If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
 

Well there ya have it folks.... 50wpm saves lives. So how does it work?
Turn up the speaker really loud and place it [face down] on the person's
chest, while
an op in South America tapped out universally accepted words that would
mimic an atrioventricular rhythm?

Wrong theatre? OK...

Maybe if a person is trapped on a sinking ship in the Indian Ocean you, in
Siberia, could tap out a message to someone in Madagascar [who happened to
be awake at an odd hour] and that person also owned a large SAR chopper,
they could jump in it, saving the time of relaying to anyone else, and go
pluck them from certain death?

OH, or better yet... if your neighbor is also a ham.... and your wife fell
over with an AMI, you could call your neighbor, give him a freq, then the
two of you
get set up and running, then you can send a 50wpm message asking your
neighbor to call an ambulance? BTW, if the phones are down, you ask him to
get in his
car and drive down to the local EMS agency, and bring them to you. Life
saved!
I'm impressed.
rb



"Dave Oldridge" wrote in message
9...
(Dirk) wrote in :

Ham's care more about operating appliances than knowing how to save a
lives.

The person would not die on my watch, as long as I could get a signal out
and someone on the other end could copy it. I'd probably have to practice
a bit to get back up over 50wpm, but I can do 25 or 30 all day long.


--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667

If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
 

Not true.... commercial stations ID with CW all the time. It's great for
zero-priority use.
rb


"Alun L. Palmer" wrote in message
. ..
"clfe" wrote in
:

"Alun L. Palmer" wrote in message
. ..
wrote in
s.com:

If you asked the same question to someone who had only passed 5 wpm
and then, like me, never used it, then I suspect the victim wouldn't
make it. But then in most countries there is NO morse code testing any
more, so there are plenty of hams now who've never learnt atall. For
decades there have been no code VHF hams in most countries anyway.


To "some" extent, I "may" have to disagree. I held a class once for "No
Code Tech" and one of the guys - a man in his 70s asked if he could go
for the code test even though I wasn't teaching code. He said he had
learned it years ago in the service - but may be rusty. Let me tell you
- when he was done testing, he had PERFECT copy. Was he practicing all
along? We'll never know - nor did I ask. He has since passed on. Some
people DO have a good memory and retain quite well. Others - lose
things almost immediately if not used. Some of us, it takes a while to
lose it and we usually do.

Lou




It is possible that someone could learn at 5wpm, not use it for years, and
still be able to use it, but I wouldn't want to bet my life on it.

More to the point is I can't magine a scenario in which CW would be the
only mode available, and that hams are about the only remaining users of
CW.

If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
 

Ha... yeah, only a ham radio operator would use a non-digital camera.....
and then it would have to be a daguerreotype.
rb


"Brian Denley" wrote in message
...
an old friend wrote:
Slow Code wrote:
(Fred McKenzie) wrote in
:

In article , "Alun L.
Palmer" wrote:

"If you came upon a drowning man, and you had to choose whether to
save him or photograph his demise, what kind of film would you use?"


Getting rid of CW is like choosing the kind of film.

Ham radio is drowning and the anti-code hams want us to think
tossing it bricks will make it float better. Dumbing things down is
never an improvement.
nobody is talking about dummbing anything down

you are
indeed you advocate dummbing down radio and giving hf only to the
unintelgent


SC

Knowing CW is NO indication of any level of intelligence, technical or
otherwise!

BTW film is seeing it's last days too. Ask Kodak!

--
Brian Denley
http://home.comcast.net/~b.denley/index.html

Morris Code -plus- Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission -and- Semaphore Signals ? Do They Defining Amateur Radio ?
 

Why would they be? 10th graders aren't interested in listening to a bunch of
60yr old men act like 8th graders.
:-)
rb

"Jimmie D" wrote in message
.. .


Yes. That's understandable. Hams these days don't want to act like
hams,
they like to be appliance operators. So kids don't see that CW is
important and fun. All they see is hams gabbing on a microphone like any
CB'er can do.

SC

Actually a lot of tghe boy scouts know morse code, they still arent
intersted in ham radio.

Morse Code -plus- Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission -and- Semaphore Signals ? Do They Defining Amateur Radio ?
 

LOL

"Telamon" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Cecil Moore wrote:

Al Klein wrote:
You can hear the change in noise as a carrier goes on and off. It's
extremely difficult to copy high speed CW like that if the signal is
strong, but a weak signal or slower CW is just as easy to copy as
noise as it is to copy as a pure tone. T1 doesn't mean uncopyable, it
just means ragged tone.

So now amateurs and SWL's should be Morse code proficient
not only using tones but using the swishing sound made when
a BFO is not present?

The swishing sound is coming from aliens. Try making the same sounds
back to them. You might get a more intelligent conversation going than
the one in this cross posted thread.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
 

..... yup, and to complete the circle we should also learn both the older and
newer versions of it, because you never know when some
poor 90yr old ex-radio op is gonna fire up his spark-gap and send out a
distress call using non-international code.....
It's all about being prepared, ppl....
rb


"Tom" wrote in message
...

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
.net...
Al Klein wrote:
How honest is it to memorize answers to a test?

How honest is it to memorize Morse code? Or should
Morse code be derived from first principles?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Lets face it folks to be a well rounded Ham one should learn CW. You
never know when it will come in handy. I am not that good at it, maybe a
step or less above a Novice, but I like to fool around with it. One ought
to think about learning it in do time even though it is not required.
My 2 cents worth.

If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
 

Yep, and a single point mentioning that if it were anything other than a
simple hobby, your arguments would matter.

But since it isn't...


rb


"Al Klein" wrote in message
...
On 2 Aug 2006 20:05:21 -0700, wrote:

Al Klein wrote:
On 23 Jul 2006 07:26:05 -0700, wrote:

how balanced is to to place CW over all over ham knowledge?

No one is, any more than by requiring people to know the law one is
putting the law "over all ham knowledge".

CW is pass/fail. To fail CW denies all HF privs (except for Alaska).

Theory is also pass/fail. To fail to get the required number of
correct answers denies all privs - HF, VHF, UHF ...

There is no pass/fail practical for SSB, FM, AM, FSTV, SSTV, RTTY, FAX,
Packet, PSK, etc, etc, etc.

There's no test at all, so those claiming that the reason they want a
test for CW dropped because it's not "modern" have no argument - they
want no test for FSTV, SSTV, RTTY (which is also pretty old hat),
packet, PSK, etc. They want no test at all, unless they can memorize
a few answers to "pass" it.

How progressive is it?

How progressive is it to not require people to know ... oh, yeah,
that's progressive, since the new thing is to hand out licenses
because people have some kind of "right" to get on the air.

Then why is it with the prospect of losing the CW Exam, that you'se
guys want to "beef up" the written exams?

We don't.

That is not true.

Sure it is. "Beefing up" the written exam is a counter to "drop CW
because it's old fashioned". If you want modern you want the testing
to be turned from CW to modern modes. Those who want CW dropped just
want what they can't memorize dropped so they can get a ticket without
really being tested on anything. Actually knowing anything is so old
fashioned, isn't it?

We want to get back the level it used to be before it was
dumbed down to the point that you could almost pass it if you never
heard of the FCC, ham radio or electronics.

You're referring to the Conditional license, right?

No, I'm not addressing *where* the test is held at all - I'm
addressing *whether* there's any real test, which there isn't, except
for CW right now. Spitting out something you memorized is only a test
of memory.

Just by guessing at the
answers. It used to require that you draw (was it 3?) schematics.

You tell me? Was it 2 or was it 3?

I don't remember after almost 50 years - but I could still draw them
today, and it's not a test of remembering what's on the test, it's a
test of knowing what's in a radio.

From scratch. Let's see how many people could do that today. A
Colpitts oscillator, a Hartley oscillator and some other circuit that
I've forgotten at the moment.

You should self-modify your license and cease amateur operation until
you remember.

Why? Testing isn't about memory, it's about knowledge.

The amateur is self-policing, and you no longer meet your own standard.

Sure I do. The test wasn't to remember what circuits to draw, it was
to draw them. And I can draw them any time.

They're still as relevant today as they were 50 years ago.

Other things are relevant today that weren't even known 50 years ago.

So let's have them on the test.

Oops, that's right - no more relevant testing, isn't that what people
are asking for? Just give me the answers so I can memorize them and
pick them out on the test.

how loyal is it to denny the nation the benifits of allowing more
operators

What "benefits" does the country get from more people using radios
who
don't know the first thing about them? (Whatever "denny" means.)

It's always been that way. You could even buy Heathkits already
assembled.

But you had to actually *know* a little theory to use one legally.

No you didn't.

Yes, you did - you had to pass a test to show that you did. All you
have to do now is memorize a few answers.

I used radios in the military. I never used a CW key in the military.
I never jammed another operator, although Brandywine asked me to reduce
power once.

But you had to learn how to use the radios. Hams today don't - they
memorize a few answers, buy equipment and get on the air - with no
understanding of what they're doing, and no desire to learn.

That's exactly what he's talking about. Give someone a radio and a
"license" to use it and he'll "acquire the skill to be ready for
service to country and community". That's what Mark said, right up
above. How does one acquire skill by playing radio?

We self-train.

You may, but I can see from many of the comments that have been posted
here that a lot of people don't. They don't want to learn, they want
to get on the air. Period.

It is a continuous process of improvements. You
mistakenly believe that at the conclusion of The Exam, the "operator"
is 100%.

And you mistakenly believe that most hams today want to learn how to
operate properly. Listen to 75 some evenings.

But that's what Mark and his ilk want - we'll have "skilled operators"
if we allow people to buy radios and put them on the air with no skill
or knowledge. By osmosis? Or by magic?

I've listened to emergency responders on a scanner before. They don't
use Morse Code, they don't use CW. They use FM/Voice. Somehow they
are effective at it, not having taken a Morse Code test. How can this
be?

They were trained.

So you'd get a license not knowing CW, build a radio (you couldn't buy
one then) and ... what? Sit and look at it. Some things are just too
obvious to need mentioning.

Please diagram that radio from "Scratch."

Any time. Filter or phasing? BFO receive or quadrature detection?
I've designed them, built them and used them, and still could.

Evidently not, or I'd be the only one in the world advocating that a
test should actually test for something. There are actually millions
of us who don't think lack of instant gratification is the worst thing
in the world.

Dial 911 and tell the operator that you don't need instant
gratification, take your time.

Very bad example of an attempt at sarcasm and a misunderstanding of
"gratification".

What next? DXCC awards for those who *want* to work 100 countries?

You seem to be confused. DXCC is an award offered by the ARRL, not the
FCC. It has nothing to do with licensing.

But an award for wanting has to do with "I want it so it's my right to
have it", which is what I'm talking about. No one has any "right" to
get on the air.

If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
 

Won't work.... memorizing is learning. You know where you live because you
memorized it. You know what a diode is because you read it somewhere.
Reading a book or taking a class on radio would require you retain
[memorize] what you are told or read.

The information on radio should be kept secret, and the real test would be
this:
Here's a radio. Take it with you. Come back in 30 days and explain how it
works.

Then you get your owner's license, and can buy a radio.

Next test is to listen on-air to the CW [as there is no reason to use phone,
if you already speak a language.] and figure out the code
without any text or charts.

Then you get your operator's license.

When you can do that, then you can act like you've accomplished something.

rb



"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
. ..
K4YZ wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Then why isn't knowledge of Morse code and the CW mode
sufficient? Why must someone be forced to memorize
the individual characters?

Probably, Cecil, since it would then make it difficult to pass the
test.

You missed the point. The Morse code skill exam requires
memorizing the characters. Memorizing is being condemned
as an evil act. Since memorizing is evil, the Morse code
skill exam should be the first thing to be eliminated.
--
73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
 

This reply has absolutely no significance or meaning. It was just a good
place to add a reply.
Helps even out the sawtooth shape of the posts as I scroll down them.
rb


"an old friend" wrote in message
oups.com...

Bill Turner wrote:
ORIGINAL MESSAGE:

On 4 Aug 2006 14:18:12 -0700, "an old freind"
wrote:

i don't it was pretty for me one day work on one of these bike races
the served organizers heard the reapteer CW id asked what it read I
said hame were no longer required to be to read them and I could not,
time change ignorance fixed

------------ REPLY SEPARATOR ------------

Text like the above is what comes out when I try to copy CW.
can you still read it when you do it

Bill, W6WRT
20 WPM Extra, but just barely

If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
 

From: Woody on Tues, Aug 22 2006 12:50 pm


The Titanic knew their coordinates.... didn't slow the influx of H20....
The responding ships had radios too... didn't turn their props any
faster....

The year was 1912...NINETY-FOUR YEARS AGO.

Answer to the question.... there was no system then.

The predecessor organization for SOLAS had not yet made 500 KHz
the international distress and safety frequency. "SOLAS" is an
acronym for Safety Of Life At Sea.

CW can punch through if there is a human on the other end, where GPS/packet
says 'no signal'....
GPS is faster, where CW takes longer....
so one is obsolete, the other inferior.

The International Maritime Community settled the 'morse issue.'
They DROPPED it in favor of GMDSS (Global Marine Distress and
Safety System), a semi-automated system which can be operated
by anyone of the bridge crew on a ship (it needs little
instruction on use). GMDSS messages are automatically routed
to ground stations (note plural) via satellite relay. Those
ground stations can coordinate rescue missions.

A shipboard GMDS station doesn't HAVE to have a GPS receiver
to feed it position data but all those which have one have
no complaint about this alleged "loss of signal." Position
data can be entered manually to a GMDS station. The bridge
crew will have a running record of the ship's position in
either event.

The United States Coast Guard has DROPPED continuous
monitoring of the 500 KHz distress frequency some years
ago. Several other countries have done so.

A following question is WHO will you believe on the efficacy
of communications? The entire international maritime
community or a bunch of myth-happy amateur morsemen?

In a sentient, intelligent mind, ANY form of communications
is good for use in matters involving life and death. The
FCC thinks (rightly) so and says as much in Part 1 of Title
47 C.F.R. [Part 97 is not the entirety of regulations on
amateur radio in the USA]

--------------------

In a preceding message set:

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
Dave wrote:
David G. Nagel wrote:

A ham operator intercepted the SOS from the RMS Titanic.

Yep!! It happened once!

It happened NINETY-FOUR YEARS AGO.

If CW had not existed at the time, how would things have
turned out differently? If the present GPS-based system
had existed at the time, how would things have turned out?

I have to fault Cecil's erudite and intelligent mindset
on that...although his motor looks good in his picture. :-)

One CANNOT base any intelligent argument about ALTERNATE
universes of different times and places. It hasn't
happened in our present time-space continuum.

In 1912 "radio" was in its infancy, having been first shown
and demonstrated as a communications medium just 16 years
prior. There were extremely few ships which had vacuum
tubes as active devices to aid those first "radios." The
tube was only 6 years old, the triode invented in 1906.

To argue about "GPS" (which is not an integral part of
GMDSS but can be) versus morse code is ludicrous. GPS
relies on a time-frequency standard within each of the
24 GPS satellites which is comparable to the best time-
frequency source at NIST. [the quartz crystal
oscillator wasn't yet invented in 1912] Each satellite
needs solid-state circuitry to make it function within
a relatively small package. [the best "solid-state"
device of 1912 was a galena crystal detector with its
famous "cat's whisker"] The whole GPSS needed rocketry
advanced enough to put all the satellites into orbit.
[rocketry wasn't perfected for that purpose until after
WW2] Those rockets needed launch guidance aided by
radar systems. [radar, or rather a primitive system of
it, wasn't tried until 1932 in a harbor area of France]

However, "morse code" was used in the landline Morse-Vail
Telegraph System working before the American Civil War
and simple enough to turn a spark transmitter on and off
as on the Titanic.

Which system is presently inferior and virtually obsolete?

On-off keyed CW.

Except in the mindset of the ARRL. The IARU knows better.