Chuck Harris wrote in
:

Slow Code wrote:

Big Ten-Four on that Good Buddy.
It sounds like you run a lot of 11m, not surprising considering how
much you whine, and it's not alternator whine.


I only typed like because I knew you would understand that style of
communicating. So, after your license came in the mail what I
appliance did you decide to buy? MFJ? Alinco? Cobra?


While you are being all holier than thou, what did you design and build
for your main rig? I'm hoping to be impressed, but expecting to be
disappointed.

Did the code help you with the design?

I took my Advanced class test down at 1919 M street 36 years ago. I had
to sit at the desk and copy one solid minute out of five error free at
13WPM. I passed it on the first try. I almost failed the sending test,
as I had never spent much time doing that. I had never made a code
contact before my test, and I have only made a couple since.

The thing about code contacts is they never seem to want to say anything
beyond:

WA3XXX DE W6XX RST 5NN WX FB 73 W6XX SK

How does that help the cause of amateur radio?

I have designed and built numerous rf receivers and transmitters, many
are employed by the US Army for various uses. I have fixed many
different radios from tube stuff through DSP driven affairs.

How exactly did the code help me to do this?

For me code was a means to an end. I wanted my license, so I learned
the code.

There were plenty of rude, profane, and generally unpleasant hams on the
air back when all had to pass the test in the offices of the FCC. I
haven't noticed that things are any worse now. About the only real
difference is in the quality of the gear folks are running. It is much
better than the crappy stuff that was on the air back in the early 70's.

-Chuck


Are conversations on repeaters as technical as they were twenty-five years
ago?

Me? I hear no-codes and nickle extras arguing how long a half wave dipole
should be.

SC

Slow Code wrote:
Chuck Harris wrote in

While you are being all holier than thou, what did you design and build
for your main rig? I'm hoping to be impressed, but expecting to be
disappointed.

Did the code help you with the design?

I took my Advanced class test down at 1919 M street 36 years ago. I had
to sit at the desk and copy one solid minute out of five error free at
13WPM. I passed it on the first try. I almost failed the sending test,
as I had never spent much time doing that. I had never made a code
contact before my test, and I have only made a couple since.

The thing about code contacts is they never seem to want to say anything
beyond:

WA3XXX DE W6XX RST 5NN WX FB 73 W6XX SK

How does that help the cause of amateur radio?

I have designed and built numerous rf receivers and transmitters, many
are employed by the US Army for various uses. I have fixed many
different radios from tube stuff through DSP driven affairs.

How exactly did the code help me to do this?

For me code was a means to an end. I wanted my license, so I learned
the code.

There were plenty of rude, profane, and generally unpleasant hams on the
air back when all had to pass the test in the offices of the FCC. I
haven't noticed that things are any worse now. About the only real
difference is in the quality of the gear folks are running. It is much
better than the crappy stuff that was on the air back in the early 70's.

-Chuck


Are conversations on repeaters as technical as they were twenty-five years
ago?

Oh, easily. 25 years ago, technical conversations were dominated by such earth
shatteringly important stuff as having a ham down at the repeater site helping
other hams tune their transmitters to be on frequency. Other wonderkind were
hitting the repeater with a full quieting signal, and turning their power up
to try and get a better signal to that DX mobile that breaking up.

If it wasn't that, it was an endless sea of autopatches calling the xyl to tell
her that traffic was bad, could she start dinner... or ordering pizza.


Me? I hear no-codes and nickle extras arguing how long a half wave dipole
should be.

I heard the same things 25 years ago from Generals that got their licenses at
the offices of the FCC.

Even 34 years ago, there were study guides that had questions from the pool
used by the FCC. If you could memorize the answers to those questions, you
were virtually assured of passing. I used the ARRL handbook as my guide.

You didn't answer my questions about the home brew rig you are using.

-Chuck

Chuck Harris wrote in
:

Slow Code wrote:
Chuck Harris wrote in

While you are being all holier than thou, what did you design and
build for your main rig? I'm hoping to be impressed, but expecting to
be disappointed.

Did the code help you with the design?

I took my Advanced class test down at 1919 M street 36 years ago. I
had to sit at the desk and copy one solid minute out of five error
free at 13WPM. I passed it on the first try. I almost failed the
sending test, as I had never spent much time doing that. I had never
made a code contact before my test, and I have only made a couple
since.

The thing about code contacts is they never seem to want to say
anything beyond:

WA3XXX DE W6XX RST 5NN WX FB 73 W6XX SK

How does that help the cause of amateur radio?

I have designed and built numerous rf receivers and transmitters, many
are employed by the US Army for various uses. I have fixed many
different radios from tube stuff through DSP driven affairs.

How exactly did the code help me to do this?

For me code was a means to an end. I wanted my license, so I learned
the code.

There were plenty of rude, profane, and generally unpleasant hams on
the air back when all had to pass the test in the offices of the FCC.
I haven't noticed that things are any worse now. About the only real
difference is in the quality of the gear folks are running. It is
much better than the crappy stuff that was on the air back in the
early 70's.

-Chuck


Are conversations on repeaters as technical as they were twenty-five
years ago?

Oh, easily. 25 years ago, technical conversations were dominated by
such earth shatteringly important stuff as having a ham down at the
repeater site helping other hams tune their transmitters to be on
frequency. Other wonderkind were hitting the repeater with a full
quieting signal, and turning their power up to try and get a better
signal to that DX mobile that breaking up.

If it wasn't that, it was an endless sea of autopatches calling the xyl
to tell her that traffic was bad, could she start dinner... or ordering
pizza.


Me? I hear no-codes and nickle extras arguing how long a half wave
dipole should be.

I heard the same things 25 years ago from Generals that got their
licenses at the offices of the FCC.

Even 34 years ago, there were study guides that had questions from the
pool used by the FCC. If you could memorize the answers to those
questions, you were virtually assured of passing. I used the ARRL
handbook as my guide.

You didn't answer my questions about the home brew rig you are using.

-Chuck


Construction projects you or I have done aren't important. Working to
insure ham radio doesn't turn into CB is important. Agreed?

SC

Slow Code wrote:

Even 34 years ago, there were study guides that had questions from the
pool used by the FCC. If you could memorize the answers to those
questions, you were virtually assured of passing. I used the ARRL
handbook as my guide.

You didn't answer my questions about the home brew rig you are using.

-Chuck


Construction projects you or I have done aren't important. Working to
insure ham radio doesn't turn into CB is important. Agreed?

Oh, I agree, but if you do too, then I have trouble understanding why
you are ragging on folks that are using store bought radios.

-Chuck

"Chuck Harris" wrote in message
...
Slow Code wrote:

Even 34 years ago, there were study guides that had questions from the
pool used by the FCC. If you could memorize the answers to those
questions, you were virtually assured of passing. I used the ARRL
handbook as my guide.

You didn't answer my questions about the home brew rig you are using.

-Chuck


Construction projects you or I have done aren't important. Working to
insure ham radio doesn't turn into CB is important. Agreed?

Oh, I agree, but if you do too, then I have trouble understanding why
you are ragging on folks that are using store bought radios.



Slow Mind does not know that a Real Ham only uses a radio he built
himself. A Real Ham would not use one of those crappy store-bought
things.



-Chuck

"Slow Code" wrote in message
link.net...
Chuck Harris wrote in
:

Slow Code wrote:
Chuck Harris wrote in

While you are being all holier than thou, what did you design and
build for your main rig? I'm hoping to be impressed, but expecting to
be disappointed.

Did the code help you with the design?

I took my Advanced class test down at 1919 M street 36 years ago. I
had to sit at the desk and copy one solid minute out of five error
free at 13WPM. I passed it on the first try. I almost failed the
sending test, as I had never spent much time doing that. I had never
made a code contact before my test, and I have only made a couple
since.

The thing about code contacts is they never seem to want to say
anything beyond:

WA3XXX DE W6XX RST 5NN WX FB 73 W6XX SK

How does that help the cause of amateur radio?

I have designed and built numerous rf receivers and transmitters, many
are employed by the US Army for various uses. I have fixed many
different radios from tube stuff through DSP driven affairs.

How exactly did the code help me to do this?

For me code was a means to an end. I wanted my license, so I learned
the code.

There were plenty of rude, profane, and generally unpleasant hams on
the air back when all had to pass the test in the offices of the FCC.
I haven't noticed that things are any worse now. About the only real
difference is in the quality of the gear folks are running. It is
much better than the crappy stuff that was on the air back in the
early 70's.

-Chuck


Are conversations on repeaters as technical as they were twenty-five
years ago?

Oh, easily. 25 years ago, technical conversations were dominated by
such earth shatteringly important stuff as having a ham down at the
repeater site helping other hams tune their transmitters to be on
frequency. Other wonderkind were hitting the repeater with a full
quieting signal, and turning their power up to try and get a better
signal to that DX mobile that breaking up.

If it wasn't that, it was an endless sea of autopatches calling the xyl
to tell her that traffic was bad, could she start dinner... or ordering
pizza.


Me? I hear no-codes and nickle extras arguing how long a half wave
dipole should be.

I heard the same things 25 years ago from Generals that got their
licenses at the offices of the FCC.

Even 34 years ago, there were study guides that had questions from the
pool used by the FCC. If you could memorize the answers to those
questions, you were virtually assured of passing. I used the ARRL
handbook as my guide.

You didn't answer my questions about the home brew rig you are using.

-Chuck


Construction projects you or I have done aren't important. Working to
insure ham radio doesn't turn into CB is important. Agreed?

SC

SC, tell us all, and don't lie. Do you not agree that a LOT of hams today
were CB'ers in the '70's and chose to advance their radio skills by
advancing to ham radio? If you disagree, then 1) you're a liar, and 2) did
this not help the service? And thusly, if you disagree I suspect you fit
into this mold, and choose to deny your past.

"U-Know-Who" wrote in
:


"Slow Code" wrote in message
link.net...
Chuck Harris wrote in
:

Slow Code wrote:
Chuck Harris wrote in

While you are being all holier than thou, what did you design and
build for your main rig? I'm hoping to be impressed, but expecting
to be disappointed.

Did the code help you with the design?

I took my Advanced class test down at 1919 M street 36 years ago. I
had to sit at the desk and copy one solid minute out of five error
free at 13WPM. I passed it on the first try. I almost failed the
sending test, as I had never spent much time doing that. I had
never made a code contact before my test, and I have only made a
couple since.

The thing about code contacts is they never seem to want to say
anything beyond:

WA3XXX DE W6XX RST 5NN WX FB 73 W6XX SK

How does that help the cause of amateur radio?

I have designed and built numerous rf receivers and transmitters,
many are employed by the US Army for various uses. I have fixed
many different radios from tube stuff through DSP driven affairs.

How exactly did the code help me to do this?

For me code was a means to an end. I wanted my license, so I
learned the code.

There were plenty of rude, profane, and generally unpleasant hams on
the air back when all had to pass the test in the offices of the
FCC. I haven't noticed that things are any worse now. About the
only real difference is in the quality of the gear folks are
running. It is much better than the crappy stuff that was on the
air back in the early 70's.

-Chuck


Are conversations on repeaters as technical as they were twenty-five
years ago?

Oh, easily. 25 years ago, technical conversations were dominated by
such earth shatteringly important stuff as having a ham down at the
repeater site helping other hams tune their transmitters to be on
frequency. Other wonderkind were hitting the repeater with a full
quieting signal, and turning their power up to try and get a better
signal to that DX mobile that breaking up.

If it wasn't that, it was an endless sea of autopatches calling the
xyl to tell her that traffic was bad, could she start dinner... or
ordering pizza.


Me? I hear no-codes and nickle extras arguing how long a half wave
dipole should be.

I heard the same things 25 years ago from Generals that got their
licenses at the offices of the FCC.

Even 34 years ago, there were study guides that had questions from the
pool used by the FCC. If you could memorize the answers to those
questions, you were virtually assured of passing. I used the ARRL
handbook as my guide.

You didn't answer my questions about the home brew rig you are using.

-Chuck


Construction projects you or I have done aren't important. Working to
insure ham radio doesn't turn into CB is important. Agreed?

SC

SC, tell us all, and don't lie. Do you not agree that a LOT of hams
today were CB'ers in the '70's and chose to advance their radio skills
by advancing to ham radio? If you disagree, then 1) you're a liar, and
2) did this not help the service? And thusly, if you disagree I suspect
you fit into this mold, and choose to deny your past.


I'm sure a lot of hams migrated from citizens band, but up until about the
last 16 years, they had to pass a real ham test to get in. Not dumbed
down tests like we have today.

SC

Slow Code wrote:
Chuck Harris wrote in
:
Slow Code wrote:
Chuck Harris wrote in

While you are being all holier than thou, what did you design and
build for your main rig? I'm hoping to be impressed, but expecting to
be disappointed.

Did the code help you with the design?

I took my Advanced class test down at 1919 M street 36 years ago. I
had to sit at the desk and copy one solid minute out of five error
free at 13WPM. I passed it on the first try. I almost failed the
sending test, as I had never spent much time doing that. I had never
made a code contact before my test, and I have only made a couple
since.

The thing about code contacts is they never seem to want to say
anything beyond:

WA3XXX DE W6XX RST 5NN WX FB 73 W6XX SK

That's not the case when I operate Morse Code.

How does that help the cause of amateur radio?

I have designed and built numerous rf receivers and transmitters, many
are employed by the US Army for various uses. I have fixed many
different radios from tube stuff through DSP driven affairs.

How exactly did the code help me to do this?

For me code was a means to an end. I wanted my license, so I learned
the code.

There were plenty of rude, profane, and generally unpleasant hams on
the air back when all had to pass the test in the offices of the FCC.

I don't remember that at all.

I haven't noticed that things are any worse now. About the only real
difference is in the quality of the gear folks are running. It is
much better than the crappy stuff that was on the air back in the
early 70's.

There were good and bad rigs then as well as now.

Are conversations on repeaters as technical as they were twenty-five
years ago?

Oh, easily. 25 years ago, technical conversations were dominated by
such earth shatteringly important stuff as having a ham down at the
repeater site helping other hams tune their transmitters to be on
frequency. Other wonderkind were hitting the repeater with a full
quieting signal, and turning their power up to try and get a better
signal to that DX mobile that breaking up.

If it wasn't that, it was an endless sea of autopatches calling the xyl
to tell her that traffic was bad, could she start dinner... or ordering
pizza.

Me? I hear no-codes and nickle extras arguing how long a half wave
dipole should be.

I heard the same things 25 years ago from Generals that got their
licenses at the offices of the FCC.

Even 34 years ago, there were study guides that had questions from the
pool used by the FCC. If you could memorize the answers to those
questions, you were virtually assured of passing. I used the ARRL
handbook as my guide.

Do you mean the License Manual?

It did not have the exact questions and answers in it.

You didn't answer my questions about the home brew rig you are using.

Construction projects you or I have done aren't important.

Yes they are!

Working to
insure ham radio doesn't turn into CB is important. Agreed?

*BOTH* are important.

If you're not running a homebrew or at least home-assembled rig, who
are you to call someone else an appliance operator?

What good are technical *discussions* if they don't translate into
actual working radio systems?

wrote:
Slow Code wrote:
Chuck Harris wrote in
:
Slow Code wrote:
Chuck Harris wrote in

While you are being all holier than thou, what did you design and
build for your main rig? I'm hoping to be impressed, but expecting to
be disappointed.

Did the code help you with the design?

I took my Advanced class test down at 1919 M street 36 years ago. I
had to sit at the desk and copy one solid minute out of five error
free at 13WPM. I passed it on the first try. I almost failed the
sending test, as I had never spent much time doing that. I had never
made a code contact before my test, and I have only made a couple
since.

The thing about code contacts is they never seem to want to say
anything beyond:

WA3XXX DE W6XX RST 5NN WX FB 73 W6XX SK

That's not the case when I operate Morse Code.

I have listened to hundreds of CW contacts, and the above is mostly the norm.
I exaggerate a bit, but it is rare that anyone talks about anything other
than a few very simple things. I have yet to listen to a complex conversation
on CW... The most complicated thing I have heard is W1AW code practice, and
some of the traffic nets.


How does that help the cause of amateur radio?

I have designed and built numerous rf receivers and transmitters, many
are employed by the US Army for various uses. I have fixed many
different radios from tube stuff through DSP driven affairs.

How exactly did the code help me to do this?

For me code was a means to an end. I wanted my license, so I learned
the code.

There were plenty of rude, profane, and generally unpleasant hams on
the air back when all had to pass the test in the offices of the FCC.

I don't remember that at all.

Well, you wouldn't if you spent all of your time on CW. Things are very
polite on those subbands. If however, you ever listened to 20 meters
around 14.313, you might have a different idea of what ham radio was about.
For some reason that frequency was full of profane garbage mouthed hams,
and lots of infighting in the '70s and '80s.


I haven't noticed that things are any worse now. About the only real
difference is in the quality of the gear folks are running. It is
much better than the crappy stuff that was on the air back in the
early 70's.

There were good and bad rigs then as well as now.

Perhaps, but nothing like some of the very cheap sweep tube transceivers of
the late 1960's, and early '70's. Swans that drifted furiously, and practically
invented the term TVI...

What are the bad HF SSB rigs of today? I would bet that even the absolute
worst is cleaner than anything that was available in the '60's, and '70's...
If only because the regulations got tighter on spurious emissions from new
gear.

....
Even 34 years ago, there were study guides that had questions from the
pool used by the FCC. If you could memorize the answers to those
questions, you were virtually assured of passing. I used the ARRL
handbook as my guide.

Do you mean the License Manual?

Nope, I did my Advanced from basic principles. I used the ARRL Radio
Amateur's Handbook as my guide to rules and regulations. The technical
side of my studying came from the handbook, and a variety of other radio
and engineering sources.


It did not have the exact questions and answers in it.

I looked at friend's copy of one of the the license manuals that was available
after my test, and the questions and answers were very close. It was nothing
like the manuals that are available today, but still so close as to be a cheat.


You didn't answer my questions about the home brew rig you are using.

Construction projects you or I have done aren't important.

Yes they are!

That was Slow Code talking, not me. Are you perhaps confusing attributions?

Working to
insure ham radio doesn't turn into CB is important. Agreed?

*BOTH* are important.

Again, Slow Code...

If you're not running a homebrew or at least home-assembled rig, who
are you to call someone else an appliance operator?

What good are technical *discussions* if they don't translate into
actual working radio systems?

I have built and operated a number of entirely home brew radios. Slow Code
is the one complaining about appliance operators, of which it appears
he is one.

-Chuck

Chuck Harris wrote:
wrote:
Slow Code wrote:
Chuck Harris wrote in
:
Slow Code wrote:
Chuck Harris wrote in

While you are being all holier than thou, what did you design and
build for your main rig? I'm hoping to be impressed, but expecting to
be disappointed.

Did the code help you with the design?

I took my Advanced class test down at 1919 M street 36 years ago. I
had to sit at the desk and copy one solid minute out of five error
free at 13WPM. I passed it on the first try. I almost failed the
sending test, as I had never spent much time doing that. I had never
made a code contact before my test, and I have only made a couple
since.

The thing about code contacts is they never seem to want to say
anything beyond:

WA3XXX DE W6XX RST 5NN WX FB 73 W6XX SK

That's not the case when I operate Morse Code.

I have listened to hundreds of CW contacts, and the above is mostly the norm.
I exaggerate a bit, but it is rare that anyone talks about anything other
than a few very simple things. I have yet to listen to a complex conversation
on CW... The most complicated thing I have heard is W1AW code practice, and
some of the traffic nets.

Listening is one thing, participating is another. I've had many, many
CW QSOs that were far more complex than your example. Discussions of
rigs, antennas, jobs, family, plans for the near future (vacation, home
improvement, etc.), experiences in the other's location, and much more.


The stereotypical hello/goodbye QSO is usually the result of these
factors: poor conditions, unskilled operator(s), nature of the QSO (DX,
contest, just checking a new rig)

Of course somebody has to initiate - to say something beyond hello...

How does that help the cause of amateur radio?

I have designed and built numerous rf receivers and transmitters, many
are employed by the US Army for various uses. I have fixed many
different radios from tube stuff through DSP driven affairs.

How exactly did the code help me to do this?

Well, I don't know about you. But for me, knowing Morse Code meant I
could build and use simple(r) radio systems to try out an idea.

If someone who isn't a trained electronics person wants to design and
build their amateur radio station, what sort of project should they
build? A complete multiband SSB transceiver? Or a simple CW rig?

For me code was a means to an end. I wanted my license, so I learned
the code.

There were plenty of rude, profane, and generally unpleasant hams on
the air back when all had to pass the test in the offices of the FCC.

I don't remember that at all.

Well, you wouldn't if you spent all of your time on CW.

Good point!

Things are very
polite on those subbands.

Isn't that a reason to promote the mode?

If however, you ever listened to 20 meters
around 14.313, you might have a different idea of what ham radio was about.
For some reason that frequency was full of profane garbage mouthed hams,
and lots of infighting in the '70s and '80s.

Sure. But how many hams were involved, out of the hundreds of thousands
on the air?

I haven't noticed that things are any worse now. About the only real
difference is in the quality of the gear folks are running. It is
much better than the crappy stuff that was on the air back in the
early 70's.

There were good and bad rigs then as well as now.

Perhaps, but nothing like some of the very cheap sweep tube transceivers of
the late 1960's, and early '70's. Swans that drifted furiously, and practically
invented the term TVI...

Sure - but remember that those rigs were designed 40+ years ago. They
should be judged by the standards of their time.

What are the bad HF SSB rigs of today? I would bet that even the absolute
worst is cleaner than anything that was available in the '60's, and '70's...
If only because the regulations got tighter on spurious emissions from new
gear.

It depends on what you consider "bad". Last FD we had some rigs that
were unusable because they put out wideband phase noise that messed up
stations on adjacent bands! Those rigs might have met the letter of the
law when new, but they sure made a lot of hash in the real world.

OTOH, serviceability of many ham rigs is very low. Even if you can deal
with SMT, a lot of them use house-numbered parts that become unobtanium
in a few years.
...
Even 34 years ago, there were study guides that had questions from the
pool used by the FCC. If you could memorize the answers to those
questions, you were virtually assured of passing. I used the ARRL
handbook as my guide.

Do you mean the License Manual?

Nope, I did my Advanced from basic principles. I used the ARRL Radio
Amateur's Handbook as my guide to rules and regulations. The technical
side of my studying came from the handbook, and a variety of other radio
and engineering sources.

Same here - all the way to Extra in 1970.

It did not have the exact questions and answers in it.

I looked at friend's copy of one of the the license manuals that was available
after my test, and the questions and answers were very close. It was nothing
like the manuals that are available today, but still so close as to be a cheat.

There were a couple of different license manuals available back then.

The ARRL LM was a reprint of FCC's study guide. Those FCC study guides
were produced by FCC to indicate the areas of knowledge you needed to
have for the test. They were essay format even though the tests were
multiple-choice.

AMECO and others rewrote them into multiple choice format.

A fellow named Dick Bash stationed himself outside FCC offices and
bought information from people who had just taken the tests. He was
able to recreate a pretty close version of the actual test by that
method. FCC decided not to prosecute him even though he published books
that were very close to the actual tests.

Then it all became academic with the VE system.

You didn't answer my questions about the home brew rig you are using.

Construction projects you or I have done aren't important.

Yes they are!

That was Slow Code talking, not me. Are you perhaps confusing attributions?

I was responding to both of you. I disagree with "Slow Code"'s claim.

Working to
insure ham radio doesn't turn into CB is important. Agreed?

*BOTH* are important.

Again, Slow Code...

Yup.

If you're not running a homebrew or at least home-assembled rig, who
are you to call someone else an appliance operator?

What good are technical *discussions* if they don't translate into
actual working radio systems?

I have built and operated a number of entirely home brew radios.

Exactly. *You* are not an appliance operator - nor are you calling
anybody else an appliance operator.

Slow Code
is the one complaining about appliance operators, of which it appears
he is one.

Exactly. I didn't mean to imply that *you* were an appliance operator,
Chuck. Just that if "Slow Code" is going to call other people names, he
should be ready to back up his claims with actions. So far, we see
nothing.

Of course, one should not take "Slow Code" too seriously - if at all.

73 de Jim, N2EY