View Full Version : Morse Code Should Go Away
At least that's what I've heard some say.
I'm just kidding really. #
Code is absolutely awesome!
I think we should go back to the old standard of CW: 5wpm, 13wpm, 20wpm
Now, if only the ARRL would fight as hard for this standard as they have to get us that new 60m band!!!
PS: #Just stirring up trouble!!!!!!!
I second that motion. I would love to see additional privs for 30 and 40 wpm also.
wb6bcn
12-20-2002, 06:49 AM
I also agree: What other mode can you get on the air by making all your own equipment including the antenna with a less than $100 and talk around the world every day? What other mode can you use with about a half dozen QSOs in a 1 KHz window and not be very concerned with tromping on someone above or below?
CW has a lot to offer. What other mode can you operate where a speech impediment will go un-noticed that requires no specialized equipment?
When I read this topic title I thought "Here we go again". I was pleasantly surprised I didn't have to defend CW from nay-sayers. Thumbs up to this posting. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
K6UEY
12-20-2002, 07:10 AM
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Mark NG5L
Mark I would suspect you have tried to tight rope walk the Grand Canyon,obviously you like to live dangerously.
As others have remarked when I saw the topic the Hair stood up on the back of my neck and I figured here we go again,not sure the blood pressure has gone back down yet but it is reassuring to know you only Jest !!
Tis' the season to be Jolly ...HOHOHO!!!
BEST of SEASON's GREETINGS to ALL......73.......ORV
KD7KOY
12-20-2002, 10:00 AM
"What other mode can you get on the air by making all your own equipment including the antenna with a less than $100 and talk around the world every day? "
I can get on the air for just $49.99 and talk anywhere...
US Cellular had a sale last week... http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif yuk..yuk..
wb6bcn
12-20-2002, 02:55 PM
KD7KOY says:</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I can get on the air for just $49.99 and talk anywhere...
US Cellular had a sale last week... http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif yuk..yuk.. [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Not exactly true: What about that year's worth of service at $30 a month. For the first year that's over $400, and if you want to keep talking, at least another $20 a month.... http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif yuk..yuk..
Hehehehe... WISE GUY, EH? I was just about to hook a fresh propane tank up to my flamethrower. Rats!
Just in time for the New Year, how about a morse code requirement for CB?
Dah di-dah di-dit dah-dit
Di-di-dah-dit dah-dah-dah di-dah di-dah-dit !!
K7LCS
12-20-2002, 05:30 PM
CW TODAY, TOMORROW, AND FOREVER. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Merry Christmas to all CW Operators.
K7LCS
AC7UX
12-20-2002, 05:44 PM
Long live the cult of the dead horse!
Yes, it is a dead horse, for some who don't care anymore.
I was pretty inspired by the website for NoCode International.
I thought I would take it a step further and just advocate the abolition of radio altogether!!! HA!HA!HA!HA!
WB2GOF
12-20-2002, 06:23 PM
Some say the CW requirement keeps the riff-raff out of Amateur Radio. I say baloney because I got in!!
There goes that theory!
KD5KUF
12-20-2002, 06:26 PM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (WB2GOF @ Dec. 20 2002,12:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Some say the CW requirement keeps the riff-raff out of Amateur Radio. #I say baloney because I got in!!
There goes that theory![/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Watch it! Some of us out here resemble that remark. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Reminds me of a song...
"...'cause I got friends in LOW places..."
About CW, let's start a requirment for CW on 11m.
Wait, there's no requirement there at all!!!
That could soon be ham radio, if we keep lowering the standard.
If we do away with the CW requirement, something had better take it's place.
It's funny that the US follows suit with foreign nations about many things, and unfortunately, it generally involves LOWERING the standards about the topic involved.
W1RFI
12-20-2002, 11:52 PM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (NG5L @ Dec. 19 2002,12:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If we do away with the CW requirement, something had better take it's place. [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I can second that. #I believe that the exams should be changed so that hams need to learn more about the radio technology in use by other radio services. #As I look through some of the industry rags that discuss all the different modulation methods and encoding in use today, I fear that hams are falling behind.
Many of the comments to the FCC that supported changes in code testing asked that the FCC strengthen the exams to offset that. #The FCC didn't do that, but turned the entire process over to hams through the Question Pool Committee. #This is the process by which hams can make the exams near about anything they think they should be.
But I can tell you from first hand experience that virtually no hams participate in that process, despite repeated pleas by the committee for input. Those hams that have given their input have given some pretty good input, in most cases.
But why would many who feel as you do not be taking the simple step of telling the QPC what they feel about the current pools, offering suggestions for improvement or writing at least one question?
I don't mean this following question as an accusation, but I am curious; did you communicate your view to the QPC or offer them any input on the pools? I ask the question as a step toward helping the QPC improve the pools.
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
M3TMC
12-21-2002, 12:31 AM
It will be gone soon! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
AI4EP
12-21-2002, 01:24 AM
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif let us see now...a lot of folks want to do away with the MORSE CODE requirement since it is #" too hard ", " too antiquated " , " not used in MOST qso s " , and various other "reasons"..... guess the removal of the CODE can go one BIG step further: NO LICENCE required at all... sell the radios at SEARS & WAL - MART , the antennas and accessories at RADIO SHACK, and let all the bands go to ____ within one year or less. #Let all of the amateur bands go the way of 11 meters within one year or less, should not take too long . #The arrl could be non-existant, the FCC could just throw up their hands in disgust, and all of the "crying & belly aching " would be un-noticed in all of the LOUD , offensive stations from coast - to - coast, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. # http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif . #Does any one care about the next day / week / month / year or not ? # Getting rid of the MORSE CODE requirement is NOT a step FORWARD, it may be unused, it may be difficult to do, it may be a challenge, but apparently all you folks who all worked SO hard to accomplish this great FEAT of learning the MORSE CODE are willing to let others in WITHOUT having to go through the "pain & suffering that YOU as an individual went through, " #tht YOU as an individual are WILLING to let others accomplish the same goals you have accomplished, WITHOUT going through the daily/weekly/ hassles that you went through. #Getting rid of the MORSE CODE requirement is a giant step BACKWARD, and you know it ! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif # #GOD bless us every one, even the athiests # kd4amg
I think that we sometimes forget the advantages of CW.
It is an artform that the commercial radio component has forgotten. It is an artform that the military has all but forgotten.
Shall we as amateurs let it slide into the past as well?
There is the point made by some that spark gap transmitters are no longer around, technology having moved ahead, but is that even comparable to the CW issue? I think not.
Telephony is almost as old as wireless telegraphy, so we should do away with that too?
As far as the crowded bands, aren't we supposed to be finding better ways to utilize the spectrum, like reduced bandwith modes? Isn't CW narrower in bandwidth than SSB? AM? FM?
M3TMC
12-21-2002, 05:23 AM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (NG5L @ Dec. 20 2002,18:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It is an artform that the commercial radio component has forgotten. #It is an artform that the military has all but forgotten.
Shall we as amateurs let it slide into the past as well?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Yes! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
M3TMC,
Not knowing much about the British license structure, but I bet you haven't had to pass a code test yet.
I am well aware of what the international community is doing.
They are the ones that have influenced our restructering already. #So really, even though amateur radio is about the international community, I'm not worried about what they are doing for the moment.
I'm thinking along the lines of the FCC, or maybe even the ARRL fighting for some standards.
It can be done. #After all, we enjoy 7.1-7.3 MHz. Do you?
K6UEY
12-21-2002, 07:19 AM
In some of the previous postings there is mention of reducing band width to enable #more stations to be able to use the band. Those who were around with the transition from Plate modulated AM to SSB remember the idea was exactly the same to reduce the bandwidth #to allow more QRM free operations. The present newbies and some of the older generation also are doing exactly the opposite with this wide band SSB HI FIDELTY movement.Digital Technology #may allow higher Fidelity #in a reduced bandwidth but for Ham Radio at this time it is not practical.
In this time when complaints of QRM and co-channel spacing being reduced to 2 kc between stations to extend the bandwidth of a station beyond the accepted 2.4 kc is the same as making the statement that you could care less for your fellow Hams and are willing to be part of the problem not part of the solution.
As long as the attitude is one of personal satisfaction as the first priority as opposed to what works for everyone there will be little cohesion amongst the ranks of Ham Radio.And of course the outside interest who monitor these factors will not waste time to point out the lack of the Fraternal bond that was the beginning of Ham Radio as we know it today.In this day of Satellites and VHF/UHF #communications don't be fooled the HF bands still have Commercial Interests.
Ham Radio is not and never was intended to be an advanced mode of the present CB service. It is stated in Part 97.1(b) that the purpose is the continuation and extension of the of the Amateurs proven ability to contribute to the advancement of the Radio Art.
By reducing #the entry level into Ham Radio only puts this requirement farther from reality.
As a charter member of the Flagrant Floggers of the Deceased Equine I think I have expressed my point of view.
Most Joyous Holiday Season to ALL......73, # ORV
I'm certainly not an expert on audio, but I have noticed that when tuning around on 20m specifically, when I hear these HI-FI guys everyone is talking about, that I notice nothing different in the means of adjacent frequency interference.
I'm not defending them, just stating my observations. I hear splatter anywhere from 3-5 kc away more often from foreign stations running power and lowsy audio.
I don't even have filters installed. I can tune to 14.181 or 14.175 and not hear any interference from the group that is being referred to (14.178, hint, hint). Not even a hint of noise.
Just my 2 cents.
9V1VV
12-22-2002, 08:46 AM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (M3TMC @ Dec. 20 2002,17:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It will be gone soon! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Is that really true? How soon is soon? Even though the requirement for Morse may soon be gone, there will still be thousands of CW operators active, for years and years to come. Some DX stations use nothing else, so non-CW operators are missing out. Long live Morse. Merry Christmas and a Happy New year to all, including the No Code advocates.
AI4EP
12-22-2002, 12:07 PM
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif how about the businesses that identify with morse code ? who is going to walk in their door and DEMAND that they go to a VOICE i.d. when morse code is supposed to be " out of style " ? Should they get a VOICE i d with a cute little female voice telling all the call sign, city and state of the transmitter. Sure it sounds CUTE for a few hours/ days / weeks but it DOES get old. ... kd4amg
ZL3JT
12-22-2002, 12:15 PM
de Jungle Telegraph
The people who are most vocal against CW are the ones that don't use it. How can you possibly form an opinion about CW if you don't use it?
It's just a reaction to demonstrate your frustration and inability to find out what's happening on the lower part of each band.
I don't use SSTV....my opinion on that mode cannot be printed here...Is that 'going soon' too?
Mry Xmas es HNY
M3TMC
12-22-2002, 02:13 PM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (zl3jt @ Dec. 22 2002,05:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">de Jungle Telegraph
The people who are most vocal against CW are the ones that don't use it. How can you possibly form an opinion about CW if you don't use it?
It's just a reaction to demonstrate your frustration and inability to find out what's happening on the lower part of each band.
I don't use SSTV....my opinion on that mode cannot be printed here...Is that 'going soon' too?
Mry Xmas es HNY[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Most that are for CW seem to forget that its not CW or the people that enjoy CW is the reason people want code dropped. I havent read any post that says "drop code and let the bottom of the band be use for phone". Code as a requirement for a class A license is absurd, we are living in the 21 st century!
Ask yourself why CW was made a requirement in the first place.
I think CW should be replaced with practical tasks as part of the exam. You should be able to set up a radio and Amp correctly so not to cause interference. Listern around the band and hear what rubbish is out there! Two stations from East Europe was on 80m, between 3790 and 3.800 was not workable because of the splatter from there over modulated amplified audio. Every band is full of the "kw power mad" amateur who pollute the airwaves!
You hear key clicks, chirps, harmonics and spurious emission after spurious emission. You can pass and get a full license without even touching a HF,UHF or VHF set!
CW cant teach you anything more than another mode.
Why not throw a a five min qso test in just for a laugh? Seems most will fail, 5/9 73 is all you seem to hear!!
What about self learning, experiment and innovation? I think its a shame that the band is only packed when a contest is on!! Very innovative.
In the summer of 2003 the UK WILL drop CW. Why not promote CW instead of slagging off them that have no interest in it? Passing the RAE without CW doesnt make you any less technical.
Happy Christmas
86% of all inventions are British.
# # #Innovation at its best!
KB9YKY
12-22-2002, 03:09 PM
No code requirement = break-go-break 10-4, turn up the reverb, good buddy.
wb6bcn
12-22-2002, 04:20 PM
M3TMC says:</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Ask yourself why CW was made a requirement in the first place.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
There are, or at least used to be "Five Principles expressing fundimental purpose of Amateur Radio"
Here is the first one:
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">To recognize the value of amateurs as a voluntary noncommercial service, particulary for providing emerency communications.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
To me, the Emergency communications requirement would include a proficency in CW. It transcends band conditions, and some language barriers. Also in a major emergency when telephone lines are out, satellite communications are out, commercial power is out, and every joule counts, then CW is the only viable communications that can be used long term with reliability.
My 2˘ worth. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
M3TMC
12-22-2002, 05:12 PM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (wb6bcn @ Dec. 22 2002,09:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">To me, #the Emergency communications requirement would include a proficency in CW. #It transcends band conditions, and some language barriers. #Also in a major emergency when telephone lines are out, satellite communications are out, #commercial power is out, #and every joule counts, #then CW is the only viable communications that can be used long term with reliability.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
For a disaster to "Knock out" all form of 21st Century communication will be on the lines of a neclear holocaust. As a family man Living in England we will be blown out of existence if it happens (A price us English WILL pay for helping the USA with an early warning system and bases etc) I hope i will not survive and if I did i would be thinking of my familys survival and not CW. Its not a strong arguement!
As for KB9YKY comment, well must have spent much time on CB radio to know what goes on http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
You can pass morse with relatively low IQ. Just listen around the band and you will find that out http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
All the best
Happy Christmas
wb6bcn
12-22-2002, 06:18 PM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (M3TMC @ Dec. 22 2002,09:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (wb6bcn @ Dec. 22 2002,09:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">To me, the Emergency communications requirement would include a proficency in CW. It transcends band conditions, and some language barriers. Also in a major emergency when telephone lines are out, satellite communications are out, commercial power is out, and every joule counts, then CW is the only viable communications that can be used long term with reliability.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
For a disaster to "Knock out" all form of 21st Century communication will be on the lines of a neclear holocaust. As a family man Living in England we will be blown out of existence if it happens (A price us English WILL pay for helping the USA with an early warning system and bases etc) I hope i will not survive and if I did i would be thinking of my familys survival and not CW. Its not a strong arguement!
As for KB9YKY comment, well must have spent much time on CB radio to know what goes on http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
You can pass morse with relatively low IQ. Just listen around the band and you will find that out http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
All the best
Happy Christmas[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">For a disaster to "Knock out" all form of 21st Century communication will be on the lines of a neclear holocaust.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Not necessarily: A massive solar flair could knock out several satellites, and disrupt power. Check this: If it doesn't center on it, it is about the center of the page: Solar flare close call: http://www17.tomshardware.com/technews/20010416.html#041500
The article doesn't say, but that flare in 1989 also knocked out the satellite that carried a majority of the cell phone traffic for the continental USA. If it weren't for some new satellites being recently launched at that time, it could have posed some long term problems. As it were an adjacent had 80% of its traffic relocated to other satellites, the other 20% lost thier allocations. For the next week they played musical chairs with about ˝ dozen other satellites either relocating them or correcting the attitude of ones that were knocked off course and relocating others to replace ones that were near death.
If this flare had been a more direct hit on the earth, nearly all sattelites in that hemispher effected could have been damaged or destroyed. Also a massive solar flare can have a long term effect on weather. We don't need a neclear holocaust to create a situation that could generate a MAJOR DISASTER. And there was the meteor in 1908, a near miss, as it didn't impact the earth. It did devistate a 200 km radius of which part will not support vegitation to this day.
Mother nature can, and has done things that would disrupt all the modern mass IT systems and knock out power grids either localized or wide area.
WE need to look not only what we have but how vunerable it is.
M3TMC:
I still bet you haven't had to take and pass a code test!
I could be wrong, but then again...
AC7UX
12-22-2002, 06:36 PM
Its the same ol' story.
M3TMC
12-22-2002, 07:25 PM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (wb6bcn @ Dec. 22 2002,11:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Not necessarily: #A massive solar flair could knock out several satellites, #and disrupt power. Check this: If it doesn't center on it, #it is about the center of the page: #Solar flare close call: http://www17.tomshardware.com/technews/20010416.html#041500
The article doesn't say, #but that flare in 1989 also knocked out the satellite that carried a majority of the cell phone traffic for the continental USA. #If it weren't for some new satellites being recently launched at that time, #it could have posed some long term problems. #As it were an adjacent had 80% of its traffic relocated to other satellites, #the other 20% lost thier allocations. #For the next week they played musical chairs with about ˝ dozen other satellites either relocating them or correcting the attitude of ones that were knocked off course and relocating others to replace ones that were near death.
If this flare had been a more direct hit on the earth, #nearly all sattelites in that hemispher effected could have been damaged or destroyed. #Also a massive solar flare can have a long term effect on weather. #We don't need a neclear holocaust to create a situation that could generate a MAJOR DISASTER. #And there was the meteor in 1908, #a near miss, #as it didn't impact the earth. #It did devistate a 200 km radius of which part will not support vegitation to this day.
Mother nature can, and has done things that would disrupt all the modern mass IT systems and knock out power grids either localized or wide area.
WE need to look not only what we have but how vunerable it is.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Always nearly and almost. It didnt and we didnt and CW wasnt http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif Tell me where i can find a link to a site that mentioned the call for CW opps to help with the near disaster 1989 and 1909.
CW or not CW? Is it just a matter of time? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
CW was meant for throwing down a wire in the "good old days"
KB9YKY
12-22-2002, 08:37 PM
That remark about it "taking a nuclear blast" to render modes useless sure was a silly remark. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif Modes other than cw fall off (before and after) every day during during the normal EVERYDAY shifts in propagation. It also sounds silly to claim that GB is going to further violate it's ITU treaties by doing away with cw testing in 2003. Why would GB want to turn the amateur bands into CB anyhow? So that their 10-watt M3 CBers will have more kids to play with? Breaker breaker go M-3-10-4 break.
AC7UX
12-22-2002, 09:32 PM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Why would GB want to turn the amateur bands into CB anyhow? So that their 10-watt M3 CBers will have more kids to play with? [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'> The M3 class license from england is a good example of what you get when you lower the standards. so far all the real amateur radio operators I've talked to don't have much good to say about this class license. They think it is the slow spiral downward most would not like to see. Breaker breaker 10-4.
M3TMC
12-22-2002, 10:26 PM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (AC7UX @ Dec. 22 2002,14:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Why would GB want to turn the amateur bands into CB anyhow? So that their 10-watt M3 CBers will have more kids to play with? [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'> The M3 class license from england is a good example of what you get when you lower the standards. so far all the real amateur radio operators I've talked to don't have much good to say about this class license. They think it is the slow spiral downward most would not like to see. Breaker breaker 10-4.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
You will find that most have a class B license and have had for years. As for me I have had a Novice license for 6 years and never had the time to upgrade. If not for the death of my farther in law i would not have entered for the the RAE 2nd of December. I have looked at your past exam paper and i think you have it easy in the USA.The Novice exam is harder and more indepth than any of your exams. The RAE has 80 questions taken over 2 and a quarter hours. It would be interesting to see how many would pass the UK RAE.
It is well known in the UK that people have gone to US bases in the UK to pass the License. Why ? because it is easier to pass.
As for the Foundation license, well yes it is easy but harder than the Tech exam! You let them loose with 1500w!!!!
As for "Real Hams" well a real ham would not have made such a comment. My idea of an Amateur is a helpful Amateur who will help other Amateurs further in the hobbie.
Lets get your "Real Hams" on and see what they really have to say.
Happy Christmas http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
My 2˘ worth....
I don't understand this flaming each other about who's test is harder, and the use of CW. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif I don't prefer to use CW, but I sure as heck wouldn't flame someone who does. CW is a good mode of operation and can get through when others fail. It didn't bother me a bit to have to learn 13 WPM CW to pass my General exam. It wasn't the easiest thing but it was fun. If I had to learn 20 WPM CW to earn my Extra, I would. Why would anyone want to do away with a mode of operation just because not everyone uses it?
Oh well, Have a Happy and Safe Holiday season, & 73's!
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
KC7UMB / Steve
WB2GOF
12-23-2002, 03:41 PM
UMB - As for flaming each other over test difficulty and CW usage, all I can say is it must be a testosterone thing. #You know, when two male gorillas in the forest beat their chests, gnash their teeth, and try to intimidate each other. #This entire topic was intended to troll out the worst in Hams, and obviously, it has worked!
AC7UX
12-23-2002, 04:17 PM
That would explain my strong desire to throw off my clothes and rampage around the neighborhood picking coconuts and bananas. Thanks mike.
WB2GOF
12-23-2002, 06:12 PM
Can I call you "Magilla"?
AC7UX
12-23-2002, 07:20 PM
As big as I am, maybe "king-kong" would be better. now I'm off to find Fay Wray and climb a tall building.
AI4EP
12-23-2002, 09:39 PM
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif it is ok to CLIMB the building, it is OK to get to the TOP, just PLEASE do not rip off the communication towers on TOP of the building. kd4amg
n1ydx
12-24-2002, 01:33 PM
Hi,
Read everyones replies and agree with everyone.
CW in its self IS ham radio to me, otherwise I would consider myself a high powered CB operator. I can do something to communicate that many others CAN'T.
If the powers that be want to eliminate the code from future exams, then they should give CW qualified amateurs a call that identifies them as CW QUALIFIED to separate them from VOICE ONLY hams and some bandwidth of their own on all bands. Maybe even a new band in some clear territory.
M3TMC - Yes you are at risk because of your ties with Americans and I thank you for your sacrifice and exposure. But remember, if you didn't have those ties for so long now, you'd be speaking German in London!
Lee - N1YDX ( Why? Because it's fun )
M3TMC
12-24-2002, 01:55 PM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (n1ydx @ Dec. 24 2002,06:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">M3TMC - Yes you are at risk because of your ties with Americans and I thank you for your sacrifice and exposure. But remember, if you didn't have those ties for so long now, you'd be speaking German in London![/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
We wont let it happen. Your early warning system will be refused.
German? Would never have happened http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
KC0OAC
12-24-2002, 02:40 PM
I am a no-code tech working on my code and making good progress. I just wanted to add that I think the 5 wpm should be a requirement for ALL amateurs. It would keep out a lot of the guys who rip off other amateurs and then go get a another call so they can rip off some more hams!
W5ATX
12-24-2002, 03:01 PM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (M3TMC @ Dec. 24 2002,08:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (n1ydx @ Dec. 24 2002,06:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">M3TMC - Yes you are at risk because of your ties with Americans and I thank you for your sacrifice and exposure. But remember, if you didn't have those ties for so long now, you'd be speaking German in London![/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
We wont let it happen. Your early warning system will be refused.
German? Would never have happened ;)[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Go check your history books . . .
M3TMC
12-24-2002, 04:46 PM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (W5ATX @ Dec. 24 2002,08:01)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Go check your history books . . .[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I have and loose cannon comes to mind.
See what problems Allies had in Africa. Then tell me the root of the problem.
Dont forget your genoristy of "falling apart" first world war ships.
kg4rrm
12-24-2002, 05:35 PM
The whole war wouldn't have happened if you watched Gemany more closely. You shouldn't have let them build war ships and/ or let them get away with it.
M3TMC
12-24-2002, 06:05 PM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kg4rrm @ Dec. 24 2002,10:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The whole war wouldn't have happened if you watched Gemany more closely. You shouldn't have let them build war ships and/ or let them get away with it.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Could say the same about Japan eh?
kg4rrm
12-24-2002, 06:17 PM
touche
(don't know how to the weird symbol)
AC7UX
12-24-2002, 06:27 PM
The empty vessel makes the greatest sound. -SHAKESPEARE-
G4REK
12-24-2002, 09:17 PM
I wonder how much cw will be used during the Iraq fiasco
not a lot I think............................ http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
KB9YKY
12-24-2002, 09:23 PM
G4, what is a "Iraq fiasco"? Is it some sort of cb radio or reverberator you guys are using now?
M3TMC
12-24-2002, 10:13 PM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KB9YKY @ Dec. 24 2002,14:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">G4, what is a "Iraq fiasco"? Is it some sort of cb radio or reverberator you guys are using now?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I think hes on about the Baghdad thing thats going to happen.
As the British army are the undisputed urban warfare experts ie: The best in the world! We are going to be pulling you out of the proverbial http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif
ciao
AC7UX
12-24-2002, 11:15 PM
My troll meter just went off the scale.
M3TMC
12-24-2002, 11:24 PM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (AC7UX @ Dec. 24 2002,16:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">My troll meter just went off the scale.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Front end overload. Maybe you should not sit too close. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
W8FAX
12-25-2002, 02:17 PM
Yaaawwwwwn...........who's the DX http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif
AC7UX
12-25-2002, 06:00 PM
Merry Christmas and have a happy new year.
KG4RYT
12-26-2002, 04:15 AM
IN THE EARLY DAYS OF RADIO CODE WAS USED http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif
NOW WE HAVE ADVANCED TO THE POINT OF HAVING MIKES INSTEAD OF KEY PADS http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
I LOVE VOICE, THE #USE OF OUT DATED CODE IS LIKE THE GUY THAT STILL RIDES HIS HORSE AND BUGGY TO TOWN. HE STILL GETS THERE BUT NOT IN STYLE http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif
P.S. MOST OF YOU THAT STILL PLAY WITH CODE DO IT NOW ON THE COMPUTER KEY PAD. I DON'T THINK THAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED CODE , MAYBE EMAIL http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
When did my: KY-116/U upgrade to a computer keyboard?
Don't like CW, go somewhere else. Try Broadcast Radio?
Who twisted your hand to learn Morse Code?
Meet the requirements or go elsewhere.
wb6bcn
12-26-2002, 07:19 AM
Used to know someone that used a KY-116/U while on his daily commute.
Set the cruise control and hammer away!! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
AA0CX
12-26-2002, 03:01 PM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (AC7UX @ Dec. 20 2002,10:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Long live the cult of the dead horse![/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Yeh!
It's an overworked topic...however...as long as it's up for discussion again [sigh], let's take another stab at it.
Plus, it's a good topic to get all of us away from the leftover turkey and into a discussion forum.
I do CW. I like CW. I rarely...and I mean RARELY...get on the phone portions of the bands. CW is my bag...and as long as there are some other old duffers like myself out there to talk to...I'm happy!
73
Mark
AE4FA
12-27-2002, 12:45 AM
Thank God for guys like you, Mark.
My idea of heaven: 25wpm and 75mph. Long live mobile HF CW!
73, Bob
AC7UX
12-27-2002, 01:44 AM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Thank God for guys like you, Mark.
My idea of heaven: 25wpm and 75mph. [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'> #and if he could only talk on a cellphone too.
After doing some research this week on the history of Amateur radio, I am saddened but not surprised.
I have been told many times that the Americans should listen to the Europeans more, in many areas, including politics.
As far as radio is concerned, and I am aware that there are exceptions to every rule, I have discovered that it is no other country except America, and maybe Canada, that has fostered an atmosphere so fond of the Amateur.
Yes, some in our own government have sought to render the hobby useless, but in repeated efforts on the international scene, Europe has not been the staunch supporter of the Amateur that America has.
Anyone remember the bandwidth the American Amateur used to have? Well, we've been trimmed back because of European influence. That's why there are some North American-only bands out there.
So my point is this: The anti-CW movement is grown of European influence. Yes, many Americans feel the same way no doubt, but here we have it again. Europe at the helm of sweeping change. It may not be all bad, but is it all good?
An yes, I know that Europe is not the only supporter of Anti-Code.
So ponder on it. We as Americans must defend Amateur radio, just like we've always had to.
W8FAX
12-27-2002, 03:32 AM
I believe (may be wrong) that the folks in ZL land were the first to REALLY start the no/code/less/code fiasco going full bore a few years ago. Unfortunately, it was a band wagon that many, not having the gumption to start on their own, and seeking a softer easier way, climbed aboard for the ride............
Weather or not CW is under-utilized or not , I for one, see many advantages of using code, and or code based digital modes... ie, their ability to get through when conditions are less than favorable... ask any REAL vhf and above operator... CW is NECESSARY! Not ' another mode '... just think abt it.. 100w spread over 3.5 khz is great... but 100w with a narrow bandwidth is BETTER.
As far as no code goes... fine let them have no code licenses... here is the catch... then u CANT USE THE MODE OR ITS SPECTRUM! Then we will see who starts whining .
Steve Raas
kg4rrm
12-27-2002, 05:52 AM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N2JDQ @ Dec. 27 2002,00:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As far as no code goes... fine let them have no code licenses... here is the catch... then u CANT USE THE MODE OR ITS SPECTRUM! #Then we will see who starts whining .[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Unfortunately then it will be too late. #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif
wb6bcn
12-27-2002, 05:54 AM
Ok here it is:
How much better is SSB over AM: 3dB
How much better is CW over SSB: 25dB at least: depends on speed.
The next closest digital mode (35 HZ BW) is only 20 dB better than SSB.
There's always a fresh way to look at things!
K6UEY
12-27-2002, 06:13 AM
Doug-WB6BCN
I believe if you recheck your figures you will find SSB over conventional AM has a 9 dB advantage.
Remember we not only pick up gain by dropping the carrier but we pick up another 3 dB by reducing the bandwidth to one SSB.
I think the country successfully minimized the European Dominance once before,second time should be easier.......
Hope everyone had a Happy Yule tide season and may your New Year #be Joyous and Prosperous......73, # ORV
this is always a touchy subject, I for one had to learn cw, at age 11 to get on the air, learned fast, still love it, but am disquisted by the negative attitudes revolving around the subject. Granted, things are much different now from my old NOVICE days, 27 years ago, we now have no code priviledges, but why all the condemn for the cw priviledges that have ancestored this great hobby? If you don't like it, fine, don't use it, I for one am not condemning the no code priviledges, it is a great way to get more involved in ham, but the key word is PRIVILEDGES, meaning you do a little more work to gain more band spectrum. I don't care what mode a person uses, I am always ready to wish them the best, maybe I am old fashion, but this is how I grew up with amateur radio... http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
wb6bcn
12-27-2002, 06:47 AM
kb0kyu says:
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">but why all the condemn for the cw priviledges that have ancestored this great hobby?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
The answer is quite simple: ATTITUDE.
Not only on this issue but too many other issues the attitude: This agency or that agency should give me something, even if I won't take the initiative to earn it. Over the last 50 years I have seen examples where the "Give me a hand" has changen to "Give me a handout". When I got my WN6 I had to travel to the FCC office, show them I could send before I could take the receive test. There had to be a solid minute of sending error free of text they selected of 5 minutes of sending, then I got to listen to 5 minutes of code, and had to copy 1 solid minute error free. There were no VE sessions, there was no multiple choice on what was in the code. If you didn't know it, you went home. The conditional license was the first step in the creation of the VE program. This I thougt was a good move. The removal of the sending test I didn't like.
My 2˘ for this post
wb6bcn
12-27-2002, 06:54 AM
K6UEY
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> Doug-WB6BCN
I believe if you recheck your figures you will find SSB over conventional AM has a 9 dB advantage.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I was looking worst case: Full carrier SSB as opposed to either reduced carrier SSB or supressed carrrier SSB.
I wonder from time to time, why people that are INTERESTED in amateur radio find a reason to COMPLAIN about CW and its USE?
Learn the requirements or good somewhere else and shut-up. Join the filthy mouth ones, unlicensed types and take your chances with the Federal Government-SIMPLE.
Amateur radio doesn't need or require you for absolutely nothing. FRS, MURS and CB are LICENSE FREE, dive in and enjoy the filth.
AE4FA
12-27-2002, 11:24 AM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> Posted: Dec. 26 2002,23:47 # #
The removal of the sending test I didn't like.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Actually, it didn't go away. I have the necessary materials in our VE Team case. Its just optional.
73, Bob
W5ATX
12-27-2002, 11:37 AM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ae4fa @ Dec. 27 2002,06:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> Posted: Dec. 26 2002,23:47 # #
The removal of the sending test I didn't like.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Actually, it didn't go away. #I have the necessary materials in our VE Team case. #Its just optional.
73, Bob[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
It did go away. #Now if the VE system makes it optional, that's all well and good. #But FCC field offices stopped requiring sending tests around the time I got my Extra - Nov 1977. #I can't remember now if I had to send when I went for my Extra or not. But I know I had to send 13wpm in Dec 1975 for my General, (as well as 20wpm for my telegraph second class in 1977.) I thought eliminating the sending test was a bad thing then, but looking at what it's turned into, I guess it wasn't so bad. #
My take on it is this: #if you meet the requirement, whatever they may or may not be, you're in. #It just saddens me to see that society has gotten to where so many folks EXPECT something on their terms. #Like a few previous posters have said - if you don't want to meet the requirements, go find a different hobby. #If you want to be a ham, swallow hard and deal with it. #Or wait - who knows how long - until you get your way. #If you choose that path, it's your loss.
It's like the driving test. #I don't know about other places, but here in NJ, parallel parking is part of the test. #If you screw it up, you don't get a license. #I'm sure there are plenty of folks who NEVER have occassion to parallel park. #But I've never seen a "popular movement" calling for parallel parking to be removed from the test. #No, folks learn it, pass it, and move forward.
Oh well, society has already gone well on the way to the handbasket. #I shouldn't complain, that's allowed me to earn my living as I do for the past 22 years. #But it's sad that ham radio is going to way of "another" radio service. #
No-code has/will saved ham radio from extinction. #The question is, is it a ham radio I want to grow old with? #Will it be worth "saving" in the end?
73,
Chris
AE4FA
12-27-2002, 11:49 AM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">W5ATX
My take on it is this: #if you meet the requirement, whatever they may or may not be, you're in. #It just saddens me to see that society has gotten to where so many folks EXPECT something on their terms. #
. . .
... parallel parking is part of the test. #If you screw it up, you don't get a license. #I'm sure there are plenty of folks who NEVER have occassion to parallel park. #But I've never seen a "popular movement" calling for parallel parking to be removed from the test. #No, folks learn it, pass it, and move forward.
... #
The question is, is it a ham radio I want to grow old with? #Will it be worth "saving" in the end? [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Agreed. I'm just waiting for school kids to start rioting over the math requirement. After all, they have computers to do it for them. By the way, ever have a store clerk ask for help in determining the right amount of change?
OK, that's 78 cents out of a dollar - uh - uh - uh . . .
73, Bob
n1ydx
12-27-2002, 02:58 PM
Hi,
CW. The language of Kings/Queens.
Got a question. Anyone know if (Hope I got this right) Irving Strobing? Strobe?) in 2 land is still active?
I absolutely loved my CW contacts and mail with this great guy. I contacted him when I was a Novice and loved his code style ( his fist accent ). But it was his history that grabbed me.
Irv was the Radio Operator on Corrigidor when the Japanese were at the cave entrance. Tapping out his code on the conditions and the impending surrender to the world. His last sentences were to tell his Mom he was alright.
I'm going into the basement tonight and get his cards and the notepad records of our contacts.
Anyone know if Irving is still active ? I'll have his call tomorrow.
wb6bcn
12-27-2002, 03:42 PM
N1YDX ask:
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
Anyone know if Irving is still active ? I'll have his call tomorrow.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
In the QRZ database there is: STROBING, IRVING N4FLW BUTNER, NC. He was born in 1920. This very well be the same person.
K0YNE
01-06-2003, 08:09 PM
The new hams who will never know CW beyond the exam, will be missing an ancient means of communication and they will forever be less than those who can practice the art.
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kn0yne @ Jan. 06 2003,14:09)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The new hams who will never know CW beyond the exam, will be missing an ancient means of communication and they will forever be less than those who can practice the art.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
They will be 'less' to the same extent that every Ham who has not homebrewed their own HF AM/SSB tranciever will be 'less' than any other Ham... And they will be 'less' than any Ham who has not built from scratch a 24 Ghz Rig ... And they will be 'less' than any Ham who has not 'ground' his own 'rocks'...
It is all a matter of perspective, and individual choice.
M3TMC
01-06-2003, 08:50 PM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N0PU @ Jan. 06 2003,13:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif9--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kn0yne @ Jan. 06 2003,14http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif9)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The new hams who will never know CW beyond the exam, will be missing an ancient means of communication and they will forever be less than those who can practice the art.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
They will be 'less' to the same extent that every Ham who has not homebrewed their own HF AM/SSB tranciever will be 'less' than any other Ham... And they will be 'less' than any Ham who has not built from scratch a 24 Ghz Rig ... And they will be 'less' than any Ham who has not 'ground' his own 'rocks'...
It is all a matter of perspective, and individual choice.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Well said that man!!!!!
AC7UX
01-06-2003, 09:47 PM
Long live the cult of the dead horse.
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (M3TMC @ Jan. 06 2003,14:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N0PU @ Jan. 06 2003,13:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
It is all a matter of perspective, and individual choice.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Well said that man!!!!![/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
TMC:
Do not let yourself believe that my statement was anti-CW, for I am a staunch supporter of CW testing...
My statement was made towards the idea of one mode being considered the ultimate definition of what being a Ham is all about.
M3TMC
01-06-2003, 10:12 PM
I can understand what you write.
Check out this website. There's a very strong effort that's gonna make sure the code requirement goes away.
Their membership numbers are growing by leaps & bounds every single day.
WWW.NOCODE.ORG (http://www.nocode.org)
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
AC7UX
01-07-2003, 02:28 AM
It don't matter what groups form to protest. the code is here to stay and the FCC will make sure it stays.
AC7UX
01-07-2003, 02:37 AM
The FCC controls what is implemented in the good ol' US of A, not england.
AC7UX
01-07-2003, 02:46 AM
Tell you what, hold your breath till it happens.
N0WVA
01-07-2003, 03:08 AM
!! Idea!! Maybe if I learn morse code, I can tell what the call sign is of the 2 meter repeater Im working through!!
AE4FA
01-07-2003, 03:16 AM
Know what's funny? The guy with the website is making a mint in 'contributions' from the whiners!
73, Bob
why do we worry if cw is going away, I don't believe the FCC will abolish the priviledge. Let's say the requirements are no longer valid, look at all the millions of operators that enjoy cw, who WILL still use it. But for now, it is required to hold certain class licenses, as compared to having a insurance to drive LEGALLY.. some do and some don't ..I honestly don't understand all the commotion about learning code, it is so easy and fun... it makes me wonder "what next" let's do away with all the FCC rules and forget about promoting international goodwill, and do away with learning to build our own equipment (just buy it, plug it in and ZAP) forget learning all that nonsense theory too... NOT!!!!! someone please give an honest answer to WHY the big discussion to do away with code?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif I would have more respect for an operator if they would just admit something like, " I just can't learn it" or "I have arthritis and can't write" or maybe even lazy and don't want to learn.... but I have seen all these negative postings about cw, without a true reason why they would like to see code disappear... and I mean non-sarcastic...???
KB9YKY
01-07-2003, 02:19 PM
KYU, the reason that these CBers cry about the code is that it requires a little effort to learn the skill. Such takes away from their enjoyment of their CBing. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif On the positive side, if these kids ever got their way (no code test at all), CW usage would greatly increase...as it's usage would be the only way to distinguish between the CBers and amateur radio operators. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
AI4EP
01-07-2003, 02:32 PM
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif this is getting repiticious ( lousy spelling but you know what I mean )...party A says this...party B says that...party C says this ...party D says that...just like other post last week, last month, even back into 2002 or even 2001...read the past posts from last year, same folks making same statements last year (oops) http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif ... kd4amg
KB9YKY
01-07-2003, 06:14 PM
UCB, techs already have some HF privileges...as long as they have passed the element 1 code test. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif As far as learning code by using it before taking the element 1 code test...that is what the privileges for no-code techs above 50mhz is for.
AI4EP
01-07-2003, 07:21 PM
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif oops there are cw areas on 2 meters and 6 meters...so the NO-CODE techs can practice for their 5 w p m on 6 meters or 2 meters...no excuses there...oops...it is not commonly KNOWN by JOHN DOE amateur radio operator, but legal none-the-less...for no-code techs to legally practice on 6 meters & 2 meters ( lower edges of each band ).....some one "across the pond" ( atlantic ocean ) is still beating that dead horse with a stick....kd4amg
W0TDH
01-07-2003, 07:40 PM
Nice POST Mark.
( I already had the match lit for the flamethrower http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif #)
Tom - K0PJG
AE4FA
01-08-2003, 01:31 AM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">KD4UCB
I understand that there is code privilege on the VHF/UHF bands. Even if I did go and buy (or make) the equipment to do CW on these bands, the chances of finding someone listening on the other end can be very slim[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Yes, the chances are slim - but what fun! I worked 34 countries on six meters between November 2001 and January 2002 - all CW.
Use what ya got! If that ain't good enough, learn how to do more.
73, Bob
K5RIX
01-10-2003, 11:47 AM
Gotta input my $.07.
I prefer CW over any other mode. For me it's fun. Especially VHF CW, but 30M ain't too shabby, either. I am proud to be able to enjoy CW operating. Some people have a hard time learning CW, kinda the same as I have a hard time with differential calculus.
One really neat thing about CW operating is the format that is imposed on each transmission. Most CW ops eventually indulge in QSK, but at first one learns how to properly construct a transmission. The Q signals and other formalities bring a degree of order that is nonexistant in other human-generated modes. What I am trying to say is that learning to be a competent CW operator will very likely result in competency on most other modes. The reverse, in my experience, is not true.
I am glad that when I upgraded to General Class I had to burn a vacation day and drive to Long Beach to take the test. Right after that the VE program kicked in, and although taking (and later giving) subsequent tests locally on a Saturday was convienient and socially pleasurable, it just didn't have the same pizzaz and fear factor as facing unknown federal employees and copying the code test over a partially-operating cheap stereo in a rented banquet hall with a hundred or so strangers. When I took the Radiotelegraph 2nd exam a few years later at least I didn't have to even think about learning code or anything else becoming a ham had required me to learn.
And when I was in the Navy, there was one change-of-command ceremony where an hour of standing in ranks and listening to weird blowhard speeches was tolerable because a ship in the harbor was having a drill that included the flapping light semaphore, which I was able to copy.
I don't know what to make of the no-code movement. I certainly don't understand why it is so polarizing. We already have a know-code movement, and those who know code get it. Those who don't get it should go play on a different freeway. 73 Ric
W8FAX
01-11-2003, 12:55 AM
After looking at all the no code howlers, I wonder, has anyone EVER seen a really truely down to earth honestly logical reason WHY these folks want to get rid of code, other than "I doan WANNA?". Not all this "it's obsolete crap and so forth, but a REAL reason??? My own personal idea is that down deep in every no-coders heart is an op who wants desperately to be a top notch CW operator, but can't quite figure out how, or doesn't want to "pay the dues" so to speak, therefore he attacks the source of his frustaration, hoping to have it "go away" instead?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif???
W8FAX
01-11-2003, 01:42 AM
I rest my case................
I for one admire cw, first of all, let me mention, a very good reason to have it for a requirement is the ancient need for emergency response, when voice is not available. Remember this is a service to amateur radio, a so called, priviledge, once earned, deserved recognition. Where would electronics be now today without the old 1 plus 1 equals 2http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif code is the basics and just as easy............ http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
W8FAX
01-11-2003, 12:17 PM
Still no reason given....just a lot of air blowing. Oh well, I didn't really think there would be one given, as it's always boiled down to the same thing. Bye bye............
M3TMC
01-11-2003, 12:35 PM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (W8FAX @ Jan. 11 2003,05:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Still no reason given....just a lot of air blowing. Oh well, I didn't really think there would be one given, as it's always boiled down to the same thing. Bye bye............[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Predictable. I didnt expect an intelligent responce.
W1RFI
01-11-2003, 03:00 PM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (W8FAX @ Jan. 09 2003,18:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">After looking at all the no code howlers, I wonder, has anyone EVER seen a really truely down to earth honestly logical reason WHY these folks want to get rid of code, other than "I doan WANNA?". Not all this "it's obsolete crap and so forth, but a REAL reason??? My own personal idea is that down deep in every no-coders heart is an op who wants desperately to be a top notch CW operator, but can't quite figure out how, or doesn't want to "pay the dues" so to speak, therefore he attacks the source of his frustaration, hoping to have it "go away" instead?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif???[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Many of those who think that Morse code testing should not exist in its present form have already passed their Extra exams and have nothing to gain by the change. If the FCC changes the rules on code testing, it will not affect what I do in ham radio one bit. After restructuring, I still had every privilege I had before.
I do not think that the obsolescence issue is "crap." When Morse code testing was instituted in ham radio, it was virtually the ONLY mode in use by radio, amateur or otherwise. FWIW, the Morse code test when Morse was the ONLY mode in use was 5 wpm...
As it was continued over decades, the inclusion of Morse code testing mirrored the commerical use of Morse code -- Morse code testing helped amateur radio remain in touch with the radio technology of the day. It provided a reservoir of trained operators for the military, maritime and commercial services. It has a specific purpose to help amateur radio be a part of the modern radio world.
Is that true today? I don't believe so, and if anything, Morse code testing is projecting an image that is not necessarily good for amateur radio. As I travel about in industry circles, a common question by engineers is whether ham radio still uses Morse code. It is seen as obsolete because, for the most part, it is obsolete in the rest of radio technology.
Over decades of ham radio's existence, it was relevant to the radio technology of the day. Is it still true today to the extent that it was? Not really. Morse code use is not. Even SSB and FM are significantly waning outside of amateur radio, yet we cling to them tenaciously. If amateur radio is to retain its relevance to the rest of radio technology, would it not be a better use of time for prospective -- and experienced -- hams to learn about spread-spectrum radio, DSP technology, software-defined radio, trunking techniques, dynamic frequency allocation and a host of other things that are now becoming mainstream radio all around us?
My personal operating is 99% Morse CW, but I don't think that is adding much to the state of the art. Even most emergency communication is not conducted over Morse code, and what little is done is done out of choice, not necessity. The handful of times that fading band conditions allow an extra 5 minutes time for Morse code communication do not, IMHO, justify requiring 650,000 hams to learn it. If the goal really is to foster emergency communications capabilities, a much better rule would be one that required hams to maintain emergency communications capabilities, or even a rule that requires that a ham maintain an operating station at all times.
And of course, the oft'-used scenario that CW might be needed when the nuclear holocaust comes or that a ham might have to construct a CW transmitter out of the shattered remains of his shack after the tornado scatters it over a few square miles are really stretching it. If the Big One comes I will have a lot more worries than CW and if Morse code became the only way people could communicate, if it is as easy as the proponents say it is, people could learn it in a few hours time. And frankly, if the tornado scatters my stuff over a few square miles, I don't think I can whip up a Morse transmitter from the remains. I think I will try to think of a more reliable way of saving my skin.
If the Amateur Radio Service were being created from scratch today, do you think it would have an international treaty that required passing Morse code to gain HF access?
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
W8FAX
01-11-2003, 03:55 PM
Well Ed, I don't possibly see how you could ever get amateur radio started today if it was not already here. In the first place, there is not enuff money in it, the FCC would never want the extra workload, there is no basis or requirement for it in todays society, so why should anyone support it. As far as I can see, ALL the modes currently in use on HF are obsolete, if that's the argument. AM and SSB are sure not cutting edge. The creeping slow modes of PSK and RTTY are sure no big boon to communication. CW must be of no use. SSTV is a toy, and the 1200 baud packet system is no force either. So how would we get ham radio started if it did not exist?? Beats me. Personally I don't see CW as being any more out of date than anything else we do. In the event of an all out devastation, I hope the country is not planning on hams doing any bailing out. We, like everyone else will be worried about our families safety. Hams communication sysytems cannot begin to hold a candle to what's in use by the military and others. What makes anyone think we will be able to contribute? With PSK hooked to computers with no power?? Dual banders calling repeaters no longer standing?? I would say that if the nay sayers and cry babies had there way with CW because it is obsolete, we should abolish ALL forms of emmission in ham radio that is considered obsolete by these "engineers" you refer to. Ham radio has a long history of traditions and contributions to society, but continually down grading and deleteing requirements because we feel they are "obsolete" is a slipperry slide. 5 WPM code requirement is not a test as it is. What do folks get into ham radio for if all they want to do is complain and do away with every requirement and tradition we have? Sorry I don't agree, and probably never will, but that's the way it is nowdays. Can't don't wanna? We'll lower the bar for you. Can't graduate hi school?? We'll lower the bar for you. Can't get out of colledge? We'll lower the bar for you. Can't speak English?? We'll lower the bar for you. Obviously, most of the stuff taught in schools is probably obsolete and of no use after you graduate, so lets delete it all and get it over with. Think of the free bee programs we could fund if we didnt have to waste all that time and money learning anything we didn't want to learn.........staggering thought.
Like it or not,
The "tradition" of Morse code as a requirement for USA/FCC licensing above Technician class is going away... and SOON too. Click on the link below for more information.
No Code Initiative (http://www.nocode.org)
Those of you that think this won't happen simply have your head's in the sand. That's a FACT!
N5OZQ
01-11-2003, 05:02 PM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OU812 @ Jan. 11 2003,09:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Like it or not,
The "tradition" of Morse code as a requirement for USA/FCC licensing above Technician class is going away... and SOON too. Click on the link below for more information.
No Code Initiative (http://www.nocode.org)
Those of you that think this won't happen simply have your head's in the sand. That's a FACT![/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Simply another symtom of the quest for instant gratification and lack of tradition.
BTW- quote used as a general example and in no way an attack on 'oh, you ate one too' (GREAT handle . . .)
Tom #N5OZQ
KB1JCY
01-11-2003, 08:43 PM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (M3TMC @ Jan. 11 2003,10:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">W8FAX You wrote
[B]ALL the modes currently in use on HF are obsolete, if that's the argument.B]
This is not the argument as CW is a REQUIREMENT for a full license. I have never said give people an easyer way out. I say get rid of morse as a requirement and put in place some testing that reflects Amateur radio today. Teach people how to set up a radio station correctly as many dont. One person on this forum claims how good he is at morse yet he also claims he has further contacts on VHF than HF??? Seems to me this man hasnt learnt much from CW. After all propagation is basic!![/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Excellent point. What I would like to see in the licensing process is something that works like the Information Technology cerification process for Cisco or Oracle.
This is how I would like to see it work. You have an entry level certification that gets you your license to operate. You have to take classes by a certified club or instructor (applies for every step) in order to take the test. Part of the test would be a practical exam in a simulated enviroment. You have enough skills to be a generalist in the field when you get your first license. This entry-level license/certification is much like the no-code Technician license with the same privelidges but with some modes removed. The entry-level license lets you work phone on UHF/VHF and some other basic modes but not CW or more leading-edge modes that require higher knowledge than most no-code techs have today.
With in this certification model, you have specializations in areas like data networks, digital voice, operating your own repeater, rig repair and modification, microwave, interference mitigation, etc. In order to get a certification in the specialty of your choice, you have to upgrade to an intermediate level certification. At the intermediate stage, you get HF priveledges. Most likely CW will not be a requirement as it will be a module on to itself that you can specialize in.
Again you have to hit the books and study. Once you pass your intermediate certifcation, you can take modules that certify you in the proper operation of modes you want to operate on. But you are not required to be certifed in the specialty of your choice. It will help to have that certification in your specialty to prove that you know what you are doing in case your skills are called into question (like complaints of HF interference or operating procedures, etc).
Each step in the system up to the specialization modules will require formal education and certifcation testing. Specializations can be done with self-study materials as long as they are certified by a third-party.
It does sound like the old incentive license system but it's a bit more fair. If you just want to stay at the Technican level, fine but you will have to stay at that level. If you want to play with the really cool stuff, you have to prove that you have the knowledge and skills to properly operate by going through the upgrade path. It's more carrot than stick. On the same token, we eliminate the code requirement but filter out less motivated and educated operators by making them study and work for their privelidges.
W8FAX
01-11-2003, 09:48 PM
I read this once and was so impressed that I saved it. It was written by an op with the call VA3ES. I would say he has hit the nail on the head, and shows WHY this debate goes on amongst hams....................................
de VA3ES
Yes, CW is archaic. Yes, it is slow and cumbersome compared to modern digital modes. So what? All these facts are irrelevant. The facts of CW's speed and traffic handling capacity are irrelevant to the whole argument. Those who would continuously harp on these meaningless statistics, simply miss the whole point of CW. The continuing relevance of CW today and on through to the next century has NOTHING to do with it's actual utility in sending traffic!
CW (or Morse Code, if you wish) is absolutely essential to the Amateur Radio service and is an essential part what gives Ham radio it's meaning. To learn the Morse Code, is to open one's heart (and mind) to the essence (yes I keep using this word) of Ham Radio and to grasp it's soul. (I believe that CW is fundamentally necessary for Amateur Radio and that it is also its' heart and soul.)
Ham Radio would be just a cold, calculating hobby without it. The Ham Radio language, it's jargon, wouldn't exist without it. Oh sure we might have some other kind of radio slang, but I bet it would be borrowed from truckers and other users of "personal radio". We wouldn't have Q signals or 73. And we definitely wouldn't have a history. Simply put, CW is the source of and forms the basis for the culture of Ham Radio.
To be a "Radio Amateur" is be a "lover" of radio, one who studies it and appreciates it as an art. Other "amateurs" of art, of music, become lay experts in their fields. They study the subject historically, philosophically, even sociologically and develop a true appreciation of the subject in its entirety. To reject a single important historical aspect of an art or a culture, because it is "archaic" is to lack even the most basic comprehension of the subject one purports to love! To learn CW is to make a connection with Ham Radio's past and it's history. Learning CW means that one has learned the basic reference points of the hobby. An analogy: to acquire my University degree, I had to take a few courses that I considered at the time quite irrelevant. I took some Humanities courses that studied the role of Women in Blues Music! I studied railroad hoboes of the '30's in my sociology classes! I studied Nietzsche, Hegel and Kant in my "Poli-Sci" courses. At the time, I wondered what the usefulness of all this was and what it had to do with Communications and Media, my major. Today, I appreciate that those "irrelevant" subjects made me a more literate, more well rounded person. Well, not to put too fine a point on it, in my opinion, a Ham with out CW is simply, "illiterate"!
Today, in those countries, which have "no-code" licenses, (mainly Canada and the U.S.) among the more "veteran", long-time hams, there has developed a mildly cynical attitude, bordering on contempt for the newer "no-code" VHF operators. They're derisively referred to as "2-meter CBers". This view stems from the perception that these new Hams lack the fundamental understanding of the roots of the hobby and that without code, they're "stuck on 2-meters", unwilling or unable to expand their radio horizons. (In fact, those no-coders who came from the CB ranks, without CW upgrading, often continue to operate on 11 meters. Those who've upgraded and have HF privileges, tend to abandon 11 Meters completely.) For their part, some no-coders complain that they feel like second-class citizens within the Amateur community, neither fully accepted, nor able to fully participate in Amateur Radio. They claim that the increasingly irrelevant need for "proficiency" in CW places an arbitrary and artificial obstacle in their paths. They suggest that being "stuck on 2 meters" is boring and is causing some to lose all interest in the hobby.
Traditionally in Canada, once licensed, Hams always had the opportunity get involved any aspect of the hobby without limitations. Veteran Hams are convinced that "no-coders" are short-changing themselves, by failing to upgrade. This saddens many veterans as they see this as a drastic change in the sociology of their beloved hobby; a change for the worse.
Is that great or what?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif
N0XAS
01-12-2003, 02:27 AM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kb1jcy @ Jan. 11 2003,15:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This is how I would like to see it work. You have an entry level certification that gets you your license to operate. You have to take classes by a certified club or instructor (applies for every step) in order to take the test. Part of the test would be a practical exam in a simulated enviroment. You have enough skills to be a generalist in the field when you get your first license. This entry-level license/certification is much like the no-code Technician license with the same privelidges but with some modes removed. The entry-level license lets you work phone on UHF/VHF and some other basic modes but not CW or more leading-edge modes that require higher knowledge than most no-code techs have today.
With in this certification model, you have specializations in areas like data networks, digital voice, operating your own repeater, rig repair and modification, microwave, interference mitigation, etc. In order to get a certification in the specialty of your choice, you have to upgrade to an intermediate level certification. At the intermediate stage, you get HF priveledges. Most likely CW will not be a requirement as it will be a module on to itself that you can specialize in.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Nothing personal, and I can see where you're coming from , but... #Ick. #What a horrible way to completely stifle anyone who wants to learn and do on their own, as hams have done for decades. #What a wonderful way to limit certain modes, bands and technologies to the few who can afford the classes and testing -- you don't honestly think anyone's going to do all that for free, do you? #
Even commercial licensing isn't done this way. #What you propose would create a complex web of certification levels and privileges that would befuddle all but the most dedicated paper-shufflers. #No, thanks. #Let's leave the CCIE and MCSE style "certifications" to IT departmental budgets. #Let the newbies ask dumb questions, step on themselves, make mistakes, learn from them, learn from their Elmers or from QST or the Handbook or a clas or club or wherever, until they get the knowledge they need. #Above asll, let them DO and learn, not just take classes and tests. #A ham license is a license to learn and DO. #Remember that only a small percentage of experimentation is done by professionals and scholars in labs. #The rest happens in the real world, and is done by amateurs. #That's us.
73,
Dale - N0XAS
WB0WAO
01-12-2003, 06:33 AM
Well, here is my .02 worth on this topic....
First of all, I think that the idea of multiple "endorsements" on the basic license is not a very good idea. #You have to realize that not all of us live in a large metroplex area where the knowledge base for some of the more "exotic" modes are used. #Also, it would be a regulatory nightmare. #How would you keep track of the mode endorsements? #The FCC doesn't even track which Tech has passed the 5wpm CW? #Does that mean that you couldn't operate RTTY unless you had a RTTY endorsement? #To me that tends to stifle someone from "experimenting" with other modes. #
As far as the WARC 2003 CW testing "debate", it appears that some folks think that sometime this year, the FCC will "drop" the CW requirement. #Maybe they will, but I doubt it will be that soon. #As I understand it, such a rule change involves going thru the entire rule making process. #And that can take YEARS! #Take the 60m band proposal as an example. #That has been going on for well over a year, and it is still not finished yet. #Maybe sometime this year we will get the band, at least I hope so.
I am sure that the day after the ITU decision (if they do make such a determination) someone will file a NPR with the FCC to eliminate the CW testing requirement. #And then IF the FCC decides to issue a notice, there is the comment period, the reply period, etc. #At best you MAY have a decision sometime in 2005. #Just remember too that just because the ITU says you don't HAVE to require CW testing, doesn't prevent the national authorities from requireing it. #I am sure that the ITU will NOT say "You CANNOT require CW testing" and that is a big difference from just dropping the requirement!
Bottom line is, don't expect the FCC to just say after WARC "Hey gang, no more CW testing! #Have fun!" - that just will NOT happen. #
72/73
Dennis - WB0WAO
K6UEY
01-12-2003, 10:52 AM
In all the posts I read it appears that the WARC vote is a fore gone conclusion,the CW requirement will be nullified. #That is not what I gather from the news reports on the subject, objectives change often with time but as I recall the last count was Germany ,Russia,and I think Australia are saying they are voting to retain the requirement,if the US and Britain #join them it would seem there would be a hard time in voting down CW. As has been mentioned earlier even if it is voted down as a requirement in WARC it can and has a good chance of still being a requirement in the US. Of course until the vote (as long as they don't count them in Flordia ) we have no idea which way it will turn out.
My suggestion to those who are waiting for the demise of CW to upgrade I would suggest finding a Hobby more to your liking. We all wait for the results ,which I believe have been rescheduled for JULY 2003, which of course is ample time to learn CW at 5WPM so you will have a start on the 10 WPM testing ......HIHI..... # #73, ORV
AI4EP
01-13-2003, 03:31 PM
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif ...it appears that if NO one is using c w any more, than SOME one is, for I keep hearing it on certain frequencies, if ANY one has any idea who is doing it and where they are, then EVERY one can all have fun again .... b t w : k1man has decent signal to my g5rv, and ft - 100 yeasu.... (( having FUN with my receiverS, and the optional transmitter ))... kd4amg
kd4amg, I am sorry, for I am the only person in the world who is using cw, and you caught me red handed, I was recieving and transmitting to myself, knowing no one else in the world uses morse code...I was having fun, and I am sorry, this a mode, no one uses anymore, kinda like collecting old cars.. I hope you can forgive me.. HI HI...I will try not to have fun again on the amatuer bands...NOT>>>> by the way you can find on the lower portion of ten... usually a.m. about 28.025... take care friend and thanks for checking out the website in another forum... Paula.. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
AE4FA
01-14-2003, 06:02 AM
Think pendulum.
The FCC (and certain others) might just start understanding reality now that one of the "don't wanna learn nothin'" crowd has responded to a warning letter from Riley by saying it just isn't fair that he should have to pass more tests to operate 20 meters. The guy's now up for a revocation hearing.
The pendulum might be nearing the top of it's swing.
73, Bob
W1RFI
01-14-2003, 12:16 PM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ae4fa @ Jan. 13 2003,00:02)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The FCC (and certain others) might just start understanding reality now that one of the "don't wanna learn nothin'" crowd has responded to a warning letter from Riley by saying it just isn't fair that he should have to pass more tests to operate 20 meters. #The guy's now up for a revocation hearing.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I would wager a dollar that the FCC responds by taking individual action against any ham that operates outside his or her allocation. Are you suggesting that this enforcment matter will cause the FCC to reinstate high-speed Morse code testing?
The only pendulum I see swinging is that of enforcement, and I sure hope it is not at the top...
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
M0CVO
01-15-2003, 01:50 PM
CW will live forever (like Elvis). You can always make that contact with QRP CW but not with other modes. Yep, 12wpm, 15wpm and 20wpm are fine! Down with the disbelievers!!!!
73 DE M0CVO
nigel_m0cvo@yahoo.de
AI4EP
01-15-2003, 07:59 PM
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif i do not have transmitting capabilities on 10 meters, so how did you hear my station ?? oops....kd4amg
AI4EP
01-15-2003, 08:35 PM
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif the ft - 100 found a new home ( oops, did I forget to tell some one ?? ) so now I have no ft - 100 to transmit on 10 meters ( and I wont any way, since my license does NOT cover HF...only 50 mhz up...and I only have a transmitter for 2 meters and 440 any way...oops ) so I guess now if some one is using my call sign and the FCC walks in my door, there is no 10 meter transmitter ( oops), but that is okay, I can point to a few spots on a map and never say a word and they can check out those locations...so I will not TELL a word ( smart off to that ). so send the FCC to my home location, go for it !!!..kd4amg http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
N0XAS
01-16-2003, 01:59 AM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kb0kyu @ Jan. 14 2003,00:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">by the way you can find on the lower portion of ten... usually a.m. about 28.025...[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Hah! I thought your call sounded familiar. Worked you on both 10 and 15 meter CW a while back.
73,
Dale - N0XAS
KC7ATO
01-28-2003, 02:46 PM
"The code is dead"...Long live the new "Echolink"......LMAO!!!!
KB9YKY
01-28-2003, 03:27 PM
These types don't believe in antennas either. FM repeaters, walkie-talkies, and telephone lines...what a rut to be in. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif They should try radio someday http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
KC8ULU
01-29-2003, 10:10 AM
Personally I feel that CW does have it's place. Having just taken/passed my General 2 weeks ago, I can say that hunkering down over my radio with a set of headphones on (the OL doesn't like the sound of static anyway) slowly turning the dial on my Swan 350 (the glow of tubes is a beautiful thing), and tapping my key in a QSO is still more fun than going "Oh yeah, my wife said to say hi when I spoke to you so I am saying hi" (insert courtesy tone here). I am not saying that Phone, CW, Packet, etc don't have their places, but when you are "equipment poor" because you are "financially less than stable" (read "Why is the checkbook on fire dear?") and don't have the money for a nice HF rig, set of phased array beams up 150 feet, then CW on a Swan 350 out an Antron 99 on 10/15 meters is all you can do. Just my 2 cents. Oh, and I am not 110 years old, I am 25 and was just licensed as a Tech in July, and have just upgraded.
W1RFI
01-29-2003, 12:31 PM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (m0cvo @ Jan. 14 2003,07:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">CW will live forever (like Elvis). #You can always make that contact with QRP CW but not with other modes. #Yep, 12wpm, 15wpm and 20wpm are fine! #Down with the disbelievers!!!![/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Some of the HF digital modes can improve on on/off keyed CW by 10-15 dB or so...
What percentage of code-tested hams do you believe operate QRP CW?
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
KG4RUL
01-29-2003, 07:12 PM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (W1RFI @ Jan. 29 2003,01:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (m0cvo @ Jan. 14 2003,07:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">CW will live forever (like Elvis). #You can always make that contact with QRP CW but not with other modes. #Yep, 12wpm, 15wpm and 20wpm are fine! #Down with the disbelievers!!!![/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Some of the HF digital modes can improve on on/off keyed CW by 10-15 dB or so...
What percentage of code-tested hams do you believe operate QRP CW?
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Lets take this one step further. #What percentage of code tested Hams use CW more than 5% of their total operating time? #AND BE TRUTHFUL WHEN YOU ANSWER!
Dennis - KG4RUL http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
K9STH
01-29-2003, 09:27 PM
I definitely use CW for more than 5 percent of my operating time (work a lot of 30 meters where you can only run CW / data).
Glen, K9STH
W1RFI
01-29-2003, 10:25 PM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KG4RUL @ Jan. 28 2003,13:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Lets take this one step further. #What percentage of code tested Hams use CW more than 5% of their total operating time? #AND BE TRUTHFUL WHEN YOU ANSWER![/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I am 99% QRP CW in my operation.
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
WB2WIK
01-29-2003, 10:32 PM
Based on my most recent logbook, covering 11-4-02 through 1-27-03 and containing 1,000 contacts:
SSB: 544 QSOs
FM: 26 logged (probably a few hundred others made, not logged)
AM: 51
CW: 379 QSOs
379/1000 = 37.9%
WB2WIK/6
AI4EP
01-29-2003, 10:33 PM
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif just a crazy ? out of the blue... never heard of it going on but wondering if it is legal to transmit c w on 27.185 ?? or the other 11 meter frequencies ? i aint talking about in an EMERGENCY situation, just every day stuff...is it legal to transmit cw ( any power level ) on 27.185 or any other cb channel ??...kd4amg http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Absolutely, can Morse Code. Can the aerials, can the Towers, can the Transceivers, can the Hand-Key, can the AC and DC.
O Heck, can everything, even water.
AE5QH
01-30-2003, 07:42 PM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (k7pig @ Jan. 30 2003,04:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Absolutely, can Morse Code. Can the aerials, can the Towers, can the Transceivers, can the Hand-Key, can the AC and DC.
O Heck, can everything, even water.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
canned ham?
Yo KD4AMG,
Can Chicken Banders work CW on 11 meters?
Absolutely not.
Requires some spelling skills.
A lot of Children's Banders DO operate mode A0 [zero]. That's when they're "throwin' carriers onna channel so that some dang bucketmouth ratchetjaw cain't key up no mo'."
All seriousness aside, if you can find a copy of Clueless Band's Part 95 rule book -- a copy that has not long since been burned or shredded in frustration by the FCC when they gave up on trying to ENFORCE anything in it -- I think you will find that only certain acceptable modes are specified. I'd guess they would include AM and SSB, and nothing else.
CB'ers would operate CW, RTTY, PSK31 or whatever, I suppose, if it were as much "fun" to drop "F" and "S" bombs, "GD", and the all-popular "MF" on those modes as it seems to be on voice.
Out.
ka8jhm
01-31-2003, 12:45 AM
I very well could be wrong, but I seem to remember reading in part 95 , where all' transmissions shall be in plain language"! This does not mean plain English, but plain language. In other words, not any kind of code which I would interpret to mean and include morse code.
On this basis, providing I am correct, I would not like to try morse in the CB band, 27.185 or any other frequency. We have enough trouble with these illegal bandits as it is now without further agitation.
73s Bob ka8jhm
AI4EP
01-31-2003, 03:36 AM
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif hey folks , calm down, it was just a simple question... no offence towards any one.... aint no one gonna fire up a 10,000 watt cw station centered on channel 19 transmitting in C W the same news that is sent out on 14.275 by k1man ...my good ness. ( walk out side and check for a full moon http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif ) ..... never really did understand the "looking for smokey bears " ( police ) situation... are the trucks so "illegal " ( tires, bad brakes, bad wiring, etc )...or are the drivers "wanted " by the cops for some offence or another in their past....or are the vehicles hauling illegal drugs from point A to point B... I for one would WELCOME seeing MORE cops riding around, 24 - 7 ...sure I would be pulled over, too, but then I would get to SHOW my licence, insurance and which BANK owns my vehicle, but lets ME drive it !! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif ...GOD bless the U S A ... kd4amg
UJZ, can HAMS TOO.
After all I'm a PIG station.
Can me, can me, ot to take a rope and can me, hang me from the tallest oak tree, can me.
kk4ken
02-15-2003, 07:20 AM
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kd4amg @ Jan. 30 2003,21:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif # hey folks #, calm down, it was just a simple question... no offence towards any one.... aint no one gonna fire up a 10,000 watt cw station centered on channel 19 #transmitting in C W the same news that is sent out on 14.275 #by k1man ...my good ness. ( walk out side and check for a full moon #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif ) ..... never really did understand the #"looking for smokey bears " ( police #) situation... are the trucks so "illegal " ( tires, bad brakes, bad wiring, etc )...or are the drivers "wanted " by the cops for some offence or another in their past....or are the vehicles hauling illegal drugs from point A to point B... I for one would WELCOME seeing MORE cops riding around, 24 - 7 ...sure I would be pulled over, too, but then I would get to SHOW my licence, insurance and which BANK owns my vehicle, but lets ME drive it !! # http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif ...GOD bless the U S A #... kd4amg[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Actually, I believe the whole "looking for smokey" thing is because most 18-wheelers tend to travel faster than the speedlimit on the open roads. #Therefore, if they can get someone to tell them ahead of time that there is a speed trap up ahead, then they can slow down and not get a ticket. #If I was a CBer and heard a call looking for smokey and I saw the truck was approaching a speed trap, I'd just tell him 'all clear' and let him get what he deserves.
I am a Tech +code now that I finally took and passed my Element 1 test. #I failed it the first time, but just barely: I had 20 characters in a row. #I took it the second time and I passed with 31 characters. #Now I am studying the General question pool so I can take that test next month. #I'll soon be operating on HF! #Well, I can operate of 10m now (some of it) and I will as soon as I get my 10m antenna up.
Something that everyone here seems to be missing in this 'discussion' is that no one is saying "Get rid of the Theory tests". #If the FCC did, by some fluke, get rid of the morse code testing, then you would still have to study the question pools and pass the other three Element tests to get to be Amateur Extra. #Now, I ask you this: How many CBers would take the time to pass those test just so they can cuss on HF? #And what would a trucker want with HF anyway? #Most of the time, they are only worried about the next speed trap and making sure they get more stuff hauled so they can get more money, regardless of the safety of others. #
I have seen so many 18-wheelers run red lights, that it's scary. #(I know, it's off-topic, but it's relavent to the mentality of the CBers.) #So, if they would break that law, do you think they would have a second-thought about transmitting on HF without a license? #Or cussing on HF *with* a license?
KK4KEN
Ken
PS - Yes, I know I rambled in this post, but it's no more than I've seen others doing. #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif #hehe
KB9YKY
02-15-2003, 01:27 PM
Many truckers are amateur radio operarors. They want the HF setups in their trucks exactly for the same reason any other ham has such equipment. Some truck drivers are very good drivers. Most are not...just like those that drive automobiles, some are good, most are not.
KC7ATO
02-15-2003, 05:01 PM
"Many truckers are amateur radio operarors. They want the HF setups in their trucks exactly for the same reason any other ham has such equipment. Some truck drivers are very good drivers. Most are not...just like those that drive automobiles, some are good, most are not."
This also applies to ham operators. Some are nice people and some are "potty mouths" so I guess we have to take the good with the bad. I really don't feel dropping the 5wpm requirement will add much danger to the problem of "bad operation" since the "extras" doing it are already there. Maybe if current Technician class were granted more privileges it might actually dilute the numbers of "bad operators" on the HF bands. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
KB9YKY
02-16-2003, 12:40 PM
Most current "techs" do not use the privileges they already have. Most of them never even bother to put decent antennas, nor do anything other than play on FM and the repeaters. No sense in giving them more privileges when they don't even bother to use the privileges that they already have.
AI4EP
02-17-2003, 09:17 AM
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif let me see if I can type this correctly #..."I had to learn the INTERNATIONAL MORSE CODE to transmit legally on HF and so should YOU ... I had to put forth all that WORK and EFFORT and TIME to learn MORSE CODE and if YOU want to transmit on those frequencies, then YOU should have to pass the same MINIMUM requirement #" # also #" I had to PAY (x) number of $ for a certain brand /model of a radio, why should YOU get it #6 months later for (x) $ less than I had to pay " ( where did I hear this before ?? ) ... http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif #kd4amg
