Is Morse code possible for all?

[kc0ukk]

The Morse code discussions on this group seem to revolve around the necessity of Morse code to amatuer radio. I would like to bypass that discussion and ask if it is even possible for most people to learn Morse code.

The argument is often presented as one of effort; that is, if a person is sufficiently motivated, he can learn Morse code. For the sake of discussion, I would like to challeng that assumption.

If we look at the numbers, we see that there are approximately one million amatuer operators out of a population of 300 million in the USA. Out of those one million operators, less than half have mastered Morse code. In other words, 0.3% of the population are licensed amatuers and only 0.015% are Morse proficient.

Given those numbers, I think it is fair to say that Morse operators are a very exclusive class of people. We could debate these numbers, but I'll readily admit that I'm not an expert and have done only cursory research. If you have better numbers, I ask you to present them.

Of this self-selected population of operators, less than half have learned Morse code. I think it would be instructive to attempt to understand why this is so.

Many who have learned Morse code, devoted untold hours, mostly unpleasant, mastering the skill. These dedicated operators, know the sense of accomplishment that their efforts have produced, and have received in turn, the thrill of those distant contacts under the most adverse conditions. They know that they can get through when most others cannot. They also realize that those who have not learned Morse code will miss these opportunities, and as a result, are unlikely to fully appreciate the amatuer service.

But is it true that all of those who fail to learn Morse code fail to learn becasue they fail to apply themselves with sufficient dedication? Is is possible that some simply lack the ability to learn Morse code?

Chuck Adams claims (no doubt correctly) that he learned Morse code at 13wpm in two days time. I think most, if not all of us , stand in awe of such an accomplishment. Others amongst us, have spent months if not years learning Morse code at a best speed of 5wpm. What causes these descrepencies?

Obviously, there is a talent involved here, a talent that involves both auditory and brain filtering capabilities. One who cannot hear, will not learn Morse code through listening, but will all those who have no hearing impairment do so as well?

We all know that the brain performs automatic filtering of all sensory inputs. When it comes to auditory input, the brain filters the sound of a jet engine from our language processing center. We never try to understand what the roar of a jet engine is trying to say, yet it is not excluded from our concious awareness either. We still here the jet engine, it's just processed differently than the spoken word would be processed.

This filtering is, for the most part automatic; we don't tell our brains to ignore sounds to which we are not interested, but we can tell our brains to focus upon sounds of interest. Even when directed to do so, however, the brain will not direct the sound of an engine to our language processing centers. If we wish that to happen, we will will need to tape the sound and replay that tape repeatedly while we manually and awkwardly attempt to decipher any possible language artifacts from the jet noise.

Listening to CW is similar to listening to a jet engine. The sound of CW is not automatically directed to our language processing center, in fact it is filtered by our brains from that center. By putting on our headphones and focusing our attention on the CW, we are specifically informing our brains not to ignore the sound, but to bring it to our center of consciousness such that we may examine the sounds for content.

Which tools do we have availble to examine the sound of CW? Do all of the sounds present at our headphones make it to our brain? Do all of the sounds that made it to our brain become conscious? Or is there unrecoverable filtering done somewhere between our ears and our brain?

Finally, even if (very doubtful) all the artifacts of the sounds make to our conscious minds, what tools do we then use to map those sounds to recover the embedded intelligibility?

Many of you amatuers have taken (or given) Morse classes in the military. You and your fellow students were all pre-screened for the ability to hear and decipher Morse code. What success rate did you experience amongst your peers? Were all students expected to pass the course or were a certain number expected to fail?

Did you or some of your peers excel during the class? Did others struggle and barely pass? What did the bell curve look like? What was the reaction of your peers to those who did well and to those who didn't do well?

Do any of you know of research that covers Morse training? Does dyslexia play a role? What about tone deafness?

Any comments appreciated.

[wb7dmx]

yes morse code is possible for all, and yes there is a special requirement needed to learn it.

1. one must have a sincere desire to learn it.
2. one must not give up on it.
3. one must be dedicated to steadily practice with it on
a regular schedule
4. practice, practice and more practice.

it is possible for all to learn it if they realy want to.

[NV5E]

Anyone who has mastered speaking a language has the innate ability to learn the code. Like music or language, though, we all have different levels of ability. Twenty to thirty minutes twice a day for a month is sufficient for most people who want to pass element 1. Some can do it faster and a few may take a little longer. Barring some physical limitation, any ham can learn the code if they have a sincere desire to.
Rob
NV5E

[NN4RH]

Quote[/b] ]Many who have learned Morse code, devoted untold hours, mostly unpleasant, mastering the skill.

This is a silly assertion.

It does not take "untold hours" if you want to accomplish it, and it is not "unpleasant", unless you make it so yourself.


Just another attempt to rationalize some sort of "disability".

Gimme Gimme Gimme Gimme. I wanna tawk on duh raydeo.

If anyone doesnt want to learn Morse code, that's fine. Just be an adult about it and accept the consequences: No Morse code, no HF priviledges under the current rules.

You want HF priviledges then either pass the trivial 5 wpm test, or wait for it to go away. It really doesn't matter which.

[KE5FRF]

A very well written and thought out post.

But you do know that people are not going to give you a pass on starting a code/no code thread just because it's written well, right? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

One thing you said, though, I disagree with...you said that 1/2 of the licensed amateurs have mastered the code. No, I don't think that is correct...A better way of saying it would be 1/2 of licensed amateurs half passed the code test. To master something, you must be absolutely proficient at it. The current test only requires 5 WPM, and I have no idea how many current HF privelaged licensees passed under that requirement, but I would venture to say at least half. And a great number are licensed under the old (13 wpm?) for Advanced. Scant few current Extras got their license under the 20 WPM umbrella. I have no idea the numbers for that.

It is just my opinion that 5 WPM is NOT mastering the code...It is learning it well enough to pass a test, and that test isn't even a 100% copy test.

And I think at least half of the folks out there who got in under WHATEVER requirement, be it 5,13, or 20 WPM, only learned enough to pass the test, and then abandoned CW in favor of other modes.

Well, that is their choice, and Who am I to say anything bad about that? But I will say that I don't believe that most of these folks ever MASTERED the code.

I have been operating almost exclusively CW for going on 8 months now, passing under the 5 WPM, and now am up to 20 WPM+.....And I won't declare that I have MASTERED the code yet.


So, the point is that the 5 WPM requirement is not much at all...Only a token test to show SOME LEVEL of proficiency.

It is kind of like taking a Driving Test by only going around the block and performing the parallel parking maneuver. yes, you may demonstrate an ability to control a car, obeying traffic laws, etc.....But I would not venture to say everyone who passes the driver's test is a good driver YET. That is because you have only tested for a small segment of driving scenarios. You haven't demonstrated alertness in the event of a close call, or road hazards, or interstate traffic, etc.

5 WPM is no different than driving a car around in a parking lot.

So, IMHO, it is not that big of a deal to learn 5 WPM.

But I do agree that there are many people who simply never will have the ability to use code proficiently.
I think you described the mechanics of the brain very well.

But I think 5 WPM is something most anyone with good hearing can learn well enough to pass the test.

[af2cw]

Quote[/b] (kc0ukk @ Sep. 24 2006,12:13)]Many who have learned Morse code, devoted untold hours, mostly unpleasant, mastering the skill.
First, the time frame to learn Morse code varies from individual to individual. #Some take a few days, some take years and the rest are somewhere in between. #Some have not made demands on the family as to what is required for them to study, after all it is a hobby. #Others, like myself, were self taught, no classes, no Elmer to help. #Some are musically inclined which, from what I've been told, helps in learning Morse code. #As for being unpleasant, I wouldn't say that. #Like anything, learning is half the battle. #It may have been tough at times, but knowing what was waiting for me after I pass the test made it worth the while.

Quote[/b] ]Listening to CW is similar to listening to a jet engine. #The sound of CW is not automatically directed to our language processing center, in fact it is filtered by our brains from that center.
Actually, once learned and used, CW is a language, just like Spanish, German, Italian, Russian, etc. #So you may be working on the computer and hear some code on the radio, you can listen in on the conversation while performing the computer work. #However, to learn the code simply to pass the test and then never use it, well the code was never really learned in the first place. #

As for tone deafness, we all can hear some tones, unless totally deaf. #It is up to the individual to set the software that he/she may be using to a comfortable level. #I have tinnitus, so with the constant ringing in my ears, and a loss of the higher tones I know that I need to set my radio to a lower tone in order for me to hear the code comfortably. #I realized this fact when I was first learning the code. #

Granted, learning the code is not a cake walk for everyone. #Spending countless hours per day trying to learn it is not productive. #Spending 30 mins per day should be sufficient. #Letting the family know that you need 30 mins of silence, or at least being able to be alone in a room for 30 mins, is not that big of a deal when explained why you need the time. #If the family needs you for those 30 mins, then schedule it for a later or earlier time. #Listening to tapes/CD's while driving to work makes little sense to me. #You need to devote your awareness to the task of driving, not paying attention to what letter was sent. #Once you've learned the code to a point of recognizing the letters, then you may be able to listen to tapes/CD's to practice. #Total quiet and being alone, if you are doing it yourself, is required in order to concentrate on the task of learning the code. #There is nothing magic about learning it.

[kc0ukk]

Quote[/b] (wb7dmx @ Sep. 24 2006,09:34)]yes morse code is possible for all, and yes there is a special requirement needed to learn it.

1. one must have a sincere desire to learn it.
2. one must not give up on it.
3. one must be dedicated to steadily practice with it #on
# a regular schedule
4. #practice, practice and more practice.

it is possible for all to learn it if they realy want to.
Forgive me, but may I ask the basis for your conclusion? Amatuer operators often limit their research, sensibly, to other operators who have also learned Morde code.

Have you had opportunities to talk with those who were unable to master Morse?

[ab0wr]

Quote[/b] ]Many who have learned Morse code, devoted untold hours, mostly unpleasant, mastering the skill.

This statement calls into question the rest of your analysis.

Quote[/b] ]We all know that the brain performs automatic filtering of all sensory inputs. When it comes to auditory input, the brain filters the sound of a jet engine from our language processing center. #We never try to understand what the roar of a jet engine is trying to say, yet it is not excluded from our concious awareness either. #We still here the jet engine, it's just processed differently than the spoken word would be processed.[/quotes]

It's a matter of patterns. A roaring jet engine, with no discernable patterns, provides nothing to process.

My father, a mechanic with over 45 years of experience, could listen to a roaring diesel engine in a tractor and identify all kinds of problems just from the discernable patterns in the sound.

[quote]Even when directed to do so, however, the brain will not direct the sound of an engine to our language processing centers.

It *will* get directed to the pattern recognition buffers in the brain, however -- unless it is something considered "unpleasant" by the listener. The language processing occurs after the pattern recognition. It is an "association" made in memory.

How many people know ditty's in foreign languages where they have no idea of the actual meaning? I can remember a song in the late 60's or early 70's in Japanese that people could repeat endlessly (I think it may have even made it to No. 1) - with exactly no knowlege of Japanese. Recognizing the pattern, learning it, and then repeating it was done by thousands of teenagers. Guess what it is easy to do after that?

Quote[/b] ]Does dyslexia play a role? What about tone deafness?

Now you are grasping at straws. Does dyslexia play a role in young children learning a spoken language? I've never read anything that proposes this since dyslexia is a problem with the visual interface. What do you mean by tone deafness? The ability to tell two different tones apart? Does tone deafness prevent someone from telling the different signals a train engine makes with its engine? Or does it only make it difficult to recognize two different engines making the same signal?

What percentage of the population suffers from dyslexia and tone deafness anyway? If you are looking to these as reasons why most people don't learn Morse Code, you are going to be sadly let down since the majority of the population does NOT suffer from these conditions.

Anything you go into with an attitude of it being "unpleasant" is hard to learn. Trying to learn something like Morse Code as a written language makes it even tougher.

If you've ever carried around a bit of song or advertising jingle in your head, playing it over and over again, there isn't any reason you can't learn Morse Code. Would you like to tell us just what percentage of the population this has never happened to?

tim ab0wr

[w4hwd]

Where's the guy with the avatar of the dead horse being beat to death again? Would be perfect for this thread.

Never a shortage of people coming on here trying to rationalize the code into non-existence as a requirement for a license.

The code requirement for extra is now down to 5wpm, but some won't be satisfied until it's gone all together.

Once the code is eliminated as a license requirement, what's the next license requirement you're going to try to rationalize away? Multiple choice memorization as being too tough for the ADHD afflicted, perhaps?

[ai4ep]

...all nonsense aside, it really just it settled on whether the individual WANTS to learn or not.

The same principal can apply to learning a foreign language, does that individual WANT to learn a foreign language, or just barely enough to "squeeze " by...carrying a paperback book in one hand with well used scenerios of english and what ever the other language is .

Morse code is used universally all over the world, it crosses all language barriers. No other form of communication can do that.

Willingness to LEARN is what is all boils down to.

winners never quit learning
losers never quit griping

[wb7dmx]

Quote[/b] (kc0ukk @ Sep. 24 2006,10:19)]Quote[/b] (wb7dmx @ Sep. 24 2006,09:34)]yes morse code is possible for all, and yes there is a special requirement needed to learn it.

1. one must have a sincere desire to learn it.
2. one must not give up on it.
3. one must be dedicated to steadily practice with it #on
# a regular schedule
4. #practice, practice and more practice.

it is possible for all to learn it if they realy want to.
Forgive me, but may I ask the basis for your conclusion? #Amatuer operators often limit their research, sensibly, to other operators who have also learned Morde code.

Have you had opportunities to talk with those who were unable to master Morse?
first, I have never met anyone who has mastered the mores code, that's sending and receiving it both, but then that would depend on your definition of the word mastered.
as for everything you said, I think it is all plain nonsense and you just are too lazy to learn it or just plain don't want too.
get over it.
its just a hobby, ether do it and enjoy it or don't, its your choice.

[kb9rqz]

the simple answer to your question I think is frakly no not everyone can

I spent 5 years in my teens back in the 70 trying on a regaular with the aid of licensed code tested hams I took more than 100 code test (then the final straw was I could never pass both transmisting and freceiving on a single day) so for today I would have to say it is basicaly impossible for to USE the mode, althought if I had the sort of time I hade 30 years ago I might manage to pass a test on the subject

what proportion suffers as badly as myself few I grant you, ut how mcuh suffering is enough to inflict and how can we imagine it does not affect the service (or the hobby as you lie)

[ab9lz]

Quote[/b] (w4hwd @ Sep. 24 2006,10:21)]Where's the guy with the avatar of the dead horse being beat to death again? Would be perfect for this thread.

Never a shortage of people coming on here trying to rationalize the code into non-existence as a requirement for a license.

The code requirement for extra is now down to 5wpm, but some won't be satisfied until it's gone all together.

Once the code is eliminated as a license requirement, what's the next license requirement you're going to try to rationalize away? Multiple choice memorization as being too tough for the ADHD afflicted, perhaps?
I'm quite tone deaf, and probably have a pretty good case of ADHD going, if anything, sitting down for a nightly round of 17wpm morse helps me.

My so called afflictions just make me have to work harder at it than most... and not half as hard as the many truly disabled hams out there. Desire really is the only requirement.

73 Mark.

[WA9ZZZ]

This is a difficult question to answer. If someone passes the code test then you've proven it was possible for that person to learn the code. Proving a negative is difficult. Just how would you prove that someone can't learn the Morse code. All the OP demonstrated is that a lot of people don't learn it, not that anyone necessarily can't learn it.

Nevertheless, based on my experiences teaching code, I expect that the fraction of people who can not learn the Morse code is quite small. I have tried several methods of instruction. My current method has been 100% successful in teaching students all the characters at 5 wpm. The total number of my students is quite small, less than a dozen, so even at 100% success rate the statistics aren't significant.

20-30 minutes a day for about a month is the amount needed for all the students I have worked with. That amounts to about 15 hours. So far no one complained about how unpleasant those hours were.

[N2RJ]

Learning ANYTHING is different from one person to another.

That doesn't mean that they can't learn it.

Yes, Morse does require learning to "play by ear" and if you have musical inclination you can learn it.

But like anything you will only learn it well if you practice.

Some people are blessed with natural ability, others are horrible and it will take them a longer time to acquire a certain skill.

To say that we should get rid of the code because some people have a difficult time learning it is ridiculous. We might as well get rid of all testing if that's the case, because some people will always learn slower than others.

If you want something badly enough you will work for it.

I hear similar complaining from college students about math and computer science (programming) courses. Of course some students will have a harder time learning those subjects than others. Does it mean we should just exempt them from that requirement for a degree?

[ka6gjn]

I am convinced that anybody who has the ability to learn a language has the ability to learn Morse code. It is, indeed, much like learning another language, but much easier. It is also true that some people have an easier time than others: In my experience, musicians do indeed have an advantage. I don't doubt that it's easier at an early age. I learned at about 13 years of age, in Boy Scouts. So for some it may be harder. But impossible? No. I know too many "old folks" who did it.

Tone deafness? That means you can't detect the difference in pitches, not that you can't hear tones. In fact, since the tone doesn't change, Morse code should be easier than language for a truly tone deaf person. True tone deafness, BTW is an extremely rare condition. If you're deaf to a particular tone, then once again, Morse code actually has an advantage over normal speech because it is so easy just to tune to a different pitch. Hard of hearing? turn up the volume.

Your brain assigning a particular sound to the language portion or something else is not a fixed, mechanical function. We all consciously choose to listen or not listen to particular sounds. If you've ever listened to a rock band or an opera, you've already done it. And, in fact, a healthy brain does it with ease. No doubt some people are better than others at picking out a weak signal from other noise, but that doesn't limit one's ability to learn the code.

It is virtually impossible to objectively determine if a person "cannot" learn code. All that can be said of a person who tried but failed is that he quit before he learned it. There is no way to separate those who "can't," if indeed any such persons exist, from those simply didn't.

It is also clear that many people who honestly try to learn Morse code commit some usually fatal mistakes, often without realizing they're doing it. One of the most common is to get into the "counting" mode -- Instead of hearing the sound of the character, as one should, some people unconsciously count the dits and dahs. Instead of hearing the sound, "didididah" and recognizing it as "V," a counter hears "three dits and a dah." That is a big mistake, and a very difficult one to overcome once it's established. But it can be done.

[ai4ep]

Looking up through the other posts in this thread...I do not see any posts made by the folks who regularly post here on qrz who will not learn morse code...wonder why ? They must be too busy on the " other thread " telling every one about how some day real soon that the morse code requirement will be eliminated.....?

Many folks who thought they COULD NOT learn morse code HAVE been able to learn it, so there goes that " urban legend " .

Folks who really want to DO find a way to learn it...folks who just want to " whine " will not find a way ( no ambition -- free ride syndrone ) .

winners never quit
quitters never win

[n2dbq]

I wish I had a better memory. Was it Gene Shepard who made a tape years ago? I remember using it and finally having it memorized and wondered if I knew the code or just memorized the tape. Well that was about 27 years ago and it was alot of fun learning the code. I still don't have a mic. hooked to any of my rigs "except 2 meters". Nobody on 2 wants to do code. .... .. .... ..

When you hear dit write E.
When you hear dah write T.

This has been the best post yet about learning cw or the reason you can't learn being busted. I hear so many who whine, I don't have the time. I studied code with 2 kids a wife and a dog in the house. I made time to learn it. The time complaint really bugs me. If the people doing the whinning would quit typing for 20 minutes they would of had their practice session completed right there so no more I don't have the time complaints. That just doesn't cut it.

From one of the above posts, I also know guys who passed the code test but could never carry on a conversation on cw. Well they could, they passed the test but they lack the interest or inititive to speed it up to a comfortable level. I think they just lack the desire to improve. It certainly isn't time or ability to learn such a simple thing. They're just not willing to invest the time, they want it today in this instant gratification world we now live in. Gimmie Gimmie Gimmie.

--... ...--
Morris

[W5HTW]

First of all I want to address the time complaint. In teaching Morse code through organized classroom instruction, I found there was a small number of persons who felt that classroom session was all they were going to need. They did not think it necessary to practice at home, but wait for the next weekly session. Almost none of them learned the code during the scheduled sessions.

Listening on two meter repeaters I would hear people who were complaining about not being able to learn the code. I spoke to a few of them. "Did you practice last night? How long did you practice?" Almost invariably the answer was something like "Well, no I didn't get to practice last night we we wanted to watch that new TV show." Or: "No, we did a cookout and I spent the evening washing dishes." In other words, excuses.

That was fairly common back in the 1970s, too, when I was teaching through the YMCA. A class might be 15 people, but four of them would have excuses for "no practice last night." And those would be the four who would not make it through the class.

I would try to offer them extra help, but that worked only now and then. And it rarely helped them actually get the five words per minute speed for the Novice. None of them would ever make General, at 13 wpm. Just a fact of life.

Were they actually unable to learn the code no matter what method of teaching was used? I don't know. Some may have been. Most, though, lacked the diligence needed, and a few admitted it.

It was my feeling then, and it is very strongly my feeling now, that ham radio is not a right. We do not need to make the tests, code or otherwise, simple enough that anyone with zero interest in the hobby passes the test on the first night of study. And that is where we have tried to head, it seems.

I felt then, and still do, that if a person cannot pass the test required, whatever it is, then that person needs to go find another hobby. Maybe he will be great in drag racing, or flying model airplanes. And I have told some people that. If you honestly 'can't' do it, stop trying. Go do something else. Not all of us can play baseball, or swim the olympic pool, or climb a cliff. If I can't run 90 feet to first base, maybe I should stop trying. I do not need to ask that they move the bases in so there is only 20 feet between them. I need to find another sport.

I have told prospective hams that a number of times. If you have convinced yourself you can't learn the code, then you have to also convince yourself ham radio is not the hobby for you. Find something else. That is life. I have had to give up some dreams in my life, because no one ever legislated them down to conditions I could meet.

We cannot legislate everyone into everything. And each time we make the entry requirements less, the activity loses quality, not just for those already in it, but for those coming into it. Fact: If you can't do it, don't do it!

I have never heard of anyone taking 'years' to learn Morse code. Perhaps a few years to reach 40 wpm or so, but to learn it? Seems impossible.

But to the main question: Are there people who can't learn it? The answer is 'maybe.' Hard to prove, as someone else has said. I believe most of the 'can't' is really either "won't" or is "I don't have enough dedication to work on it."
Which goes back to my opening paragraph.

What is definitely true is this. If your Mommy says eat your spinach and I'll get you the ice cream, you gripe and whine and one of three things happens. You walk away with no ice cream and no spinach. You eat the spinach and you get the ice cream. Or Mommy relents and gives you the ice cream anyway. And that third option is what ham radio is becoming about. Sure, for many the Morse code is the spinach of radio. (For many it is the ice cream!) It may be viewed as a rite of passage, or as the "I did it, so you do it too" syndrone. But the fact is, it is in the rules, at least for now.

I think everyone is agreed the Morse code testing will go away. That will be viewed as a victory for the whiners, and a defeat for the traditionalists. But the fact really is, it will be for one reason only, and that is the FCC has made the decision. It will not be to appease whiners, or to slam traditionalists. It will be based on their workload, and their desire to simplify ham radio, and that will be why they do it.

My bottom line is, if you can't cut it in this hobby, find another hobby. Or just kick back and wait. Maybe it will be redesigned to suit you.

ed

[n2nh]

Quote[/b] ]Many who have learned Morse code, devoted untold hours, mostly unpleasant, mastering the skill.

I actually found Morse practice very enjoyable. After a couple of weeks the sound of CW was soothing and relaxing. Of course, I didn't resent learning it, so it wasn't a 'chore,' but a way to learn something new. Like cooking, guitar playing or very slow bicycle riding. It all depends on your outlook.

Quote[/b] ]If we look at the numbers, we see that there are approximately one million amatuer operators out of a population of 300 million in the USA. Out of those one million operators, less than half have mastered Morse code. In other words, 0.3% of the population are licensed amatuers and only 0.015% are Morse proficient.

As a matter of curiousity, what source did you get those numbers from?

As far as special 'talents', I have none. Well, except for riding a unicycle on a highwire while juggling bowling balls. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

[KC9GUZ]

ANYONE can learn the code but not everyone can master it. I managed to learn it in 6 Mo in order to pass the CW reqirement to get my General. That was no big deal. But im STILL learning it enough to be good enough to use it properly on the air with few mistakes. I have used it on the air but at a very slow 3 to 5 wpm with some mistakes here and there.

[ab8ro]

Do any of you who make any claims regarding the question have ANY references to back up your defense/attack?

I have pondered the same question myself. It is something that has probably been studied at least indirectly. Does anyone here have any background in psychology, linguistics?

There seems to be a strong opinion that learning to speak is sufficient evidence that one has the ability to learn morse. #What are your references for this? if we allow that morse is a language, a position I'm not sure is well supported, then it still does not necessarily follow that morse is easy to learn as an adult simply because the adult once learned a spoken language. The role of nurture vs nature in language acquisition is an unsettled research question in linguistics.

The question as asked is a good question. Many have suggested that the original author's proposed reasons such as tone deafness or dislexia lack substance. Perhaps this is true, however, I'd like to point out that refuting these suggestions in no way refutes the position that learning morse requires certain abilities.

Perhaps a good place to start would be to review whatever research was used as a basis for the Koch and/or Farnsworth methods. Koch, after all, was a psychologist.

[kc0ukk]

Quote[/b] (W5HTW @ Sep. 24 2006,16:44)]First of all I want to address the time complaint. #In teaching Morse code through organized classroom instruction, I found there was a small number of persons who felt that classroom session was all they were going to need. #They did not think it necessary to practice at home, but wait for the next weekly session. #Almost none of them learned the code during the scheduled sessions.
Thanks for the post. Your experience as an instructor is exactly the information I'm looking for. The only thing better would be a military instructor where the students are captive and failure to succeed at assigned tasks is somewhat more serious.

There were two gentlemen on a mail list that I read who were taught by the Army to operate a 'mill' (typewriter). They were taught to listen to a character and strike the correct key. It seems as though these folks could copy 25 to 35 wpm without ever knowing what it was they had heard. If they wanted to know, they would have to look at the typed output. Not that it did them much good as it was 5 character coded sequences.

Both gentlemen said that they had to re-learn Morse code to operate as amatuers.

[nz3m]

Perhaps some just cannot learn it. That really does't matter. Should the rules be changed because of that??

When I was just out of school I wanted very much to fly fighter jets, it was a dream of mine. The instructors told me there was no way I could pass the eye test due to a certain vision problem I have. Did I tell them the rules should be changed?

NO, I did something else.

Dave

[n9vo]

Quote[/b] (kc0ukk @ Sep. 24 2006,17:32)]Quote[/b] (W5HTW @ Sep. 24 2006,16:44)]First of all I want to address the time complaint. #In teaching Morse code through organized classroom instruction, I found there was a small number of persons who felt that classroom session was all they were going to need. #They did not think it necessary to practice at home, but wait for the next weekly session. #Almost none of them learned the code during the scheduled sessions.
Thanks for the post. Your experience as an instructor is exactly the information I'm looking for. #The only thing better would be a military instructor where the students are captive and failure to succeed at assigned tasks is somewhat more serious.

There were two gentlemen on a mail list that I read who were taught by the Army to operate a 'mill' (typewriter). #They were taught to listen to a character and strike the correct key. #It seems as though these folks could copy 25 to 35 wpm without ever knowing what it was they had heard. #If they wanted to know, they would have to look at the typed output. #Not that it did them much good as it was 5 character coded sequences.

Both gentlemen said that they had to re-learn Morse code to operate as amatuers.
When I was going thru communications school in Pensacola, there were hundreds learning to copy code. They did did learn on mills (used 5 copy fanfold paper in field) and they did learn to copy 5 letter groups. That was because the bulk of what they would be copying for a profession was either Soviet Maritime traffic or some other type of foreign naval traffic. Almost all was sent in 5 letter/number groups. They didnt need to know what they were copying, just copy it for forwarding to national level authorities so to speak. I marveled at their skill. They would sit for hours, copying 5 letter groups at 25 wpm, drink a coke, smoke a cigarette and converse, never missing a beat.

If I remember correctly, they had to do 5 wpm by the end of the first week. This was probably after about 15-20 hours of instruction. Many more were spent in practice. After that I seem to remember they had to improve by 2 wpm a week until they could copy 21 I think. Failure to advance meant setback and keep trying. After multiple failures to advance, they would be looking for a new rate!

There were a lot of washouts, but knowing several, they probably washouted of whatever job they had. The failure to learn was due to their own issues.

A couple #of my friends made the easy conversion to ham. All they had to do was slow down and learn words which took a couple hours. The military had some great cw operators.

[K7JEM]

Quote[/b] (AB3BK @ Sep. 24 2006,18:29)]Perhaps some just cannot learn it. That really does't matter. Should the rules be changed because of that??

When I was just out of school I wanted very much to fly fighter jets, it was a dream of mine. The instructors told me there was no way I could pass the eye test due to a certain vision problem I have. Did I tell them the rules should be changed?

NO, I did something else.

Dave
Sure, but they didn't make you learn to fly in order to drive a tank.

I think most people have the ability to learn MC given some amount of effort, just like most people can learn to drive, play the piano, tune a radio, move a refrigerator, weld, change the oil on a car, speak a foreign language, learn computer skills or algebra, learn karate, run a race, climb a tower, or many other things.

Not being able to learn the code would be a poor excuse indeed for dropping it as a requirement. There are much more compelling reasons for dropping the test, the ability (or inability) to learn it is immaterial. This is not a reason given by many people, and is similiar to the arguement on the other side, "I learnt it so you can too."

A better arguement is that it will take some amount of time to learn the code, and that is not what I want to invest in a hobby, to obtain some sort of "reward". It simply is irrelevant to whether or not a person can become a good HF operator. It would be somewhat similiar to a person having to fly an RC plane in order to be allowed to use an RC boat.

Joe

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Sep. 24 2006,10:19)]Now you are grasping at straws. Does dyslexia play a role in young children learning a spoken language? I've never read anything that proposes this since dyslexia is a problem with the visual interface.


Why yes it does. Let me add a recommendation to your reading:

Stanovich, KE. (1988) Explaining the differences between the dyslexic and the garden-variety poor reader: the phonological-core variable-difference model. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21(10):590-604.

Murphy, Martin F (2004). Dyslexia, An Explanation. Flyleaf Press. ISBN 0-9539974-5-6.

[K4AY]

It may be that some of the hams have not learned Morse code because it is not necessary in order to gain a license that suits the individual's desires.

I am sure that I miss some opportunities because I don't operate SSB, for that matter.

In so far as dedication is concerned, there was a time when all hams passed a code test to have any class of license. I would venture that anyone can learn Morse Code, given sufficient motivation, time, and practice. I imagine that focus in order to decipher Morse Code from the ambient noise is similar to focus in order to decipher a foreign language in a room full of speakers.

The military told me that I had no aptitude for Morse Code. Probably right it was, but could not measure the desire that I had when I chose to learn it on my own.

Handi-Hams might be able to address hams with disabilities and their experiences learning Morse Code.

I believe the greatest part of success with Morse Code is desire and commitment.

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (ab8ro @ Sep. 24 2006,17:27)]
I have pondered the same question myself. It is something that has probably been studied at least indirectly. Does anyone here have any background in psychology, linguistics?


I've taken graduate classes in linguistics. Learning Morse code has nothing to do one way or the other with learning language skills.

Quote[/b] ]
The question as asked is a good question. Many have suggested that the original author's proposed reasons such as tone deafness or dislexia lack substance. Perhaps this is true, however, I'd like to point out that refuting these suggestions in no way refutes the position that learning morse requires certain abilities.


Tone deafness probably plays no role in ability to learn morse code, while dyslexia might.

Quote[/b] ]
Perhaps a good place to start would be to review whatever research was used as a basis for the Koch and/or Farnsworth methods. Koch, after all, was a psychologist.

It is difficult to discuss this topic in these forums because too many people let the argument over whether people should learn Morse code cloud their ability to discuss whether people can.

Let me start by saying that in my opinion, most people can learn Morse code and so that question should have no bearing on the argument about whether amateurs should.

That said, let's examine what 'learn Morse code' means, and who the people are that can't learn it, because some few do exist.

When amatuers say 'learn Morse code', they usually mean learn the ability to send and receive Morse code in an auditory form. There are two very different skills involved in sending and receiving, and we'll take them separately.

Receiving: Obviously, anyone with a wide range of hearing defects cannot 'learn Morse code'. Fortunately, for most of those people there is a visual substitution that can be easily made in the form of flashing lights. Most of what I say next applies with slight variation to both cases, but I'll only talk about the auditory process.

Receiving Morse code requires three skills:

1) The ability to preceive the presence or absence of a tone
2) The ability to preceive variations in the relative length of a tone
3) The ability to associate a short sequence of tone bursts with a symbol

Besides hearing loss, there are various other forms of hearing disorder that make it difficult to preceive the presence of a tone, and we all have those to a certain degree. In most cases, the problem is limited to tones within certain ranges, and so we can compensate by adjusting the frequency of the tone to put it out of the range. The number of people without a complete hearing loss who also cannot accomodate other kinds of hearing problems is very small.

Surprisingly, the ability to preceive relative duration of tone is more likely to be a problem. There are people who, for whatever reason, simply have no sense of time. For these people there are no work arounds. But again, this is a very small number of people, and most people who appear to suffer from this problem simply lack training and can be helped by practice.

Finally, there are a number of cognitive disorders that prevent people from remembering specific kinds of relationships. Most men are familiar, for example, with the common male failing of not being able to associate a date with an event. We all have such failings of one sort to one degree or another, and some people have them for associating tone bursts with symbols. I have a friend who was "born without word" and to this day cannot recognize oral language, yet is a very good software developer. There is no way he could 'learn Morse code'. But again, such people are rare.

The ability to send Morse code depends on coordination. I can't use a straight key at all, because I have severe tendinitis, and I can only send using a keyer for short periods of time and at low speeds because of it. Prior to the introduction of keyboard based keyers, such disabilities were the most likely to make it difficult for someone to 'learn Morse' in the usual way. Sometimes it is possible for one to compensate for this inability by finding another physical means of sending but often, doing so only results in obtaining a different sort of repetitive stress injury.

And, of course, 'learn morse code' isn't a binary thing. It's a matter of proficiency, usually measured in the rate at which one can send or receive with a reasonable number of transcription errors. This too is influenced by all of the above factors. I have trouble pulling code out of white noise because of the nature of my hearing loss, for example, so there are signals that good ops can hear that I can't. There's no fixing this at this point, because hearing aids don't deal with the problem. Similarly with sending and receiving, we all have different limits based on our physical strengths and weaknesses.

So, in summary, if you define 'learn morse code' to mean 'learn how to send and receive code in the traditional auditory fashion using a straight key at a certain level of proficiency', then yes, a lot of people can't learn morse code. If you expand your definition to include workarounds for various human limitations, the number of people who can't goes down dramatically but never quiet reaches zero.

The final issue being discussed here is easy of learning. Clearly physical handicaps make learning harder for some people. Additionally prior experience makes learning the code easier for others. I came to Morse code as a trained musician, and with the help of a good Morse instructor. For me this meant that learning Morse was easy. Others who come to it from a very different background will also have to train up on those skills as well, and so it will take them longer.

[KG4RUL]

I can sight read five level baudot coded tapes. I can't seem learn code.

To those who will say I am lazy or I don't want it bad enough, my question to you is can you sight read five level baudot code tapes?

I you can't, can I say you are lazy or don't want to learn it bad enough?

Visual patterns I pick up easily. Audio pattern recognition is extremely elusive to me.

So, I guess I will have to wait for the FCC to finally get the bit in their mouths and eliminate the code requirement for HF operation. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif

[K0RGR]

The biggest whiners are the people who barely passed a 5 WPM code test and now fear that others will not be compelled to do the same.

I truly believe that there are those who really can't learn the code and would otherwise be good HF hams. I believe that most can. My son is highly dyslexic (the word means a reading dysfunction, but it's it actually a problem with word recognition - it can be entirely auditory). I doubt that the speech center of the brain.which can cause dyslexia if it has a problem, is the same part of the brain used to decode Morse. My son couldn't spell 'CAT' if you spotted him two letters when he was young, but he had no trouble picking up Morse Code letters. Of course, he couldn't understand what he copied, due to his dyslexia - a very , very common problem - I know many hams who do not do CW that also have serious reading problems.

I've also met many who simply can't process the sounds of the characters.

The issue, however, is not who can and can't learn the code, It is whether or not the code should continue to be a requirement for HF access. I say no. That doesn't mean I believe in giving away the store, as FCC has proposed. But FCC's proposal probably reflects the fact that less than .015% of the public have passed a code test. The public are voting "with their feet".

I think the time issue is entirely real. If I had to learn the code today, I can't imagine it. I find it nearly impossible to schedule a slot of free time every day for anything, and I must continue learning all the time for my job.

I think that the transition to a service economy has had a big impact in this area. When I worked in manufacturing, I worked a regular day, and had time to go to college at night, as well as other regular activities. Now, I provide technical services, and I'm on call a lot. A huge chunk of my "free time" is consumed learning new products. What isn't consumed there goes to my family. I like to squeeze in a little hamming a few times a week, too.

[N9LCD]

Morse Code is NOT POSSIBLE for everybody.

True, desire and effort are important, but they can only take you "so far". After that, you need need some certain inherent talent or skill.

How many play basketball, shooting hoops or dribbling, or golf?

How many Michael Jordans or Tiger Woods are there?

It's the difference in individual skills and talents that makes us humans and not a bunch of robots!

Have I tried to learn the Code?

Yes. About six or eight times,. Twice with "elmers" and about four to six times with a wide assortment of tapes and software. Each time I'd hit the same hurdle and couldn't get over it. So I gave up on the Code.

Someone once commented " TRY AND TRY AGAIN. THEN QUIT BEING A STUBBORN FOOL." Quite a sound observation.

N9LCD

[ai4ep]

Quitters never win & winners never quit.

Which are you ? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

Quote[/b] ]Quitters never win & winners never quit.
Which are you ?
Somebody who understands that reality can't be
reduced to dumbass clichés.

[ai4ep]

" nothing ventured, nothing gained. "

" One has to try, for success to occur."

These words can apply to every day situations, not just the situation in this thread.

[AG3Y]

Quote[/b] (K4AY @ Sep. 24 2006,22:17)]The military told me that I had no aptitude for Morse Code. #Probably right it was, but could not measure the desire that I had when I chose to learn it on my own.

Handi-Hams might be able to address hams with disabilities and their experiences learning Morse Code.

I believe the greatest part of success with Morse Code is desire and commitment.
When I was attending Tech School, in the early 60s, I was told that I had "no aptitude for computers" and was denied the opportunity to study them at that time.

Well, did I, or didn't I ? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif I'll answer that by telling you that one of my career choices included setting up and maintaining a Novell network in a state-run Hospital Facility. I also served on the Governor's comittee on implimentation of Computerized Health Care in the State of Maryland.

Not bad for someone who had "no aptitude for computers" huh ? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

Don't tell me that you have no aptitude for Morse Code. It just doesn't ring true to this O.F. ! ! !

[ab8ro]

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Sep. 23 2006,20:30)]
Quote[/b] ]

I have pondered the same question myself. It is something that has probably been studied at least indirectly. Does anyone here have any background in psychology, linguistics?


I've taken graduate classes in linguistics. #Learning Morse code has nothing to do one way or the other with learning language skills.


Well, I haven't taken such courses, however, I suspected as much. One learns a few symbols and an alphabet but there is no grammar to speak of.

Quote[/b] ]
Quote[/b] ]
The question as asked is a good question. Many have suggested that the original author's proposed reasons such as tone deafness or dislexia lack substance. Perhaps this is true, however, I'd like to point out that refuting these suggestions in no way refutes the position that learning morse requires certain abilities.


Tone deafness probably plays no role in ability to learn morse code, while dyslexia might.


If one is being accurate about what they mean by "tone deafness", then I'd agree. However, I believe that many people equate "tone deaf" with "lack of musical ability" which may, incorrectly, include an inability to sense rhythm or timing. Of course, that wasn't really my point.

Quote[/b] ]
Quote[/b] ]
Perhaps a good place to start would be to review whatever research was used as a basis for the Koch and/or Farnsworth methods. Koch, after all, was a psychologist.

It is difficult to discuss this topic in these forums because too many people let the argument over whether people should learn Morse code cloud their ability to discuss whether people can.



Agreed.

Quote[/b] ]
Let me start by saying that in my opinion, most people can learn Morse code and so that question should have no bearing on the argument about whether amateurs should.


Agreed. Either it is a necessary skill, or it isn't. That knife cuts both ways however!

Quote[/b] ]
That said, let's examine what 'learn Morse code' means, and who the people are that can't learn it, because some few do exist.

When amatuers say 'learn Morse code', they usually mean learn the ability to send and receive Morse code in an auditory form. #There are two very different skills involved in sending and receiving, and we'll take them separately.

Receiving: Obviously, anyone with a wide range of hearing defects cannot 'learn Morse code'. Fortunately, for most of those people there is a visual substitution that can be easily made in the form of flashing lights. #Most of what I say next applies with slight variation to both cases, but I'll only talk about the auditory process.

Receiving Morse code requires three skills:

1) The ability to preceive the presence or absence of a tone
2) The ability to preceive variations in the relative length of a tone
3) The ability to associate a short sequence of tone bursts with a symbol



I think this is incomplete, and thus, so is your subsequent analysis. My opinion is that given abilities (1) and (2) there is a vast difference between the ability to accomplish (3) with a single character vs a real time stream of characters. That is, what is the process by which the subject converts the tones to a symbol? #Also I suspect that there is a difference between the ability to differentiate between a few symbols and the forty or so that are required to learn morse code.

I suspect that any significant disfunction would lie here. This is why I think Koch's research might be a good place to start. I don't think it's the association that's difficult, strictly speaking, rather it's the ability to make the association subconsciously.

Is anyone familiar with Koch's research?

[al7n]

UKK, you need to learn to spell the word "amateur"...

I figure it this way:

Morse is a "sound" language. # You learn the sounds of the letters, and then you learn the sounds of several letters that make up words...first shorter words, then longer ones...you learn to hear what the operator at the other end is "saying" to you, in words and numbers.

Anyone who can learn to speak (any language)can learn to use Morse, but if and only if they WANT to badly enough.....And if they don't make the common mistakes that cause trouble in learning this simple language....

The only people who absolutely "cant" learn Morse would be in the same group of people who have some learning deficiency that would also prevent them from learning to speak a language by hearing it spoken to them.

Once learned, practice using Morse in communication with other intelligent people will cause proficiency to increase without much more concious effort. #

Achieving 5 WPM is not representative of learning it well enough to communicate with anybody with any degree of efficiency...it is much too slow, and the use of Morse has not yet achieved the status of a "learned" language. #Around 12-18 WPM, Morse starts to become a "comfortable" communictions tool among those who have desired to acquire the skill enough to get to this point.

[ab8ro]

Quote[/b] (al7n @ Sep. 24 2006,01:49)]
Quote[/b] ]
I figure it this way:

Morse is a "sound" language. You learn the sounds of the letters, and then you learn the sounds of several letters that make up words...first shorter words, then longer ones...you learn to hear what the operator at the other end is "saying" to you, in words and numbers.


People "figured" the flat earth was the center of the universe for many years. While not a bad assumption given the available knowledge, it's of course, incorrect.

[G8ADD]

45 years ago the UK license was one level with a 12 wpm CW test. I passed the written test easily but hit a barrier at about 10 wpm and despite regular and intense effort could never overcome it. When the "B" license appeared in 1964 (70cm and above at that time, no CW requirement) I shelved my efforts to learn CW and mastered the technology of UHF instead.

When the CW requirement was dropped I found that I was now an "advanced" amateur with the right to operate the DC bands and started to spend part of my hobby time on HF. This reminded me of the shelved project, and I decided to go back to the old failure and see if I could do better as an OF.

Surprisingly enough I still could remember the Morse Code, I had learned it and it had stuck. But then, the problem had never had anything to do with LEARNING the code, it had been to do with overcoming a speed barrier. I soon found that the barrier was still there, if anything at a slightly slower speed than it had been when I was a young man. As things stand, I can follow slower CW contacts, but find the effort of concentration extremely tiring and have had enough after perhaps 10 minutes. At the barrier speed my concentration rapidly disintegrates and at higher speeds CW is just a noise.

This time there is no reason to stop, I shall continue to put in a little work most days and perhaps one day soon I may plug the key into the rig and try a slow contact or two. This is more to do with curing a dent in my pride than a desire to become a hotshot CW operator, but I am well aware that CW offers opportunities that are not available to the phone operator and a well rounded ham needs the skill. The absence of a test will not change this.

73

Brian G8ADD

[KI4NGN]

I'll go along with the premise that some may have an inherent ability to learn code and that others do not.

I think the US Navy at one time agreed with me. I was given all sorts of tests (as was everyone else) when I first joined the Navy in 1971. They were aptitude tests intended to find out abilities, not necessarily knowledge. One of the tests was to see if one might be any good with morse code. I aced it, of course, but that is not the point. The test was presented assuming no code knowledge with the goal of measuring how easy or difficult it might be for one to learn and use code. So I'm going to say that I accept the premise that some have an inherent ability.

I had to take a langauage when I was in highschool. I chose French. I failed my first year...I found it very difficult. I passed when I tried again. To this day I don't know why, but I then took a second year course. I knew I was doomed on the first day. The class began by reading some French novel. I looked around the room...what previous class did these others attend??? I was lost.

It boiled down to the fact that I learned enough to pass the tests, but I obviously did not have second language abilities...I did not grasp the language as the others had.

I'm going to accept the premise that some do not have the ability grasp morse code.

Can it be learned to pass a test? Sure. For some it will be easy, for some it will be very difficult and require a lot of work.

This is not a code/no code debate for me because the requirement is the requirement. If one wants to advance now from a non-code license, then the current requirement is to learn the code and pass the test.

While there are those NCTs whom I've read who could have been seen as whining about the code requirement, I've see far more posts from ops whining about NCT's and the possibility of code being dropped.

I believe that accepting and meeting requirements as they stand is just the way things are, nothing to whine about.

But that does not mean that requirements can't be questioned.

I'm a computer programmer for 34+ years now. There was a time when COBOL was a very common business oriented langage. (Did anyone get that?)

These days, what would anyone think of a computer science course that required a person to learn COBOL in order to get their degree? It's certainly a language that is still in use, and it has its place, but a requirement?

Requirements should be based upon applicability.

By the way, I am not an NCT. I passed my code test 38 years ago. However just because I had to learn and pass a test does not mean that I believe that everyone should have to. Applicability, not dues paying, should be the consideration.

Let me emphasize that I am firmly of the belief that whatever the requirements are currently should not be whined about. If you want to advance, then learn the code. I just question the requirement, and apparently so does the FCC and the rest of the regulatory world.

Mike

[ab0wr]

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Sep. 24 2006,19:00)]Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Sep. 24 2006,10:19)]Now you are grasping at straws. Does dyslexia play a role in young children learning a spoken language? I've never read anything that proposes this since dyslexia is a problem with the visual interface.


Why yes it does. #Let me add a recommendation to your reading:

Stanovich, KE. (1988) Explaining the differences between the dyslexic and the garden-variety poor reader: the phonological-core variable-difference model. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21(10):590-604.

Murphy, Martin F (2004). Dyslexia, An Explanation. Flyleaf Press. ISBN 0-9539974-5-6.
I believe you are speaking of the theory that people with dyslexia have problems breaking words down into basic components (phenomes) and therefore have a problem recognizing the word when trying to read it.

I cannot find the specific reference you give on the internet. Other, later, documents from the same author do not speak to children with dyslexia having problems learning to understand speech, only in learning to form speech because of the problems with breaking words down into phenomes.

Since Morse Code has only one phenome, this would not seem to apply in this situation.

I would also point out that there is nothing in the Morse Code test that requires reading what you have copied. If you have one minute of perfect copy you need not take the multiple choice test, just have the VE verify the perfect copy. Almost all dyslexic children I have seen in school can copy the alphabet as it is read, i.e. if you say "A", they can write "A". It is when you ask them to spell "CAT" that the problem arises.

Neither is a sending test required.

While severe dyslexia may prevent one from ever becoming proficient at Morse Code, the number of people it will prevent from becoming a ham is small.

tim ab0wr

[ai4ep]

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif Well...if a 45 year old man from Alabama can learn morse code, why can you not ?

(45 is how old I was when I learned C W )

No need in telling an " urban legend " about being TONE DEAF...!! Just some one looking for an excuse to attempt to "squeeze " by the minimum regulations set by the FCC.

Plus the fact that 10 year old ( or less ) girls have learned CW.

You folks have the casual reader rolling in the floor laughing at your lame attempts to try to evade a way too simple test.

[W4HAY]

Of the CW ops I've Elmered, to some it was a snap, to most it required some dedication, and the few that gave it up just simply weren't all that interested to begin with. Many of the latter are perfectly happy on VHF/UHF. Life is good.

My riding instructor has had the same experiences with beginning students. It used to worry her until she accepted that some just weren't meant to be horsemen or horsewomen.

If you wanna do it, you'll do it. If you don't, you won't.

[WA2ZDY]

More hams were able to learn and become proficient at Morse when it was required. It never occurred to me to question the requirement as a 12 year old. I wanted a ham ticket. Simple.

When it came time to upgrade, the requirement was 13wpm. Want a General? Pass the 13wpm. Simple. How much do you want it?

5wpm is not a sign of proficiency; it does show knowledge but not proficiency. So now folks learn "just enough." Or they sit back as NCT's waiting. And waiting. And waiting.

Need is a good motivation and the need isn't there so in many cases neither is the motivation.

So I guess more folks can say they "can't learn." After all, they don't need to.

[W5HTW]

Following up on my earlier post in this thread, one of the things I noticed about some of the students in my classes was that a few of them would 'freeze' when the code session began. I also taught theory, and they did fine there. But when we began getting out the code equipment, I remember some of them getting nervous. One elderly gentleman would actually start to sweat, bite his lip, and look around nervously. This was before a letter was sounded. To my knowledge he never did learn the code, despite going to several classes of mine as well as others.

Not being a psychiatrist, I can't tell just what that problem is. The word I would choose is 'fear.' He determined in advance, and against his will, that he would be unable to learn the code. That mind set is powerful.

I remember years ago when I was a professional driver, I would stop and ask someone for specific directions to a certain point. Two blocks later I would have to ask someone else. The reason was my mind was so intensely and consciously concerned that I would not remember the directions, I didn't. Most of my mind was filled with the fear I would not understand the directions, and that is precisely what happened. I think today it would be called ADHD, or ADD. There was no such name for it back then.

I have known other people with that kind of block, including my wife. I think possibly this related to the learning of Morse code as well. Some people who really want to learn it, go into the session with the "this scares the crap out of me" attitude, and the fear overrides the ability. I even knew a couple of people who openly admitted they were so afraid they couldn't concentrate. Afraid of failure, and they brought that failure on themselves.

Could these people learn the code? Well, if you could break that train of fear, yes, probably. Some of them actually did, eventually. Many did not. But the problem was not the code; it was their own fear of failure.

Conquering our fears is the solution, but how many of us can do that? I learned to scribble notes when someone was giving me directions. It helped, but was not always perfect.

I do believe there are quite a few hams, or would-be hams, who can't conquer their fears, and if they don't, they will never learn the code. Of course, there are others who simply want to change the standards for everyone, to satisfy them personally. That is where I disagree vehemently.

Also, one of the big problems is there is really only one way to learn the code, and that is by sound. I believe far too many people learn it by counting, and they are doomed to failure.

Ed

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Sep. 25 2006,04:44)][quote=AE6IP,Sep. 24 2006,19:00]
I believe you are speaking of the theory that people with dyslexia have problems breaking words down into basic components (phenomes) and therefore have a problem recognizing the word when trying to read it.


I'm speaking of the relationship between SLI and dyslexia. By the way, assuming you meant phoneme, your definition of phoneme is not the one typically used in linquistics. ("phenome" is a term from genetics.)

Quote[/b] ]
I cannot find the specific reference you give on the internet.


http://findarticles.com/p....g_1 (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3809/is_200001/ai_n8886671/pg_1)

is a reference to the text of one study in the area.

Quote[/b] ]
Since Morse Code has only one phenome, this would not seem to apply in this situation.


By definition a language cannot have only one phoneme, since phonemes are what distinguish one word from another.

Quote[/b] ]
I would also point out that there is nothing in the Morse Code test that requires reading what you have copied.


Welcome to Searle's Chinese room.

Thanks for providing three points in support of the thesis that Morse code is merely an alphabet encoding and not a language. ;)

[KI4NGN]

Oh nooooo Mr. Bill!

[WB2WIK]

I don't have time to read 48 replies already posted, so forgive me if this is redundant: But of course, yes, 100% of everybody can learn the code.

Here's why I say that:

150 years ago, Western Union ran telegraph lines all over the country and needed Morse operators at stations set up along those lines to send and receive code messages. They posted ads in local newspapers from coast to coast, looking for Morse operators. At the time, before the telegraph became a popular mode of communications, there weren't any Morse operators as there was no need for any.

The job involved sitting at a desk in a chair in a comfortable environment, and paid well.

Tens of thousands of applicants immediately applied from coast to coast and all of them learned the code in a few days. It was either that, or forego a cushy, well-paying job in this new high-tech industry.

Everybody learned it. Men and women of all ages; the only requirement was an operator had to be able to read and write, so complete illiterates need not apply. But everybody who did apply stipulated they could learn code, and every one of them did.

Funny how a paying job is such a fine motivator.

WB2WIK/6

[VE7NOT]

There you go all the US has to do is PAY the NCTs and they will learn code http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[KE5FRF]

Quote[/b] ]Thanks for providing three points in support of the thesis that Morse code is merely an alphabet encoding and not a language. ;)

Hey, didn't you guys decide that issue in another thread? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
P-l-e-a-s-e don't make this a rehash.

I am going to straddle the middle of the road here again on this issue.

As has been said, it is NOT a matter of CAN someone learn it, it is a matter of SHOULD someone have to learn it. And I have to agree with the earlier comment that It is a requirement RIGHT NOW, so learn it! Simple as they, heh? YES! You want HF access?

Make like NIKE and "Just do it".

All of the griping, whining, and complaining makes absolutely no difference, because the FCC will act whenever they please, and do whatever they please, and the deciding factor will NOT be what amateurs think. It will be decided based on FCC budgets, personel workloads, desire to streamline and synergize their paperwork, etc. They care not a flip about what is best for the service, but what is best for the FCC. The ITU decided that code proficiency is not neccessary anymore, and the FCC has the legal authority now in the international community to lower the testing standards as low as the ITU allows, and so they will (eventually).

Now, "should" they lower the standards and drop the code? Well, my personal opinion is NO, at least not for the Extra Class license. But hey, that's only wishful thinking on my part, because for regulatory and administrative purposes, the FCC won't buy into that idea. I believe their end goal is to have a single license, or at the very most, a 2 license service, much like the other services around the world have done. Eventually, the Extra license will be done away with altogether, and Generals, Advances will be given access to the entire amateur spectrum. I hate to be so blasted "realistic" because I like the license structure, and the goal-setting that it fosters, but the harsh reality is that the FCC will not be able to logically rationalize a NEED for it, given current trends and their goal to streamline things. Our license class structure, when looked at in a healthy way, and not used as a "caste system" of rank, is a good thing for US, because it gives us goals to achieve, rungs to clime, and it motivates MANY of us to learn more and expand. However, from a purely regulatory and administrative perspective, it is very hard to justify.

Bottom line again is that right NOW, it is a requirement, and not a very difficult one, to copy 25 characters in a row in one minute's time, or answer 7/10 questions correctly of a 5 minute or so QSO, going at a very slow pace of 5 WPM farnsworth. I passed about 8 months ago BARELY by the skin of my teeth, with only casual practice for a month. Yes, I hit my head against the wall trying to distinguish between Q and Y, B and D, J and 1, L and F, etc. Perhaps a little "minor" dyslexia in my way, but I learned it enough to get the license and here I am. And after 8 months, I can sit and listen to good code being sent at nearly 30 WPM, and I can head copy enough to get things like NAME, QTH, RST, RIG, ANTENNA, etc. Past the basics, when I listen to 30 WPM conversation, I get lost, but hey, thats still far and away from struggling with 5 WPM.

What had to happen, in my head, for me to learn the code, was getting rid of the "pressure", letting it be "fun", enjoying the "challenge", not "accepting failure". Once I abandoned the mental headgames that I was playing with myself, I was able to get past every hurdle and stumbling block that I hit.

So, there you have it, the test is STILL required, and passing it is just a matter of willpower.

My decision to stop letting my SELF be my worst enemy has benefited me with 8 months of HF fun. I just confirmed WAS-mix mode, and am just 2 QSL cards from WAS-CW.

I know Technicians with very good stations who have been licensed for YEARS who are struggling to get WAS on 6 meters. How often do you hear Alaska and Hawaii on 50 MHz on the east coast? (By the way, working 6 meters DX is a lot of fun and a challenge every bit as much as learning code, so I'm not knocking it, I enjoy it too)

At any rate, I didn't sit back and complain about the requirement, I met it, and am reaping the benefits now.

This is my biggest frustration, listening to all of the wasted energy griping about the code, when the choice is YOURS wether or not you will learn it. Put the energy used griping into practice, and it becomes a moot point!

[n9vo]

Quote[/b] (KG4RUL @ Sep. 24 2006,19:37)]I can sight read five level baudot coded tapes. I can't seem learn code.

To those who will say I am lazy or I don't want it bad enough, my question to you is can you sight read five level baudot code tapes?

I you can't, can I say you are lazy or don't want to learn it bad enough?

Visual patterns I pick up easily. Audio pattern recognition is extremely elusive to me.

So, I guess I will have to wait for the FCC to finally get the bit in their mouths and eliminate the code requirement for HF operation. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif
Ok, well I am barely passable on cw code but I sure can read the 5 level baudot tape too! Learned in the Navy.

Best I ever did was 150 characters in a minute with 100 percent accuracy.

Baudot tape reading is much easier than cw but both can be done for sure.

And I guess the bottom line we can draw is that maybe 100% cannot learn the code. Fine - If you can't/won't you get no hf priveleges. Pure and simple.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[ai4ep]

If these folks would spend as much time studying as they do griping, they would have passed the morse code test long ago.

---no insult ---simple ---to the point----

[kc7mrq]

Quote[/b] (ai4ep @ Sep. 25 2006,02:23)]If these folks would spend as much time studying as they do griping, they would have passed the morse code test long ago.

---no insult ---simple ---to the point----
If these folks would spend as much time studying as they {delete}do griping{/delete} {insert} spend on QRZ.com {/insert}, they would have passed the morse code test long ago.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif


Corey

[ab0wr]

Quote[/b] ]I'm speaking of the relationship between SLI and dyslexia. By the way, assuming you meant phoneme, your definition of phoneme is not the one typically used in linquistics. ("phenome" is a term from genetics.)

Pardon my spelling. I was in a hurry.

A phoneme is usually defined as a basic sound of speech. Such as the sound difference between "t" as in took and "b" as in book. If you cannot break the sounds down correctly you will have a hard time reading because you won't be able to move from the sounds representing letters or letter combinations to actual word spelling. I'm not sure what definition you are using but this is the one I learned and the one that Mr. Stanovich apparently learned as well.

Quote[/b] ]By definition a language cannot have only one phoneme, since phonemes are what distinguish one word from another.

Really? Have you ever watched a dog trainer communicate with a dog over a long, long distance using just a whistle? That whistle makes one sound, i.e. one phoneme. By using multiple combinations of that phoneme the trainer can communicate a whole set of concepts (i.e. the language) to the dog.

Quote[/b] ]Welcome to Searle's Chinese room.

Thanks for providing three points in support of the thesis that Morse code is merely an alphabet encoding and not a language. ;)

I don't think anyone has ever argued that at 5wpm Morse Code is anything more than a simple encoding that people use to send information letter by letter building up words that have to be read in order to provide any communication.

As with the dog above, it is not until those sounds are discerned as transferring concepts that it becomes a language.

tim ab0wr

[N2RJ]

I think part of the reason the Morse test is hated (by NCTs and others alike) so much is because, unlike the written, you can't just go memorize the question pool and easily pass the test.

The morse testing requirement actually requires that you learn how to do something instead of just memorizing the question pool. #

I think we can get rid of the morse test, but also throw out the question pools, make new ones and don't give away the questions and answers. #

That way we wouldn't have extra class hams asking how to make a dipole or why low SWR is important.

[ky5u]

I don't care how 'cute' you spell it, using dollar signs and what not, it is still unacceptable.

Tom
One of the QRZ.COM moderators.

[N2RJ]

Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Sep. 25 2006,12:16)][b]Ditto on the quoting.

Tom
One of the QRZ.COM moderators.
Well yeah, obviously.

[AG3Y]

Quote[/b] (W5HTW @ Sep. 25 2006,10:05)]Following up on my earlier post in this thread, one of the things I noticed about some of the students in my classes was that a few of them would 'freeze' when the code session began. #I also taught theory, and they did fine there. #But when we began getting out the code equipment, I remember some of them getting nervous. #One elderly gentleman would actually start to sweat, bite #his lip, and look around nervously. #This was before a letter was sounded. # To my knowledge he never did learn the code, despite going to several classes of mine as well as others. #

Ed
I had a similar situation in one of the code classes I taught. This older lady would just have a heck of a time trying to get all the letters written down as they were being sent.

We were teaching a "multiple choice" type of code examination.

Finally I asked to see what kind of trouble she was having. Her paper read something like this, "QTH IS CHIC_GO, AND NAME IS B_LL. " She would stop dead in her tracks with frustration. Finally I pointed out to her that she REALLY should be able to figure out what the missing letters are, and she really shouldn't have that much trouble getting the answers correct !

She finally did get over her frustration, and passed the test with flying colors, but it was not an easy thing for her. All mental, I would say !

73, Jim

[KE5FRF]

Ya wanna know sumpin'?

I got my Extra at 5 WPM, but I would LOVE IT if they raised it back to 20 WPM (or higher) and told me I would lose my privelages within X amount of time if I didn't pass the new test.

This would
A: Give me a new challenge, though I think I could pass today.
B: Make my license a little more valuable to me, something to be even MORE proud of.
C: If they made it higher than 20 WPM, it would be even more of a challenge, yet another high goal to reach. BRING IT ON!

It'll never happen, but my point is, I'm not afraid to invest more time learning, practicing, and improving, and I wouldn't even mind giving up privelages in the interim.

[N2RJ]

Hear something even more interesting.

My first license (9Z4DS) didn't require a morse code test. However it granted full privileges.

I still did the code test anyway (13WPM, hand sent on a straight key by a guy across the room) and upgraded my license, even though there was no upgrade in privileges. That's why I got 9Y4RAJ.

And you want to know something? I never regretted it. And I feel better about having done it.

Doing the code test a few years later when I moved to NY to get my FCC license was a breeze.

I felt really good about myself that I earned my license instead of having it given to me.

The written test was also difficult. It was the City and Guilds RAE exam from the UK. There were no open question pools. You had to know the material. And you know what? Learning the real nitty gritty made me a more knowledgeable ham.

Learning the theory thoroughly also made me realize that while it is a hobby, it's not to be taken lightly. There is equipment, voltage, current and signal levels, even physical structures (antennas, towers etc) that can KILL you. You learn RESPECT for the hobby.

People who just toss aside ham radio as being "just" a hobby are showing tremendous disrespect for it and have no idea of what they're dealing with.

[WB2WIK]

Quote[/b] (AG3Y @ Sep. 25 2006,10:50)]Her paper read something like this, "QTH IS CHIC_GO, AND NAME IS B_LL. "
Geesh, anybody would know that means Chico-Mogo, and the name is BALL.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

[WA2ZDY]

I've never tried to learn to sight-read TTY tapes but I suppose I could learn it if I had the motivation. # But for me there's no reason so I'm not going to bother.

On the other hand I met a guy once who could copy Murray TTY (that five level code is actually Murray, not Baudot) by ear. #I watched him do it. #As the Model 15 spit out a QSO on 80m this guy rattled off what was printing on the paper.

THAT was impressive.

(Yes yes, I know all TTY ops can copy RY and CQ and a lot even "the quick brown fox." but this guy copied it ALL!)

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Sep. 25 2006,09:39)]
A phoneme is usually defined as a basic sound of speech. Such as the sound difference between "t" as in took and "b" as in book.


Close, but not quiet. The basic sound is a phone. A phoneme is a sound by which one word can be distinguished from another which otherwise would sound alike. What's a phoneme varies from language to language, and wikipedia repeats the example that the difference between "dark" l and "light" l aren't enough to qualify the two sounds as phonemes in English, but are enough in some other languages.

Quote[/b] ]
Quote[/b] ]By definition a language cannot have only one phoneme, since phonemes are what distinguish one word from another.

Really? Have you ever watched a dog trainer communicate with a dog over a long, long distance using just a whistle? That whistle makes one sound, i.e. one phoneme. By using multiple combinations of that phoneme the trainer can communicate a whole set of concepts (i.e. the language) to the dog.


I've trained dogs that way, and no, that one sound isn't one phoneme. The phoneme in this case would be close to the series of blasts that indicate a particular command.

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoneme) has a good basic introduction to the concept of phoneme.

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Sep. 25 2006,09:49)]I think part of the reason the Morse test is hated (by NCTs and others alike) so much is because, unlike the written, you can't just go memorize the question pool and easily pass the test.
Nah, Morse is the only element that must be memorized. You can get by any of the rest simply by knowing theory, but the only you can learn Morse code is rote memorization.

[ai4ep]

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif Well...learn something new every day .

I thought the B_LL was the word " bull ".

Man that is twice ( 2 times ) this year I have been wrong. Record is 3 in 1988.

Other record is 18 billion, 17 million 160,000 in 1987.

Notice this was before I became a LICENSED amateur radio operator.

{ sarcasm mode OFF }

[N2RJ]

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Sep. 25 2006,16:23)]Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Sep. 25 2006,09:49)]I think part of the reason the Morse test is hated (by NCTs and others alike) so much is because, unlike the written, you can't just go memorize the question pool and easily pass the test.
Nah, Morse is the only element that must be memorized.
Learning anything requires some form of memorization. In morse you are memorizing letters. You are not memorizing questions and answers like you are doing with the question pools.

Quote[/b] ]You can get by any of the rest simply by knowing theory, but the only you can learn Morse code is rote memorization.

Learning theory for most people is harder than learning the question pool questions and answers.

[AG3Y]

Quote[/b] (ai4ep @ Sep. 25 2006,17:30)]http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif Well...learn something new every day .

I thought the B_LL #was the word #" bull ".

#Man that is twice ( 2 times ) this year I have been wrong. # Record is 3 in 1988.

Other record is 18 billion, 17 million 160,000 in 1987.

Notice this was before I became a LICENSED amateur radio operator.

{ sarcasm mode OFF #}
That is one of the funniest things I have EVER read ! ! !

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

[WB2WIK]

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Sep. 25 2006,14:23)]Nah, Morse is the only element that must be memorized. You can get by any of the rest simply by knowing theory, but the only you can learn Morse code is rote memorization.
You may call it memorization, but it's the same as learning music or a foreign language. Once you're deeply into it, you're learning by converting sounds to thoughts, or thoughts to sounds, and not really memorizing anything.

I can read music in any key, it's all just notes. Playing it so it sounds as the composer intended only takes practice.

Musicians don't complain about practice, because it's something they want to do and need to do to achieve their goals. For some reason, hams and would-be hams complain about "learning code," which requires about .01% the practice required to play a moderate musical composition.

We don't need more bad musicians.

[ai4ep]

wik ---have you listened to some of this " modern " music on your local am / fm radio stations lately ?

No wonder the " golden oldies " stations are so popular !! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[ke4pjw]

Quote[/b] (WB2WIK @ Sep. 25 2006,07:49)]Quote[/b] (AG3Y @ Sep. 25 2006,10:50)]Her paper read something like this, "QTH IS CHIC_GO, AND NAME IS B_LL. "
Geesh, anybody would know that means Chico-Mogo, and the name is BALL.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif
Baul is my favorite goa'uld http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Sep. 25 2006,14:35)]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Sep. 25 2006,16:23)]Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Sep. 25 2006,09:49)]I think part of the reason the Morse test is hated (by NCTs and others alike) so much is because, unlike the written, you can't just go memorize the question pool and easily pass the test.
Nah, Morse is the only element that must be memorized.
Learning anything requires some form of memorization. In morse you are memorizing letters. You are not memorizing questions and answers like you are doing with the question pools.

Never met anyone who memorized the question pool. I guess they might exist, but in my experience, and I've been a VE for years, they're very rare. Memorizing Morse is a lot easier.

Quote[/b] ]
Quote[/b] ]You can get by any of the rest simply by knowing theory, but the only you can learn Morse code is rote memorization.

Learning theory for most people is harder than learning the question pool questions and answers.


I hear that a lot, but I've never seen any actual evidence of it. The extra pool is fairly large but the theory behind it is fairly simple.

I suspect that a few weeks of reading the ARRL book would get most general holders through the extra test with a lot less effort than learning the extra pool.

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (WB2WIK @ Sep. 25 2006,16:15)]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Sep. 25 2006,14:23)]Nah, Morse is the only element that must be memorized. You can get by any of the rest simply by knowing theory, but the only you can learn Morse code is rote memorization.
You may call it memorization, but it's the same as learning music or a foreign language. Once you're deeply into it, you're learning by converting sounds to thoughts, or thoughts to sounds, and not really memorizing anything.

Studies of how chess players memorize boards suggest that you never stop memorizing, but that you learn to recognize larger structures, which makes the memorization easier.

But no, learning morse, or music, is not the same as learning a new language, although music has more similarities. Morse has a very small, very limited number of things to memorize, whereas language understanding is closely related to cultural familiarity. Try translating classical Chinese poetry into English some time, to get a feel for the difference.

Quote[/b] ]
I can read music in any key, it's all just notes. Playing it so it sounds as the composer intended only takes practice.


I play classical guitar. Reading our literature isn't just reading notes, it's also knowing what the composer intentionally left out because the player was expected to know it. There's a whole idiomatic repetoire that, for instance, baroque players are required to know in order to be able to play the music.

Quote[/b] ]
Musicians don't complain about practice, because it's something they want to do and need to do to achieve their goals. For some reason, hams and would-be hams complain about "learning code," which requires about .01% the practice required to play a moderate musical composition.
We don't need more bad musicians.

They complain because its an artificial requirement. If you're not a classical guitarist, would you want to be required to learn baroque lute ornamentation in order to be allowed to play renaissance piano concertos?

I know that when I practice, I practice what I'm likely to play. No jazz scales in my practice music, and no, I can't read tabulature notation, either medieval or modern.

[N1LAF]

I would like to add my opinion, hope nobody will object...

Morse code is not one of memorization, it is conditioning, just like a spoken language. If you understand a language by hearing, you can learn morse code, and it all depends how much effort is put into it.

I 'memorized' the code over the years I was a NCT. When I heard it, I could not process it fast enough in providing a mental lookup table for what I was hearing.

It wasn't until another NCT and friend of mine asked me about taking the morse code class that was offered in Montville (Conn). I felt it was time to get serious to learn and learn right. Its different to 'understand' the morse code than to memorize the patterns and to do a mental translation. And for me, it wasn't easy. I did practice hours at a time every day for 8 weeks or so (duration of the class - saturdays). I even wrote a LabVIEW program that I could paste text from a document into my program, and it would code out the text. It was hard, just like learning any language, and I worked hard for itI took the test, and did three minutes of perfect copy, and understood the entire 5 minute 'conversation'. I then passed the written test. After 25 years of thinking about it, I finally did it, and when I passed, I treated myself to the ICOM 706MKIIG, which is a great little radio.

The message of this to all who wants to advance in Amateur Radio, Morse code is not for memorizing, it is conditioning, takes patience and time, and there are no short cuts. Find a class and listen carefully, you will learn it.

PS: The memorization probably allows me to send much faster than copying at this time.

[ai4ep]

...oh and one more point that no one else has mentioned about morse code ---it is in normal words, brand names of radios, weather, temperature, age, names, towns, states, nations, countries, etc. All you have to know is a basic ability to spell normal words correctly.

As an example...say you have copied the dudes name, but are mssing a couple of letters----M_CHA_L could equal = MICHAEL. B_STO_ could equal BOSTON
K_NWOO_ could equal KENWOOD

C_OUDY SK_ES = cloudy skies

It is so easy it is almost stupid.

=== But then, YOU did already know all of this, didnt ya ? If you did not, you do now. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[K7JBQ]

Good to hear from fellow musicians, including you guys who actually read music.

I've played five-string banjo for years. For long enough that I remember (dimly) when there was money in it, or at least free drinks.

As Pete Seeger once said, "Hell, there are no notes to a banjo. You just play it."

There are doubtless those who say the same about my CW -- especially those who try to copy the old bug with decoders.

73,
Bill

[AE6IP]

I can't get the hang of the five string. Maybe some day.

right now I just listen to Bela Fleck and drop my jaw.

[ab0wr]

Quote[/b] (N1LAF @ Sep. 25 2006,18:20)]I would like to add my opinion, hope nobody will object...

Morse code is not one of memorization, it is conditioning, just like a spoken language. #If you understand a language by hearing, you can learn morse code, and it all depends how much effort is put into it.

I 'memorized' the code over the years I was a NCT. #When I heard it, I could not process it fast enough in providing a mental lookup table for what I was hearing. #

It wasn't until another NCT and friend of mine asked me about taking the morse code class that was offered in Montville (Conn). #I felt it was time to get serious to learn and learn right. #Its different to 'understand' the morse code than to memorize the patterns and to do a mental translation. #And for me, it wasn't easy. #I did practice hours at a time every day for 8 weeks or so (duration of the class - saturdays). #I even wrote a LabVIEW program that I could paste text from a document into my program, and it would code out the text. #It was hard, just like learning any language, and I worked hard for itI took the test, and did three minutes of perfect copy, and understood the entire 5 minute 'conversation'. #I then passed the written test. #After 25 years of thinking about it, I finally did it, and when I passed, I treated myself to the ICOM 706MKIIG, which is a great little radio.

The message of this to all who wants to advance in Amateur Radio, Morse code is not for memorizing, it is conditioning, takes patience and time, and there are no short cuts. #Find a class and listen carefully, you will learn it.

PS: The memorization probably allows me to send much faster than copying at this time.
Welcome to the issue. Your post makes sense to me!

Once you reach a code speed that is sufficient to send the end of a word before the beginning of the word drops out of your short-term memory buffer you can begin to get conditioned to hearing words.

tim ab0wr

[N2RJ]

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Sep. 25 2006,18:44)]Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Sep. 25 2006,14:35)]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Sep. 25 2006,16:23)]Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Sep. 25 2006,09:49)]I think part of the reason the Morse test is hated (by NCTs and others alike) so much is because, unlike the written, you can't just go memorize the question pool and easily pass the test.
Nah, Morse is the only element that must be memorized.
Learning anything requires some form of memorization. #In morse you are memorizing letters. #You are not memorizing questions and answers like you are doing with the question pools.

Never met anyone who memorized the question pool. I guess they might exist, but in my experience, and I've been a VE for years, they're very rare. Memorizing Morse is a lot easier.

Quote[/b] ]
Quote[/b] ]You can get by any of the rest simply by knowing theory, but the only you can learn Morse code is rote memorization.

Learning theory for most people is harder than learning the question pool questions and answers.


I hear that a lot, but I've never seen any actual evidence of it. #The extra pool is fairly large but the theory behind it is fairly simple.

I suspect that a few weeks of reading the ARRL book would get most general holders through the extra test with a lot less effort than learning the extra pool.
I've seen people post here about using QRZ to practice the question pool.

Even if they don't memorize the entire thing, the fact that the questions and answers are available means that you really won't have to work all that hard.

And judging by how little some licensees know about actual radio theory, I'd be inclined to believe that the memorization of the pool happens more often than you'd like to believe.

[ky5u]

Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ Sep. 25 2006,10:16)]I don't care how 'cute' you spell it, using dollar signs and what not, it is still unacceptable.

Tom
One of the QRZ.COM moderators.
How about:

The no code movement is about a few lazy people who want to change the rules so they qualify. All the rest is just a "mind game".

Ok?

P.S. Thought I heard you on 40m RTTY this weekend. Well, fess up dude.

[kb9rqz]

Quote[/b] (AB3BK @ Sep. 23 2006,19:29)]Perhaps some just cannot learn it. #That really does't matter. #Should the rules be changed because of that??
obviously yes
since clearly Code unlike, vision for a jet, is not required to operate a radio

the only excuse before ws the treaty

[w8znx]

if its too dam easy
it's not worth doing

is it just me
but
see that many postings
that are full of spelling mistakes
are from people
that also dislike Morse Code

am mildly dyslexic
was much more of a problem
for me when younger

grew up in a household
full of books
all my family were/are avid readers

learned to read
because at that time
i wanted to be able to read
more than anything else in the world

did not matter that i saw letters
and words out of order
thought everybody saw them the same way

nobody knew squat about
dyslexia in the early 50's

grade school teachers
were amazed
could not spell
could not read out loud,
or pronounce what i could read

but when it came to
learning how to receive Morse Code
was easy
just hear the sound
write down the letter
do not need to understand what
was sent to pass the test

don't even need to know english
to pass the Morse Code test
just write down the letters and numbers
for one min solid copy
you pass

only reason
this posting is not full of spelling mistakes
Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary
yes its work looking up words all the time
even harder if you have the 2nd letter wrong
but it's worth it

funny
more i use a dictionary
less i need it

Mac

[N2RJ]

Quote[/b] (kb9rqz @ Sep. 26 2006,13:22)]Quote[/b] (AB3BK @ Sep. 23 2006,19:29)]Perhaps some just cannot learn it. That really does't matter. Should the rules be changed because of that??
obviously yes
since clearly Code unlike, vision for a jet, is not required to operate a radio

the only excuse before ws the treaty
The problem I and others have is that dropping the code isn't a 1 for 1 exchange.

Instead it's a giveaway.

I have no problem dropping the code but replace it with something substantial.

Whether it be a closed book test (no open question pools) or a mandatory licensing course a la foundation or doing certain tasks for credit (like the south african system) something should replace the code test.

[ky5u]

For No Coders... A story written just for you:

Quote[/b] ]A little railroad engine was employed about a station yard for such work as it was built for, pulling a few cars on and off the switches. One morning it was waiting for the next call when a long train of freight-cars asked a large engine in the roundhouse to take it over the hill. "I can't; that is too much a pull for me," said one engine. Then the train asked another engine, and another, only to hear excuses and be refused. At last in desperation the train asked the little switch engine to draw it up the grade and down on the other side. "I think I can," puffed the little locomotive, and put itself in front of the great heavy train. As it went on the little engine kept bravely puffing faster and faster, "I think I can, I think I can, I think I can."

Then as it near the top of the grade, that had so discouraged the larger engines, it went more slowly, but still kept saying, "I--think--I--can, I--think--I--can." It reached the top by dint of brave effort and then went on down the grade, congratulating itself, "I thought I could, I thought I could."

Moral: To think of hard things and say, "I can't" is sure to mean "Nothing done." To refuse to be daunted and insist on saying, "I think I can," is to make sure of being able to say triumphantly by and by, "I thought I could, I thought I could."

[WB2WIK]

Quote[/b] (w8znx @ Sep. 26 2006,11:46)]am mildly dyslexic
was much more of a problem
for me when younger
You share that with hundreds of famous, accomplished people including authors, screenwriters, military leaders and elected officials.

They went on to do great things because they wanted to.

Unlike people who don't learn the code, because they don't want to.

[AG3Y]

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Sep. 26 2006,02:39)]I can't get the hang of the five string. Maybe some day.

right now I just listen to Bela Fleck and drop my jaw.
Only guy I know who can play Bach on a 5 string ! ! !

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif

[AG3Y]

Quote[/b] (ai4ep @ Sep. 25 2006,22:28)]...oh and one more point that no one else has mentioned about morse code ---it is in normal words, brand names of radios, weather, temperature, age, names, towns, states, nations, countries, etc. #All you have to know is a basic ability to spell normal words correctly.

As an example...say you have copied the dudes name, but are mssing a couple of letters----M_CHA_L #could equal = MICHAEL. # B_STO_ could equal BOSTON
# K_NWOO_ could equal KENWOOD #

C_OUDY SK_ES = cloudy skies

It is so easy it is almost stupid.

=== But then, YOU did already know all of this, didnt ya ? # If you did not, you do now. # http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
My point, Robert, but judging from some of the posts here on QRZ.COM, that just MIGHT be a stumbling block for some ! ! !

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[N2RJ]

Quote[/b] (WB2WIK @ Sep. 26 2006,14:11)]Quote[/b] (w8znx @ Sep. 26 2006,11:46)]am mildly dyslexic
was much more of a problem
for me when younger
You share that with hundreds of famous, accomplished people including authors, screenwriters, military leaders and elected officials.

They went on to do great things because they wanted to.

Unlike people who don't learn the code, because they don't want to.
Post of the year!

[WB2WIK]

Biggest problem with learning code, for those who actually want to, is trying to learn it by listening to tapes and CDs, computer programs, internet stuff or even listening to signals picked off the airwaves with a receiver.

None of that stuff works well.

There's a great book, in fact I have a copy here in my office, called, "You Can't Teach a Kid to Ride a Bike at a Seminar," by David H. Sandler, the founder of the well-known Sandler Institute. Great read. Although the book is actually about selling, and salesmanship, it's really appropriate for anybody doing anything.

You really can't teach a kid to ride a bike at a seminar. Nobody ever learned to ski or surf by watching a video. Very few people have learned to swim by listening to a tape.

WB2WIK/6

[N2RJ]

So Steve, what method do you propose?

[WB2WIK]

Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Sep. 26 2006,14:15)]So Steve, what method do you propose?
Only method I ever found that works well and quickly is to learn code by sending it, and receiving it, with another person. It doesn't have to be "on the air," just two keys and a code practice oscillator, along with two chairs and a table are all the equipment required.

I use the "buddy system" in my code classes and it's been about 100% effective, taking people from "what is this code stuff?" to about 13 wpm in a few weeks.

The advantage is, when they can copy the code, they can also send it and actually make a conversation with it.

The reason it works better than "copying" code is because it's interactive. Try learning a new language by listening to tapes and you're in it for the long haul. Learn the language by forcing yourself to use only that language, and never your native language, by conversing with others only in the "new" language, and you'll be conversational in a month.

WB2WIK/6

[N2RJ]

Interesting.

I am teaching my xyl the code right now. I think I'll try this method too.

Right now I just send letters and she copies.

[WB2WIK]

Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Sep. 26 2006,14:41)]Interesting.

I am teaching my xyl the code right now. I think I'll try this method too.

Right now I just