones! Typing on a keyboard and
reading a screen is something they've seen since they were babies. But
Morse Code is completely different. That's what draws many young people
- just look at the acceptance of the Harry Potter books.

The second reason is that the 'bad behavior' of amateurs on the air
doesn't seem to decrease with age. In fact, it may be the opposite!

One of the worst offenders here in the USA was a Californian named Jack
Gerritsen (ex-KG6IRO). He was found guilty of multiple repeated
offenses, all of which involved on-air behavior like jamming, not
'technical' violations. His bad behavior started on the ham bands but
spread to public service bands as well, giving amateur radio a black
eye. Enforcement efforts up to revoking his license didn't stop him.
The guy was totally out of control, a real problem case. So now he is
going to prison for seven years and has to pay a fairly serious fine
($21,000US, IIRC).

Gerritsen used only voice modes. He is now 70.

Somehow, this relates to pixels on my
screen but I have yet to understand why my opponent felt the need to
misdirect, misrepresent and misquote.

Lots of that going around - on both sides. Don't let it bother you - I
sure don't.

I just don't like the snotty attitude that makes the ARS look so bad.

Agreed! There's too much of that type of attitude on *both* sides of
the debate.

I am still waiting for my government handout. Never had any government
handouts in the 44 years I have been around.

How does one define "handout"?

Based on the comments, it would seem that the offending poster was
referring to something that was unique to Canada. About the only thing
I can think of is our medical care system. And THAT'S not really free
at all, as I will explain further below.

I've lost track of who was using the term "handout". I don't think it
was you.

For example, is public education of children a government handout? Yes,
many parents with kids in public school pay school taxes, but in most
districts those taxes paid by parents do not cover all of the costs of
the public schools. And the level of taxation does not depend on how
many children the parents have in school. Is public school a government
handout to people with lots of kids?

I don't know how Canadian public education is funded, but I suspect
that it's not that much different than in the USA - at least to the
extent that parents don't pay the full amount, nor does the tax level
increase with the number of children in school.

Is public education a government handout to people with several
children?

Or how about tax deductions? Are they a form of government handout? If
you have a mortgage or home equity loan, the interest is deductible. If
you rent, you don't get that deduction. Is that a government handout to
homeowners?

Now as for mortgages and home equity loans, the interest is NOT a tax
deduction here in Canada. That could be considered a handout that
Americans enjoy, something Canadians can't enjoy.

Exactly - if one uses the term "handout". A lot of US homeowners would
say that they 'deserve' the tax deduction.

I would say that the USA uses tax policy as a form of social
engineering. By making mortgage and home-equity interest count as a tax
deduction, the government is supporting home ownership over renting.

Also, Canada is the
second highest taxed nation in the world.

Really? Who is #1 - Sweden?

Renters get a wee bit of a
break in some provinces but not here in Alberta, Canada's "Texas".

Not trying to be argumentative, just trying to get a clear idea of what
is a handout and what isn't.

One person's handout is another's entitlement.

One more "handout": some (not all) Social Security benefits. Most
Americans make payments into Social Security all their working lives.
Some never collect a penny, because they die young.

But if a person receiving Social Security benefits lives long enough,
they will eventually receive more in benefits than they paid into the
system - including reasonable interest.

Is that a "handout"?

Can none of the pro-coders make
a valid point?

I just made a couple of valid points. That doesn't mean there *must* be
a Morse Code test, just that the mode has some good points.

Thank you for making some points in a nice, civilized manner.

My pleasure. Thanks for reading.

My neighbor, when I was about 12 or younger, had a nifty tower setup.
He had 2 tall telephone poles in the ground with enough space between
them for a third pole bolted in near the top, adding almost the full
length of another pole, save for about 6 feet where all three were
bolted together. I was self-supporting.

Cool! I recently saw a similar setup used for a repeater antenna in a
wooded area. It blended in much better than metal tower.

Drove by many many years later. Tower gone. Different house on same
lot. I guess you can never go back.

(sigh)

For many years there was a landmark ham tower near here. Custom
rotating steel pole, over 100 feet high, with multiple HF Yagis and a
full size 2 element 80/75 meter quad. (That's not a typo). All on a
typical suburban lot of less than an acre....

It was built by one ham, and when he passed away another one bought the
place. But when the second ham passed, the big tower and antennas
needed serious work and nobody stepped up to take on the task.

So the tower is all gone and the house is like all the others in the
area...

But some things can be preserved - values, skills, culture. Even if the
people and places change.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Ping
 

From: on Wed, Oct 11 2006 3:38 am

Opus- wrote:
On 5 Oct 2006 17:05:58 -0700, spake thusly:
Opus- wrote:
On 5 Oct 2006 04:26:28 -0700, spake thusly:
Opus- wrote:


But when you really listen to the way most people speak, the speed is
limited by many things. There's a lot of redundancy in the way many
people speak, pauses, repeats, "ums" and "ahs', and little phrases
tossed in while the person thinks of what to say next. Meanwhile, the
skilled Morse Code operator is using abbreviations and other shortcuts
that effectively increase the speed way beyond the raw wpm.

A comparison between a poor speaker and a skilled
radiotelegrapher is worthy HOW? To shine up the
"skilled radiotelegrapher?" [of course...]

Compare a good speaker and a poor, unskilled radio-
telegrapher's sending and speech becomes way, way
faster.



With todays electronics, size and weight really aren't much of an
issue.

I disagree to a point! Look at the size, weight and performance of HF
rigs that you can carry with you. Is there any HF ham rig that's
SSB-capable that can compete with the Elecraft KX-1?

AN/PRC-104...back-pack HF SSB transceiver, operational
since 1984. Built by (then) Hughes Aircraft Ground
Systems (Hughes purchased by Raytheon).

For civilian-only, try the SGC 2020 SSB HF transceiver
used by private boat owners as well as hams.

For fixed-station use, there isn't much size/weight difference, if any.
But when you need to carry the rig and batteries any real distance, the
differences become apparent. This is also when you will find that the
difference in low power performance really matters.

The PRC-104 has an integral automatic antenna matching
package (to the right of the transceiver itself). This
insures that the manpack set's whip antenna is always
tuned for optimum radiated transmission power.

SGC has several antenna autotuner models available;
separate equipments.


Or consider this analogy: It's one thing to drive a car with all the
modern conveniences - power steering, automatic transmission, power
brakes, cruise control, climate control, etc., and doing it on a smooth
straight highway. It's a different experience to drive a car without
all those things, on a winding country road where the driver's skill
makes a big difference.

You have much experience on "winding country roads?" :-)

[of course you do, you are an amateur extra morseman...]

Are you advocating "no-frills" personal vehicles? Why?

I learned to drive in a 1939 Ford, NO automatic trans-
mission, NO power steering, NO power brakes, No cruise
control, NO "climate control" other than the standard
heater. Training ground was an abandoned army camp, one
which DID have a few "winding (dirt) roads." If you
think for one minute that I would give up a nice,
comfortable, well-equipped 2005 Chevy Malibu MAXX just
to "rough it" for SOMEONE ELSE'S IDEA of what constitutes
"good driving," you've got your head up your ass.

Having earned my Army driving license, I will personally
challenge you to a Jeep gymkhana (Jeep circa 1940s-1960s)
at everything from "smooth straight highways" through
"winding country roads" on to OFF-ROAD ANYTHING. I will
WIN. Been there, did that, got T-shirts, etc.

That standard issue Jeep had NO amenities except for the
post-1950 winch and cable over the front bumper. "Climate
control" was whatever the climate was outside. The "power
transmission" was a couple gear shifts operated by arm
strength and experienced clutch operation. Ptui.

HOW MANY personal vehicles have YOU DESIGNED and BUILT?
Include auto kits if you need to.

HOW MANY thousands of miles have YOU driven? Over "winding
country roads?" [I don't think so unless you count the
old driveway to the Doylestown Barn Cinema...] I've driven
the VERY winding country road (rough surface) to a Wyoming
working ranch (cattle brand registered in Wyoming is "B-1
Bomber") from/to highway.



Perhaps the typical ages of people who prefer code could be a factor.
It does tend to be considerably older people who prefer code.

I disagree - for two reasons!

First I have found amateurs of all ages who are interested in Morse
Code.

If all you have is a hammer, naturally everything looks
like a nail to you...

I have found that young people are interested *if* Morse Code is
presented correctly.

Sado-masochism is still prevalent in the human condition.


Some say that, in the modern world, young people who grew up with cell
phones and the internet aren't going to sit still for something like
Morse Code - or amateur radio. And many won't.

Unquantified numbers. You are waffling on your emotional
reasons.


However, the very fact that Morse Code is unusual is a big attraction
to some of them - *because* it's so different and unusual. They've seen
voice comms - they all have cellphones! Typing on a keyboard and
reading a screen is something they've seen since they were babies.

One in three Americans has a cell phone. Census Bureau said
so in a public statement in 2004.

Back in the late 1940s - a time well before cell phones, personal
computers, with (mostly) only sound broadcasting - there was NO
great "novelty" or "interest" in morse code communications. Been
there, seen that, see no difference now.

But
Morse Code is completely different. That's what draws many young people
- just look at the acceptance of the Harry Potter books.

So, write the author of the "Harry Potter" series and have
her (J. K. Rowling) "introduce" morse code as "magic." :-)

BWAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHAA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

* M A G I C M O R S E *

BWAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHAA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


But some things can be preserved - values, skills, culture. Even if the
people and places change.

Preservation of the Past is the job of MUSEUMS.

Why do you insist on keeping a "living museum" in amateur
radio through federal license testing for morse code in
only AMATEUR radio?

YOU had to test for it so everyone else has to...

Fraternal order HAZING having NO tangible value
except to amuse those ALREADY tested for code.