Why Johnny Can’t Learn Code

KE4ARH (jxs2151@mindspring.com) writes ...


"There are four identified types of learners in the world – Auditory, Visual, Tactile, and Kinesthetic.¹ Auditory learners absorb information and are at their best in situations that require the use of hearing. Visual people form ‘pictures’ in their mind to learn and to interact with their environment. Tactile individuals are those who need to touch and feel to absorb information best. Kinesthetics are people who require action and body movement. Most humans exhibit some combination of all types but tend to favor one type overwhelmingly over the other types.



When we apply the characteristics of these learning types to the issue of learning Morse code, the fact that so many claim they cannot learn code becomes a little easier to understand. The process of learning Morse code would go something along these lines: hear the code, process the code, write the code. Repeat this enough and your nervous system builds a pathway between the ear, the brain, and the hand. The ear detects the dits and dahs and sends them to the brain for processing. The brain processes the audio and tells the hand to write the character. Pretty simple. As long as you are not a visual learner.



Visual learners learn best by forming pictures in their mind. They absorb information best when the instructor or teacher draws a diagram on the board. They are the ones you see in class or conversation, staring somewhere unseen as they try to write or read these mental pictures. The natural Morse code learning path for them would be: hear the code, picture the code, process the code, write the code. This works until the visual person gets to the higher code speeds. Once above a certain level the brain simply does not have enough time to accomplish the extra processing step it must do in order to learn and to execute the skill.



Some folks who find the code to be easy will tell you that they “hear the rhythm” of the code, and that they don’t “listen for individual characters” but “hear the words”. These comments are dead giveaways that the hams that do well with Morse code are auditory learners. And just as Ted Williams and Tony Gwynn can’t understand why anyone is unable to hit a 95 MPH fastball, auditory learners cannot fathom how in the world morse code could be difficult.



And while it is more difficult for some learning types, I am not suggesting is that it is impossible for visual learners to learn code. What I am suggesting is that perhaps it is time for a little understanding for those who are having difficulty learning morse code. A supportive environment will go a long way toward helping the frustrated visual types and increase the chances that they will someday overcome their learning barrier and move to the next level of licensing if they so choose. Perhaps someone has a method for learning code that can be tailored to each specific learning type.



Just as a teacher must adapt his or her teaching methods to enhance learning for all types, so must the Amateur Radio community adjust its attitude to help everyone become better. The first step is understanding the issue.






More information about learning styles can be found here:



http://www.metamath.com/lsweb/dvclearn.h tm (http://www.metamath.com/lsweb/dvclearn.htm)



http://bsd-server.nc.edu/virtcol/ss/ learn.html (http://bsd-server.nc.edu/virtcol/ss/learn.html)



<HR>

1-http://www.latitudes.org/learn01.html"

[N9AS]

Jeff,



Great effort and good item. As we become adults we tend to rise to a challange and as a child we do what is fun.



A big key is to know ones own strength and include both fun and challange in efforts. Especially, this is true when learning a new language such as code, program language or spoken language.



Thanks, Keep up the good work.



73,



260 N9AS

[n7xei]

Thank you for writing this!

I am one of the visual people (and a photographer by trade...). On top of that add dyslexia, and that is why I cannot learn code to save my life. I have tried and tried hard. I have purchsed 3 different programs and downloaded who know how many free ones. I gave up. Unless things change, I will be a tech forever.

Sheldon
N7XEI

N7EXI, i see you are a visual learner. I would be very curious and interested to see if you would have an easier time learning Morse Code by flashing light. Would you be interested in trying that? You might just hook up a light instead of a tone generating device.

[KS4HR]

Quoted SNIP "Some folks who find the code to be easy will tell you that they “hear the rhythm” of the code, and that they don’t “listen for individual characters” but “hear the words”. These comments are dead giveaways that the hams that do well with Morse code are auditory learners"



Rhythm! I have found that those that are also musicly inclined have no problem with CW. As for me, I couldn't tunafish..

[w5hx]

As unaccustomed as I am to replying to messages here, the bottom line is that you either have film in your camera or you don't.

Simple as that.

W5HX

[N4INU]

Very interesting consideration of the issue KE4ARH. Do you suppose that some of these people who have difficulty learning the Morse Code may be visual types who could profit from flashing light in lieu of tone, as Radioweenie has suggested? BTW, speaking of flashing light-- would your maritime mobile activities consist of GMDSS in addition to amateur radio, by chance?
...73 de N4INU...

[kf4glg]

If you want to play baseball you learn to throw and catch the ball. If you want to play basketball, you learn to dribble and throw a ball into the basket. If you want to hunt, you learn to use a firearm or bow and arrow. If you want to drive a car you learn to use your feet and hands in unison to accomplish this feat. None of these things are things that people are inherently capable of doing instantly, but if they have a desire to do them they will learn. Some will learn more than others and have greater proficiency than others. One thing is certain. Barring physical impairment or mental handicap these things can all be learned if one has the desire. Those who "can't" learn the morse code, barring handicaps, are only lacking in motivation or desire. Generally speaking, if they spent as much time practicing cw as they did complaining about it, they'd have already passed the "slow" code test! If you want to play "ham radio", you have to learn! 73 mike

[kc6ufe]

...some of us still leave the lens cover on too.

[ad6lr]

Interesting theory, but
have any studies been done with respect to learning code and such learning styles. It seems logical to associate learning code problems to learning styles, but sometimes such connections are not correct.
A large group of individuals do appear unable to learn code; it would be interesting if such people took the survey on the web sites you posted, to evaluate your theory. For starters my survey results are. Visual- Nonverbal 34, Visual Verbal 32, Auditory 18, Kinesthetic 26. My code skills peak out at about 20 WPM, without continuous practice it slips rapidly to 13 WPM. I also found that my skills in reading code are unrelated to my skills in sending code. I found it very easy to send code, but tough learning to read code. I decode letters some simple words, without pencil and paper; sentences big trouble decoding with out letters first.
73 AD6LR

[kc6ufe]

I am one of those that is very visual in my learning, the written word being very effective for me. Auditory learning is difficult, I cant remember my own name unless I check my ID. However I do have a doctorate in something or other, so I did well at school anyway.
The method I concocted to learn code was to incorporate a written visual to go along with the audio. I created a bulletin board with the letters, numbers, and a picture of the dots and dashes that go along with them. When first hearing the code I would then point at the letter and code being transmitted. After long hours of pratice I can now listen to code and decode it in my head as well as write it down. I can do speeds faster than 13wpm too. The key is that it takes time and lots of listening and concentration. There is no easy way except to put in the time. If all one wants is to learn 5wpm, it can be done in a couple of weeks to a couple of months, if practice is done every evening. The higher speeds will require considerably more time spent listening and sending.
Practice Practice Practice. It also helps to want to do this. If you really dont want to do this and are only doing it because it is required, it will be a lot harder.

[WA4MJF]

That's why the YLs and XYLs are so much better
at code (as general rule) than us OMs.

The military used a lot of members of the WAAC
and WAVES durin' the war on the high spped circuits. Some could do as much as 60 wpm.

Probably the colored troops could have been
also used for this duty, but they, of course,
were thought of mainly as labor types. Although,
one colored tank Bn was a favorite of Patton.

In fact, one of the former military ops was featured in Drake ads many moons ago. She is
SK now and I forget her callsign.

73 de Ronnie

[NE5U]

Hi,


Interesting article. Especially since it follows almost exactly what Dr. George Wheeler came up with years ago. Wouldn't is be nice to have a teaching method that encompasses ALL of the aformentioned sensory inputs? That's exactly what Code Quick (http://www.cq2k.com/)is all about. I used Code Quick to learn code and it works. It works quickly too. I bought the tapes because I wanted to use them while I was driving. Very quickly I was "sounding" the text of road signs, billboards, whatever. I was learning the code NOT a prescribed sequence. By doing that I can ragchew with CW and not have much trouble. I'm not waiting for Name, RST, RIG, QTH, 73 73 Call de Call SK. Nothing against that by the way. I do it all of the time. A fellow HAM took some time to work with me on technique, speed, technique, technique, and technique once I received my ticket (Thanks Rob, I am forever indebted to you). He even convinced me to try mobile CW. That is a kick and it's now my favorite operating mode.</P>


Code Quick works folks and it works VERY well</P>


73</P>


Mike,
WM5LL

[KB1GYQ]

my results are... Visual/Nonverbal 40 Visual/Verbal 30 Auditory 12 Kinesthetic 24

But I do play several music instruments and don't have a problem. I find morse hard to understand, mostly because the dit and dah blur together... I don't have that problem with rhythm in music, but then again, modern morse is fixed amplitude and pure monotonic, no instrument is like that. Perhaps if I were to listen to an old rig with clicks and chirps I'd do better.

[w2fdr]

Not to be a salesman for Code Quick, but as mentioned by Mike, WM5LL, I found it a life saver. I used it in combination with the Gordon West tapes. The attempt to learn code was not easy, taking me 8 months...and I passed on the first try. Bottom line is if you want it hard enough, you have to work for it. One needs to find the method that works for you...and like those painful piano lessons...PRACTICE!

[kg6jdt]

A very interesting perspective. One wonders if a logical conclusion might be to try and "tailor" different methods of learning code (or anything else, for that matter) to fit the different learning styles? I would agree with some of the other respondents to this posting, that those who are naturally auditory learners, and probably also those who are musically inclined, should have an easier time learning code. But maybe techniques could be developed to help those with other learning styles, to make it easier for them.

I think its also possible that one's learning styles change with age. I remember trying to learn code almost twenty years ago, and finding it hard to fathom. But I recently tried again and found it much easier. Are the tools that much better? Well, somewhat, maybe, but I suspect its really me.

Anyway, I hope that the posting may encourage those who feel they "can't" learn code to not give up. Just knowing that your own learning style isn't optimum may be key. The first step in overcoming any problem is to recognize it -- and the more you know about it, the easier it is to find a way around it.

Tim
KG6JDT

[W2BBQ]

"so must the Amatuer Radio community adjust it's attitude to help EVERYONE become BETTER".

So reads the last paragraph of KE4ARH's post. Well isn't that special.? Arn't the editorial folks here at QRZ special.? I'm beginning to think so. Very special. Special as in I hope they're enjoying their rooms down on the South Wing at The Center. Special as in they rode the short bus to school rather than the long one. Oooooh I am starting to become upset with you folks here at ClevernessAin'tUs.

The quote I used above, emphasizing the words [everyone and better], clearly discloses that the writter is suggesting that ALL hams who don't-won't-refuse to do the code must have a learning disability and...worse...that no-code hams have a "need to get better".....well like my Master Jesus said: "My little children, how long must I bear with you?" You people (QRZ Editorial Staff)have long since begun to make me less than happy with you. But alas I keep coming here for entertainment......Thanks for not mentioning, once again, that the majority of code refusniks don't do the code because we simply DO NOT LIKE IT AND BECAUSE WE HAVE THE GOOD SENSE THAT GOD GAVE YOUR DEAD GRANNY TO KNOW THAT THE CODE REQUIREMENT IS OBSOLETE AND WILL BE OUT THE DOOR SOON ENOUGH. Right after IRC 2003. I can learn code. I have learned the code. I refuse to be a lackey to the old timers and to do things just for the sake of doing them and for no other good reason. The MANY reasons why the CW requirement is soon/history have been spelled out here and elsewhere dozens of times, everyone knows it, why the dead horse continues to be beaten to a pulp here ...is clear. Because the QRZ Editorial Staff who run this column have a newspaper editorial page mentality and have to continuously keep pushing people's buttons to keep them coming back to check the rant of the day......From now on, anyone wishing to post any article on CW here at this forum should be made to read every single past article here in the archives concerning CW where they shall instantly learn that there is nothing new under the sun and they they are wasting they're friggin' time....that is, if they can read and do not have some sort of learning disability thereby making them some sort of 3rd class, 3rd world ham radio operators......now directly to you QRZ folks....Exactly why, like clockwork, every no-more-than-three weeks do ya'll insist on posting some sort of CW this and that or CW vs. so and so article? STOP THE BEATING OF THE DEAD HORSE lest I ultimately shall have to sic the S.P.C.A. on you. This all used to almost be funny, now it turns to pity. Losing respect for you in Ga., 73's Woody Parr, KE4ENX

[KC8PMX]

The author does bring up a valid point about the different aspects of learning code. And as usual, the typical snotty, unsupportive comments abound even when a wonderful realization is presented.

Aside from that, the main thing we as the ham community need to remember what the root of what he said. Even if a group of say for instance of 100 people are in a room and know the same thing about a concept, theory, or idea, be it abstract or not, I can bet you my next paycheck they all did not learn that concept etc. the same way. Some may have found it quicker to learn in one particular manner, and some chose other routes to get the same results. I am not saying which one was the easier route, just the most sucessful route.

If we want to grow as a community, we need to remember that when attempting to teach others. Be it morse code or the book theory, if we remember that different people learn in different ways we will be a much better hobby service. As far as the code, as long as they legitamitely pass the code test, legally, that is all that matters and will keep the morse code fanatics happy.

As a instructor I also try to identify different techiques of teaching and training as I identify differently capable students. The training these students recieve can save their own lives or others in the future, so it is imperative that I ensure that they learn.

73's to all!

Ryan KC8PMX
Firefighter/MFR

[K4AAG]

Well said.

[kb2wen]

Excellent, informative and welcome! Thank you!

73, Stan KB2WEN

[KB9YFI]

Some here seem to have overexposed their film a long time ago! Time to throw out that old camera and go digital. 10 years from you will will be hard pressed to find a place to develop film. Times change. Those that refuse to change will end up at the side of the road wondering where the heck they are and why the place they thought they were going no longer even exists.



I think that the CW requirement should be raised to 20WPM for a "code" license. All licenses should be General with General+ as the only ones given access to the CW sub-bands. Frequency allocations should be a function of the number of General+'s in relation to plain old Generals. I would think that the CW sub-band would not have to be very large to accomodate the General+'s



Think 20WPM is too high? Well anything under that is not communicating. It is studdering. No real communication other than exchanging calls, QTH and signal reports can be done unless you are retired and have LOT of time to waste. 20 minute QSO and nothing has been said yet except basic introductions. Give me a break. At 5WPM it's only a word a minute!



Maybe we should raise that to 25 or even 30 WPM. When all the oldsters finally die we can lay CW to rest once and for all and leave the bands for real communication. I don't care if that tiny bit of spectrum is returned or left as the CW graveyard for the few overexposed fat-heads who think they are so superior to the rest of the world because they have learned an obsolete communication method. They must have a lot of time to waste to learn such an out-moded form of communications and actually use it.

[KB9YFI]

I forgot to mention that the test should be changed. The tech test should be dropped and the General test should be used or even the Extra test. The question pool should be kept secret and the answers as well. Throw out multiple choice and have only fill-in-the-blank questions and drawing circuit diagrams for radio components from scratch. Perhaps there should be some basic vectoring in there too to keep out the morons.

Anyone who is unable to understand such simple electronics concepts should not be licensed. This should keep the bands clean and keep out the CB-trucker trash as it is obvious that many of the pro-CW people are just that deep down.

[KB9YFI]

My own results were: Visual/Nonverbal 40 Visual/Verbal 40 Auditory 10 Kinesthetic 34. I also did quite well in music. I went quite far and even participated in college music as well as being a member of world champion Madison Scouts Drum and Bugle Corps. I can hear tones and rythems fine in music but have a lot of difficulty hearing the dits and dahs of morse and differentiating between them. I do hope to pass this stupid hurdle though so I can get that important slip of paper. Once I pass the test I will then try hard to forget this useless migrane-inducing code and put it behind me. I'll avoid the CW-subbands as just hearing it makes me sick.

[KE3YD]

If Johnny invests enough time, Johnny can learn the code. It might take him 8 hours a day for several weeks, but it can be done. My experience is that people, while they may put in a lot of effort, don't invest enough time.

[n3krx]

After reading the article I can see what is meant. I too have had trouble with the code, enjoy it, but still have trouble, and can not copy, except for short sentences, in my head. However I can not sit and have someone give me letters and make out the story. I need to see it!
However, the notion that morse code is dead as a communication tool is wrong. If one thinks it is dead, then they have not heard of the military in Afghanistan sending out information by code because none of the other modes were practical, either due to equipment size or power requirements, since the cw gear is small, low power drain with lower output power, and the signal gets through! Guess you guys who think the code is dead better rethink. But then again, keep thinking that way, more room on the bands for those of us who think the code is still alive!
73 de N3KRX

[kb9lgj]

I'm with you on this one. I am in the Navy and although I have little difficulty sending and reading code at 20+ wpm, I can only read the signal lights because they send very slowly, and it is impossible for me to send code on the light because the clanking noises it makes don't match the characters being sent.

[WA7CS]

I have taught code to many folks. Kids and adults alike.




Each and every one of those that came to at least 6 of the 8 weekly one-hour sessions learned the code well enough to pass an FCC exam.




Each and every one of the students that wanted to learn the code, learned the code.




There were always a few that attended about half of the classes, and were amazed (angry) when they couldn't make the grade.





If a lazy or uninterested person doesn't want to know, they certainly will never find out.

[K7WHB]

Thanks for taking the time to attempt to raise the standard of discussion -- for the most part you succeeded.

It is certainly possible to adjust and work diligently to learn something that really is more suited for another learning style. The first step in finding ways to be successful is to understand the impediments to success. I think you've probably helped a bunch of folks in that regard.

73
Bill

[AI2E]

I am a very visual learner. When I first tried learning code I had some difficulty and slowly progressed to around two words per minute. But one night when the power was out I found a table in a dictionary and memorized the table. The next day I was able to copy 5 wpm.



Of course this means that speeding up for me is much more difficult than learning the code auditorially, but I did pass the 5 wpm test for my novice license and I know that with enough effort I would have learned the code "the right way".



Personally I have NEVER met anybody who claimed they couldn't learn the code who put in real effort, except for people with documented hearing disorders. And these people were able to learn the code and pass the test using a light instead of sound.



Brian

KB7OIE

[kc6ufe]

...they pay us.

[K7SE]

Johnny can't read and write but we will give him a high school diploma so he win't feel bad. He joins the army want's to be a Ranger but it's too hard so the Army gives everyone a black beret. Ham radio is doing the same thing if it takes a little effort to suceed and you can't do that let's give them a license so they won't feel bad. As a retired military person I can tell you CW is being used right now in
combat to protect us! I don't care for CW either but I did it the same as everyone else for the past 100 years, and I don't mean 5 wpm, my dog can copy that! Really it is another language and can always be used. ANYONE who is motivated and really wants it CAN learn CW, of course if enough of you
can't learn 5wpm the FCC will probably do away with that requirement too, 'cause they would not want to make you feel bad!

[tomahawk1]

Why not grant licenses by personal invitation and referral only? A thorough background check can be done, not only going back to the applicant's date of birth, but all the way back to his great grandfather, even if his great grandfather never entered the United States. After all, we must make sure that neither the applicant, or any family member, distant relative or ancestor ever drove a truck (even once), or ever operated a CB radio (even once). Also, nobody without a MSEE should be considered for a license. It doesn't matter if the applicant is a member of al-Quaeda, the Taliban, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, is a psychotic serial killer or a Satanist, just as long as he never drove a truck or operated a CB radio.

[KF4BOT]

Personally I have NEVER met anybody who claimed they couldn't learn the code who put in real effort

I am living proof that anyone can learn 5 WPM code. I struggled with it. Every time I attempted to learn the code, I would always come to a point where all the characters seemed the same and were confusing to me. It was at that point that I would throw in the towel and say that "I can’t do this". Once I quit throwing in the towel, I was able to overcome the barrier. Every time I tried to learn the code, I would go through the lessons, go on to the next character, until all the characters began sounding alike. It takes determination and the will to overcome to learn code, or do anything, for that matter. Once I had the determination, it didn’t matter if the 15 minute character lesson took me 1, 2 or even 3 hours, until I could do the lesson perfectly, and finally move on to the next character. For some, the code comes very easily. For others, it comes very hard. If you want it bad enough, it will come. It just depends how bad you want it.

[kc6ufe]

It is not another language, it is a way of encoding characters of a language, and btw, what is your dog's callsign. I was thinking of a 'worked all dogs...'

[KF4BOT]

Try working K9DOG. FYI, its a real callsign. No offense intended toward the real K9DOG.

[kk5ol]

Nice story. But....code isn't gonna jump out of those books and tapes at you. Sure, there are a few who have learning disoders. Just keep saying "I can't" learn and you surely NEVER will.

Mike de KK5OL

[KB9YFI]

That CB comment was meant to be a joke although as I re-read it there is not a lot of context to support that statement. I do not hate CB. I have a chicken-band tranceiver in my own car which I use to communicate with my wife who is not licensed and is probably too much of a hellion to ever fit into the amateur community anyway.


As far as truckers go, they do seem to have an inordinate amount of sub-human, sub-literate low-lifes in their ranks compared to the many other "professions" I regularly contact. Or perhaps it is just the barely-comprendable dialect many of them speak and the abundance of 4-letter explitaves they so richly spinkle into conversations.

[KB9YFI]

Gee, in the 8 years I was a 19D cavalry scout I never heard CW much less even heard it MENTIONED. We did all of our radio ops on voice only. We called for indirect fire and air cover using voice as well as position reports of both ourselves and the enemy. Which war did you serve in? WWI?


A friend of mine who served in Bosnia bought FRS radios with his own money. Maybe he should have built some low-power CW rigs and spent 100's of hours of valuable training time teaching his soldiers Morse. I bet if he did he would either be dead or court-marshalled.


BTW, earning a black beret or a purple beret was not that hard even in the days when regular REMP's had to wear a garrison cap. And the college degree I earned was not that hard either as well as my electrical apprenticeship. I think that I would prefer going to Basic and AIT, jump and ranger school over learning this blasted code.

[tomahawk1]

I know that your CB comment was tongue-in-cheek. I could tell by the comment you made just before it. My comment was meant to be tongue-in-cheek also. Unfortunately, there are many hams who actually feel that we should go back to the days of 20 wpm CW, no question pools, open-ended test questions, drawing our owm schematic diagrams on tests, walking uphill both ways in the snow 100 miles to get to the FCC field office for the test, etc. My comments were supposed to be tongue-in-cheek for you, but meant to ring true for the stuffed shirts who actually feel that way. There are those who feel that no CBers should be allowed into the ham community, yet I'll bet many of them came to ham from CB in the first place. I too still own my chicken band rigs and have nothing against CB. As long as folks have to study for tests, especially the CW test to get on HF, I think only the serious CBers will take the step up. Most of the clowns on CB are too frickin lazy or too fricken stupid to pass the tests. The serious ones will make it to our ranks, leaving the gutter trash on 11m.

[kf4gmh]

Hey Mister Feel Good! Get the facts straight. The rangers "COMPLAINED" so much about "THE COLOR" of the beret being "RED" for everyone so, the army made them "BLACK"! Such stupid things people insist on "CRYING" about. Just like the code.

[kf4gmh]

OH YA, I almost forgot. I am in the army and not the marines corp. Anyone want to complain about that. Nothing against the Marines of course.

[wa7kpk]

Yes it's a way of encoding characters, but because the encoding is auditory rather than visual it has a lot in common with learning a new language. You're trying to get used to a new set of sounds that represent concepts you're already familiar with. To me it's like learning a new foreign language, but one with only about 40 words.

73, Creede

[kg4qqr]

I'm a VERY strong 'visual' learner. I've created a 'visual cue' chart for myself and will gladly share it with others. You can find it at my QSL.NET (http://www.qsl.net/kg4qqr/vmorse.html) web site.

[ve2nsm]

If you want to play baseball you don't need to know how to build a backstop. If you want to play basketball you don't need to know how to polish a court floor. If you want to hunt you don't need to know how to cook. If you want to drive a car you don't need to know mechanics...we can go on all night over this!!!

[KD7MMT]

So Woody, when someone mentions that a Macintosh is a viable alternative to a WinTel machine, do you go just as ballistic? Or do you consider someone else's opinion may be as important as yours?

73,

Dan KD7MMT

[NL7DS]

N7EXI, The light was the answer for me. I used it for about two years just learning characters and suddenly one night I was on 20 and found myself copying at about 15 wpm. I, too, am like you, very visual. But these days you'll find me working qrp cw @ about 20 wpm. Hang in there, if I can do I know you can.
73 de Durell NL7DS

[K4MLM]

Thank you for the artical, Now that i understand my problem about learnig code maybe i will try to learn it again.

[kf6xa]

And let's not forget that we're now in the 21st century. Any ham worth his salt should be able to point a satellite antenna correctly, given only the Keps, having made all the calculations himself, preferably in his head.



Maybe there should be a test for receiving PSK31 by ear. It's not much faster than CW, and someday there may be a communications emergency when the guy sending only has PSK gear and you don't, so....



Golly, this is fun. But maybe we should all just have fun and enjoy ourselves, lest the FCC figures out we can (and do!) hold discussions like this till the Internet freezes over, and thus have little use for the spectrum now assigned to the service.

[kf4glg]

The point is, there still is a cw requirement. It's still something that has to be learned to use some of the priveleges in amateur radio. All it takes most people to learn it is motivation or desire. Whining about it won't get it done. Practice will. Until the requirement is dropped altogether, learn it or find something else to do. If a person doesn't have the desire or motivation to meet the challenge of obtaining an amateur license, who needs them? Those who have accepted the licensing system as it is, and have met the challenge and passed the tests and become licensed are accepted as ham operators around the world. Those who haven't, aren't. mike

[kf4glg]

There are a whole lot of folks out here who really just don't care whether you "like" cw or not, Woody. For those of us who do like it, no matter how archaic it may seem to you, whether you like it or not isn't really of any importance. We do, however, like to talk about our hobby. For some of us cw is part of it. You don't have to listen!...mike

[KC7RJT]

My name is Tom Cook, KC7RJT and i had alot of trouble learning code. The way i had to do it was to read books and send what i was reading with a practice oscillator, when i could send (everyone is faster at sending than recieving)I started recieving prctice swl'ing the fourty meter band and found that i learned copying real qso's faster then i could any tape, your interst is boosted because you are hearing a "real" communication. after i passed the novice i started operating and then i really started to speed up my copy. This was my experience....tom..

[KB9YXM]

I just wanted to add to this without causing a huge debate.
When will peopl learn that some people just dont want to use code, learn code, listen to code or anything to do with code. Im proud to say that last week i passed my code test hear in Finland. My call is OH8GEJ. My US call is KB9YXM. So I have joined the CW club but one thing is for sure. I hate code and everything to do with it. I learned it, and yes it was easy to learn once I made the coic to do it. Now I will cotinue to enjoy SSB and digital modes as I have in the past but with HF Top Band on up under my belt. I can honestly say that I learned cw by force. Forcd by those dinosaurs who will never understand that people (youth) in the world today, are willing to work for something they choose to do, not what they are forced to do for HF privs.

Passing my CW exam gave me the ammunition to toss all the crap back at those hams who want to push cw in our faces.

Think about this all you tech class hams out there. Just do it. As long as "They" control HF with the good old boys CW club we will not have anyone to speak up for those of us who just dont like CW for no other reason then not being interested in it.

For the rest of you who think the rest of the world should be banned from HF because we dont like CW, how would you like it if we said to you, you would not be allowed above 30MHz unless you passed VHF,UHF,SHF exams which included things that you would never use anyway. If you were forced to learn something totally foreign to you before you would be allowed to operate above 30MHz.

Wake up and help keep ham radio alive. Kill CW as a requirement for access to HF and make exams more difficult.

Julian
OH8GEJ

[w4njf]

Amen!If you are "musical"code comes very easy to you.I can't tunafish either and my code is lousy.
Tne Navy made an interesting discovery shortly
after Pearl Harbor.It seems the band members of
the sunken battleships made excellent code readers
even though they were not electrically oriented and thus were not Radiomen.They did a great job
of reading Japanese naval messages and contributed
greatly to final victory in WW2.Being "musical"
does help.
73 de Bill

[KB9YFI]

19D Cavalry Scouts used to wear a beret also as we were considered at one time to be a special force. That was a small thing to make us happy as we were the poor slobs that had to sneak up on our belly's with a white paintbrush in our mouths and paint big X's on the enemy tanks so our own tanks could know who to shoot at. (slight exaggeration but not that far from the truth.) When you spend 90% of your combat time behind enemy lines sneaking around you don't get to fire your weapon except as a last resort. Doing so means that you will soon be DEAD. I guess that qualifies as special. Now all the REMP's get to wear berets and that makes them feel 'special.' 4/5ths of the US "army" is support personnel and doesn't even know how to fight really. They ride into a war on the "short bus." and set up the cook tents, the supply tents and the bingo halls. REMP -Rear Echelon Military Personnel. -"special" soldiers.

[KC0LTQ]

I have a hearing problem and the code all sounds the same to me. I'm wondering if there is anyone out there who can tell me more about using light or where I can get one. Really would like to pass the cw and move up in class.
73 Carol KCØLTQ

[kg4kvx]

We all know what this is boiling down to.

I have tried to learn code, I have found that I can learn it, given a specific period of time. But, this whole code thing begs the question, how many people here still get their milk delivered to their doorstep in glass containers? How many people here still use 300 baud modems? Code is a great last line of communication, but it is an older form of communication.

I think code has it's place, and there will always be a place for it for those who want to learn it and use it. I wish I had the time to learn it, but quite franky, I dont. I probably wont until I am retired. So should we restrict the 10M+ bands for people like me to allow access only after retirement? Or should we allow those with a passion for the hobby a small slice of what the people with code enjoy? Maybe if I find enough enjoyment from it I will spend less time with my family for 2-3 months and learn the code.

To be honest, I only see it as an upside to the hobby and the industry to open some slices above 10 meters. Sales of all types of equipment will increase across the board, popularity will be up, and the hobby will benefit on the whole.

I was on the Internet waaay before it was popular or even relatively known at all, I have a handle on the Internet as well, a 'nic handle, it is "gjy". Not many people have an all letter handle so small, but it is part of the benefit of being there for awhile. I got it in '92 or '93, and I registered it over a 9600 baud leased line modem. I have seen the Internet go from a private education and research tool to the behemoth it is now. There was some pains along the way (spam, virus, spam, I hate spam!), but there has been great benefits as well (online shopping, online stock trading, online just about anything!). In the long run I think it has been a good thing. And I think that others in the radio hobby should think about the good that can be had from dropping code requirements to a certain slice of the bands 10 meters and above for the people with the wherewithal to take the harder tests. OK, flame away (as they say on the Internet :))

[W2BBQ]

AND my friends, I too have an opinion, which is just as valid as yours. Or do you think otherwise? As I have repeatedly stated here, I personally have absolutely nothing against morse code or those who like to use it. In fact I will defend each and everyone one of you in your efforts to do as you wish in Amatuer Radio. I'm simply one of the many who desire to see the code REQUIREMENT dropped for a willing person to obtain privilages on HF.....that and my desire to be able to come here, just like you, and offer my opinion. If you don't care for my opinion, you can see my name on the comment header and pass right on by without reading. Thank you and have a nice day.

[WA1IWH]

A very good article. However, I believe you left out one critical type of learner that seems to be prevalant in todays society, lazy. If one wants to achieve a goal in life, one has to WORK for it.
In my opinion, the whiners that say they CAN'T learn the code because of some perceived mental block are just lazy. Learning the code is not like learning Quantum Mechanics, or trying to determine the origins of the universe. It's kinda easy stuff, but the evil, nasty four letter word WORK is involved. That is what causes the block.

[kg6amw]

I learned code enough to pass the test and dropped it. Not because I dislike it, I have a high regard for it and hope to go back to it when time allows. Using myself as an example, I entered the hobby at the age of 50. At this point in my life, I spend lots of time working on rather complex financial deals and putting in lots of hours. When I set out to learn code, I learned it while I was tired and distracted. I finally accomplished the goal of 5 wpm. I suspect most people who use code, learned it in high school, the boy scouts or the military. This might give you an idea as to why code is loosing some its attrativeness, because most people entering the hobby are older and perhaps don't have the time or energy. But, as I said, I like cw and hope to pursue it when time and energy allow. 73, Merrill

[AnoneMouse]

Woody, why is it that anybody who doesn't share your opinions or disagrees with you is a flamer? It appears to me that you are just looking for a free ride. You want HF privileges, but you refuse to work for it. Instead of hoping that WRC 2003 will abolish code requirements for HF, which might not happen, why don't you just learn the code, like everybody else and quit whining? You've been a Tech for 5 years. Its time for you to put up or shut up!

[KC7LSP]

It may be that people MAKE EXCUSES for not learning code simply because they are NOT INTERESTED in taking the time to learn something (CW) that they have no intention of ever using.


I for one have ZERO interest in CW. Between work, family and other things, I simply do not care to devote ANY time to something I never intend to use.


Now amateur radio is great, it has something for everyone. If you like homebrew/building projects, Ham is for you. If just like chatting on 2m, ham is for you. If you like digital modes, satellites, or even CW, great... Amateur Radio is for YOU. But that is also another reason I like Ham radio, the variety of operators!


The only thing I do not like about amateur radio is the rare ham that treats CW like a religion and tries to convert everyone to his/her religious faith.


73, Kevan

[ka0mis]

I enjoyed your article on Morse Code learning barriers. I for one struggled with the code for over 12 years, and was about to give up ham radio when the FCC changed the requirements in April of 2000. I got to the point where I could copy 10 WPM but when I'd set the computer to send at 11 WPM I'd loose about 40% of the characters. For years I tried to "break the barrier" purchasing numerous code courses, all to no avail. Now if we could just convince those who find the code so easy, that there are those of us who just WON'T make it.

Paul - KA0MIS

[va3fcm]

With all due respect to those who use and enjoy CW I would reply that the "lure" that HF provides to learn and use Morse Code is for some more perceived than real. I have had the ability to copy at between 8 and 10 WPM for over a year. I have not gone out to take a test for 5 WPM simply because I could care less whether or not I use the HF bands.

WHY? First I have no room or budget for top dollar antennas. I've really little room even for wire dipoles. Second, I hear nothing on the lower bands that I can't hear on vhf and uhf. Three, HF is full of poor operators whom I would not wish to work (heck, I wouldn't work them on the upper bands either!). I've heard neo-nazis, right-wing survivalists, racists, etc., etc. Charming! Fourth, internet linking has improved to the point that I can easily work distant stations (yes, I have heard that "it's not real radio - but they said the same thing about SSB when SSB was developed). I question the unproven assumption that HF is a better place to be.



With regard to the original article, as a counselling psychometrist, (Yeah, Really - it's how I earn a living) I would have to agree with the writer. Learning styles will pay a role. Whether one recognizes it or not people do have varying abilities and differ in their attitudes and personality characteristics. It would be a strange world if we were all alike. To those who complain of the "whiners" who are too "lazy" to learn the code I would say go out and learn something new about individual differences before you open your mouths and make fools of yourself. These ideas would be funny if they weren't so sad.



Sure, there are fantastic operators on HF as well. I hear them all the time. However, I can hear many of these folks on VHF too and have many fine QSOs without having to fire up an HF rig.



WRC2003 will likely remove the treaty language requiring national administrations to maintain code tests as a requirement of HF use. Nations may remove the code or not. Either way, I won't operate any differently unless the HF bands improve. I'll keep on using satellites, repeaters, the internet, etc. and I'll keep on having a good time on the air. These comments are not intended to raise anyone's ire: merely to point out the basic fallacy which assumes that everyone should have an inherent desire to operate HF, and therefore, by logical extension work like trojans to learn Morse.



73



Charles
va3fcm

[ag4dg]

http://www.cq2k.net/

Code Quick ROCKS! Johnny can learn the rhythms of the CW with sound-alikes and bypass the drudgery of memorizing those dits and dahs. For example, the sound-alike for B is "BAND-rat-it-tat". D is "DOG did it!".

Yes, it is silly, cutesy, and over-the-top. THAT IS WHY PEOPLE CAN STICK WITH CODE QUICK!

OK, OK, back to the CW flame war.

[AB7FH]

My wife is a special ed teacher and she had told me about the various ways people learn long before I tryed to learn the Morse code. Once I started I found myself having great difficulty so I started to teach myself code using all for methods of learning.

I was doing - I sent code as well as recieved it as I recieved it I would write it down.

I learned visually - I set up a light bulb to flash with the code I was recieving and sending.

I learned tactily - I would drive down the road, look at a street sign, and think of the code characters in my head while "tracing" the letters down on my leg with my finger.

I learned by hearing - of course this is the most common method of learning.

And I learned the code! I passed my 5wpm test and said that was it enough was enough, but a week later I found myself taking the 13wpm test and I passed! So I went for the 20 a couple weeks later... and I passed that too! Now I can proudly say I am a know-code extra... I know code, but I don't use it!

[kb9tqn]

I'm sensing something pretty bad here. It seems like some hams believe there's no room for imperfect people in the amateur radio ranks. They just can't believe some people can't do certain things due to physical or mental limitations. If anyone so much as mentions any sort of mental or physical problem they're immediately called lazy or worse.



Why? Why not include those people instead of berating the very people that could benefit from amateur radio the most. The people like me that are stuck at home with nothing to do and no hope of a normal life? The people that could escape into amateur radio and for just a minute forget about their troubles as they talk to another ham accross the globe.



Before you use the lazy blanket on everyone please think about the people you're covering up with it.

[KB1GYQ]

Hey, fundamental quantium mechanics is simple to understand... is forms a logical pattern of interrelationships. Morse code does not.

[KB1GYQ]

I've a grand idea, one that will end the arguement forever! (I wish) Ban preassembled and kit equiptment, and allow anyone who can design and build a radio to operate it. That way we eliminate all the appliance operators, and nobody has to learn anything that they won't use.

[KB9YFI]

That is exactly the problem with these self-absorbed types. It makes them feel so good and superior to look down upon those who have not learned code that they don't think about what they are doing. It is so easy for them to bask in the glory of this one achievement they have made that they can't look at the big picture. By pointing their fingers at the lazy, stupid, dogs they convince themselves that because they did learn code they must be by default un-lazy, un-stupid, and superior to us dogs. See "even my dog can learn code" posted by one of these fossils above.



If we take this crutch away from them then they will have no other yardstick by which they can measure their "superiority" and the harsh light of reality will creep in and show just how pathetic their little lives are. I really feel that many of these code-worshipers have nothing else to cling to so that is why they hang on so tenaciously. Once they lose this they know that they will only have stories of the "good old days" to comfort them. It is sad and I do feel sorry for them because this is all many of them have.

[kb9tkd]

DitDit
DitDah DahDah
DitDahDitDit Dit DitDah DitDahDit DahDit DitDit DahDit DahDahDit
DahDitDitDit DitDitDah Dah
DahDitDit DahDahDah Dit DitDitDit
Dah DitDDitDitDit DitDit DitDitDit
DitDahDit Dit DitDah DitDahDitDit DitDahDitDit DahDitDahDah
DahDah DitDah DahDitDah Dit
DitDitDit Dit DahDit DitDitDit Dit DitDitDit
Dah DahDahDah DahDitDit DitDah DahDitDahDah
DitDitDahDahDitDit

If you do not wish to communicate this way all the time, why do I have to learn to do it for YOU at all? By the way I tried to do it with "." and "-" but QRZ.COM does not allow ascii art it does not care for morse code for itself ether.

[kb9tkd]

I am learning but does this really make sense today?

For those of you with better thing to do with you time.

[W2BBQ]

Well now it is obvious that you have been paying no attention to this whole CW situation whatsoever. I did and will work for a higher class ham license. One that makes sense. The whole point is that there is NO POINT in keeping CW as a REQUIREMENT to get on HF. This has all been discussed here and elsewhere ad infinitum before, but out of fairness to you and if you wish, you may come back and list your reasons as to why you think code should be retained AS A TESTING REQUIREMENT. Then I will come back and shoot them all down and then you go off and do something more profitable with your time. 73

[W2BBQ]

I appreciate your comments Charles and I understand your various positions and the enjoyments you get out of what you do with amatuer radio. I've had my tech ticket for 9 years and will renew next year. I work all modes (geesh excepting CW) currently on 6 and 2 meters. But I and many others like me do want to get on HF but continue to and will continue to reject this morse requirement nonsense. If the FCC doesn't drop the requirement after it should be dropped at WRC '03, then I'm tired of waiting. I'll go freeband as apparently thousands are doing now anyway. All areas of HF directly above and below the ham bands are becoming more and more populated with unlicensed operators....just talking, having fun and minding their own business and I shall be among them....if TNX again and 73

[AnoneMouse]

Yeah, you currently work all modes on 6 meters and 2 meters, and also on 11 meters. Don't give me this BS that you will freeband if the code requirements aren't dropped. I'm sure you are doing it now. I'm sure you freebanded before you got your Tech license. You are not a ham. You are a chickenbander in a no-coder's clothing. Don't bother renewing your license, buddy er I mean Good Buddy. Just keep freebanding with your 148 GTL, you know, the one with the toggle switches on the bottom. Hope you have a cool echo mike and an even cooler roger beep. Oh well. Its time to go 10-7 good buddy. I'll give you those threes. We back quiet. We 10-7.

[KB9YUR]

It would be interesting to take a survey to find
out how many people actually still use the
code compared to all other modes.
Though I support those who enjoy using CW, I
don't think it should be a barrier to HF.
If you look at it another way, how many people
would pass their drivers exam if they still had
to learn to drive stick shift. Or knowing
DOS to operate a Windows computer.
The other issues to learning (as others have
posted) is age. We don't learn the same way at
50 as we did at 20 or even 25.

[NE5U]

Exactly! Not to mention the visual aids that come with the course and the phuysical motions involved. Code Quick works and it works quickly.

[KB1GYQ]

"Mnemonic aids" just make things more convoluted to me. They make me even more confused. Anyone else with that experience?

[K2ACX]

I can't right now identify the type of learner I
am, nor do I much care what type you are. Study your characters and look for me on the novice bands, where I can be found listening for CQ's or calling CQ myself several times a week. Call me at your own speed; I will match it and stay with you to complete a contact. If you miss something, tell me and I'll repeat it.

Anyone who wants to learn code and/or become better at it should take advantage of the surprisingly high number of ops on the other end who are more than willing to spend their time helping others improve. Experienced CW ops are a resource to you- USE THEM! I cannot stress enough the value of using CW on the air (or at least listening to real conversations if you don't have HF privileges yet) for learning and improvement.

I learned morse by memorizing the dots and dashes from a sheet of paper, which according to some theories put me at a disadvantage in speed, but I can't count the number of hams on the other end who with a little patience and a helpful attitude took the time to slow down and make sure I got it right. Without their encouragement and generosity I wouldn't have broken the 10wpm barrier. Computer programs and tapes don't hurt, but nothing replaces the effectiveness of copying a live transmission, where your concentration becomes essential as you don't have a transcript next to you.

Being positive goes a long way, and while I'm not qualified to comment on the effects of learning disabilities, etc., I'm willing to work you if you're willing to give it a shot, and I can almost guarantee some good will come of an honest effort.

If you're happy above 30MHz, well, I hope you stay happy and I'm certainly not going to suggest you're wrong because I'm not you. If, however, CW sparks your interest down the road, I just told you where to find me.

Brian K2ACX

[kf4glg]

It is apparent that you have not been paying attention to the fact that cw is in fact still a requirement for some of the amateur radio privileges. The original discussion actually was pretty much one in which several hams were expessing their views on how the views of the original writer effected their perception of what they thought of as being the best way to learn the code. Some folks even made comments to the effect that they just didn't think they would learn it at all. All these comments were constructive in nature. The original article was in fact well stated. Actually no one wrote against your position at all! You just seemed to pop up to express a view in such a manner as to qualify you for "the insufferable dick" award. Your misery knows no bounds. Now you want to talk about being a "freebander"? Go back to your cb "good buddys" and talk all that crap to them. No one on the qrz page who is a ham will tolerate that kind of ignorant stance on what you perceive to be your "right " to the radio spectrum. The reason amateur radio "works" is because its members adhere to a set of guidelines. You just said basically that if the rules don't suit you then you can make your own rules. Have fun on channel 19 good buddy. As difficult as it is for me to believe, there are actually people more ignorant than you on the radio. They just don't get on this web page for all the world to see! mike

Bravo! Henry Ford is often quoted as having said, " Think you can, think you can't, either way you're right." The military learned long ago that if you disarm men of their excuses, then the impediments to their performance largely disappear. Look at the average calls of these guys who "dislike code so much." They're too new and green to even have a clue what they like, or want to pursue. But like so many pimple faced adolescents, they'll stand their ground and tell you that they know it all. So be it. I personally am unconcerned if any of them ever learn anything, even cw. But I have a story I'd like to share. I learned morse code with an inner certainty that I was uninterested in ever using it. I held a Novice license for 7-8 months in the '61-'62 timeframe and never even got on the air. I had a receiver and a homemade transmitter. I got on phone when I upgraded to Conditional, AM in those days. I didn't have a lot of power, perhaps 25-35 watts output and a low dipole 25 ft. high. It was enough to make lots of phone contacts on 20 meters but copeing with QSB and QRM, it wasn't unusual for my qso's to terminate abruptly and prematurely. A local ham suggested I try CW. I scoffed but he insisted, even loaned me a J-38 straight key. I began working CW. And my qso success rate skyrocketed! Not only that, I began working intercontinental dx with some ease and regularity. Then it dawned on me that I was transferring the very same information that I would have on phone. CW became very,very interesting, even fun. I never went back to phone as a primary mode of communications. Today my cw operating comprises about 90-95% of my operating. Like so many, I was just so sure I was uninterested in cw. What a twist of fate. Of course, I was wrong. Just like a lot of you are, if only you didn't know it all. Obsolete mode? Hardly! Its the most efficient and least demanding bandwidth mode there is. And for all that human beings have to say to each other, its plenty quick enough. I've personally worked over 100 countries with 4 watts and cw and simple antennas, on several occasions. Over 50 countries with 1 watt, in one particular year.
Those of you who rejected code sometimes complain that amateur radio didn't welcome you with open arms. This used to be a fraternity where everyone was welcomed with open arms. Until a rabid group appeared that rejected amateur radio as it had been. There was nothing wrong with ham radio. There were many different modes of communications and many facets available to explore and specialize in. Now the tests are a joke. And the natural occurance is that we have many new hams that are a joke. I read the other day that for the first time that anyone can remember, the world of hamdom is vhf/uhf "centric" whereas it used to be hf "centric." So be it. I can't change it, its gone too far. Many new hams don't read books, don't subscribe to ham magazines, don't attempt to learn anything on their own, don't even display any serious interest in ham radio. A few days ago I received a "QSL" from a KF4. Mind you he's been a ham for several years. It was a 4"x4" piece of printer paper with his call at the top. Below that was a date. The meaning of that date was unclear. Below that was his name and address and below that was the frequency band that this qso supposedly took place on. Off to the right, at the bottom was a "penned in" 73 and his first name. I had to sit down and write him and explain that this QSL was so lacking that it was worthless and useless as a confirmation. There was no indication of my call, no signal report, no grid square, no mode specified, no time of contact. This wouldn't have happened 20-30-40 or more years ago. Now every qsl printer can tell you amusing stories about guys, even with 2 letter calls, who had to ask what goes in the RST box? Come on guys? Did guys like this come down from Mars last night and listen to radio overnight to learn the language and apply for amateur radio licenses the next day? I wonder.
Jack Anderson is quoted as having said that" civilized men build institutions for savages to tear down." I see clear evidence that the "savages" are among us. Some of them wrote responses to this thread, and removed all doubt.
Remember, it really wasn't cw, so much as it was the attitude that alienates. Personally I'd have never let cw stand between me and an amateur license.

[W2BBQ]

Lookit flamer, just because you don't like my views or would prefer to deny me an opinion, you take to cussing at me. My how intelligent. Yes I'll probably rebel against the hapless FCC if they don't chuck the code requirement as should have already been done. Yes I'll rebel, just like our forefathers did against England to start this country. If you can't handle a view innocent viewpoints at an internet message board, perhaps you should go off and do something easier and less stressfull, like basketweaving. Have ya a great day good buddy.

[w6th]

Do what i believe: when there is will, there is a way.

[kc6ufe]

great idea except you cant get the parts anymore, or maybe this was part of what you are thinking.

[AnoneMouse]

You're the ignorant moron, dickhead. Don't compare your lawless anarchistic rebellion against the FCC by freebanding to the American Revolution. You're one sick dude. Like all the other chickenbanders, you're either too lazy or too stupid to learn a lousy 5 wpm code, so you freeband, just like they do. After all, bad ol' Uncle Charlie ain't a gonna keep ya from shootin' skip on da CB radidio, tain fowar! We's a gonna faar up da leenyer n shoot da skip on triple nickel. Roggies! It is scum like you that give amateur radio a bad name.

[w0dz]

I completely agree with KE4ARH. My wife's a Special Ed teacher and she would concur. She and my son are both visual learners while I am an auditory learner. I had no trouble with code (love it in fact), but they can't fathom it. This fact, and the diminishing need for CW ops makes it obvious that we need to look elsewhere to allow ham radio to continue to be a great hobby without the code.

It's also obvious that having to take a 13 or 20 WPM code test did not keep jerks off the bands. Just having to take a test at all, of any kind, keeps most people away. You have to want to be a ham.

I love code. It lets me do something not just anyone can do, and it makes me happy. But I don't have a problem giving up the code requirement that will likely happen in 2003. I think, paradoxically, that it might actually lead to MORE cw operators; it will let in more hams, and many of them will eventually, at their own speed, gravitate towards cw. As long as we still make them take a written test, it won't become a CB or FRS.

[NF8W]

I got up early, stayed up late and spent my lunches learning code. I barely passed the SLOW code test. I learned (other than code): 1) it's worth working for, 2) I can see that some CAN'T learn code, 3) those who are slow at code are as much hams as those who are fast.

73,
Fred
KC8RNN

[kb9tmp]

The visual vs audio problem I understand all to well. That is the reason when my kids ask me how to pronounce a word or tell them what a word is, I have to look at it in the book they're reading, instead of hearing them spell it out to me. They might as well spell the word out in Greek, it would have the same effect.

The same goes for the code. I HAVE LEARNED MORSE CODE. I just can't hear it, convert it, then write it down. It's still just a bunch of beeps, I can pick out some of the easy ones on occasion. But I can send it to you with no problem. Those of us who "can't learn" code are not just lazy as some would like to believe (although I know that "some" are) we just don't learn it as easy as others.

So why can't those of you that find fault with us nocode techs just cut us a little slack and give us the benefit of the doubt. Or better yet come over and HELP ME to learn it, instead of condeming me for not learning it. And Jeff (KE4ARH) thanks for understanding at least one tech's problem with code learning!




--... ...--

-.- -... ----. - -- .--.

[DocRF]

First off, let's be brutally honest about this "four styles of learning" business. It is a simplification, period. Human beings are extraordinarily complex creatures. Whether a person's learning style predominantly is auditory, tactile, visual, or otherwise, is only one factor. I've been in education for many decades. The culture from which a person hails can make far more difference than which sense they're strongest in.



But that's almost secondary to the main point. And this is the main point:
We have gone far astray in how we use this knowledge.

In the old days, when we sought to be good learners, we strove to determine how best we learned, and how we learned most poorly. Having done that, we then struggled to improve in those areas where we were poor learners. That's right, the old way was to determine your weaknesses, and struggle to overcome them. Education without struggle is usually temporary, worthless, or both. Read the biographies of Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Edison, and their contemporaries, and you'll see that the only way to success in those days was to get past your weaknesses.



No, instead today, we claim that you should determine what your weaknesses are, and simply avoid dealing with them! So, if you're primarily a visual learner, you avoid learning things via the auditory method? How could you ever hope to become a good conversationalist, then? Why would you have any interest in ham radio at all, since it's an auditory hobby? I pity you, if you cannot absorb things auditorily, then you surely do not enjoy music.



Do you see how ridiculous this line of reasoning is?



The whole of the human experience is based on using all of our senses, and working in the four realms of physicality, emotion, intellect, and spirituality. It is the ridiculous New Age mentality that encourages us to learn our strengths, and stay within those strengths.



Haven't you ever heard the phrase "working outside the comfort zone"? That's new age, too. And it makes sense. But - avoiding learning things because the education goes through one of your weaker methods is NOT "outside the comfort zone". Instead, it's a hurried scamper back inside that comfort zone, where you are doomed to never learn anything worth learning.



I have taught over 1,000 people the code. Many of them couldn't identify a tune, or tell one tone from another. I contend that any human being who can understand language can understand code. The very same brain functions are used.



You hear your name "Frank". That immediately causes a reaction - identity! That's fundamental. It's basic. And it's the same function needed to identify "didah" with the letter "A".



There are many good reasons for not learning code - I don't want to is probably the most honest one there is. I don't want to spend the time at it because I don't want to use it is another fine example. To date, I have never met anybody who truly cannot learn the code, only people who claim they can't learn it.
I have no objection to people not learning code. Just try to be honest about the real reason why. It is extremely unlikely that you're the one in a billion who somehow can understand spoken language, but is unable to comprehend the far simpler sounds of code. Be honest and say "I haven't learned code because I have, as yet, not struggled hard enough to find a method that works for me." Or "I haven't learned code because I don't want to." Don't wimp out and say "I can't." From Henry Ford: "Whether you say I can't, or whether you say I can, you are right, because you choose to be."


We are seriously overanalyzing this issue. Anybody can learn code, and it's not hard for anybody. Just get over your mental blocks.



Or do you continue to cement your mental blocks in place by the practice of avoiding confronting them? Do you stay in your comfort zone? That's your choice. It's not natural.



Doc

[kg4kvx]

To be honest, Quantum mechanics is easier to understand for some people than memorizing what dit dah dit dit da and dah dit dah dah dah means, along with all the abbreviated 2 and 3 letter code words. At least the quantum mechanics has reason behind it to support it and understand it, which in turn makes it easier to remember. The only thing that has reason or a pattern behind it is 0-9 in code. If there is a rhyme or reason behind the way the code alphabet goes together, that brings some sense to it, please let me know! Every little bit would help. But then again, i'd get my 5WPM, pass the next 2 written exams (i'm a tech, but you probably figured that out) and drop code from my mind immediately.



That any civilized human being in this nineteenth century should not be aware that the earth travelled round the sun appeared to me to be such an extraordinary fact that I could hardly realize it.



"You appear to be astonished," he said, smiling at my expression of surprise. "Now that I do know it I shall do my best to forget it."



"To forget it!"



""You see," he explained, "I consider that a man's brain originally is like a little empty attic, and you have to stock it with such furniture as you choose. A fool takes in all the lumber of every sort that he comes across, so that the knowledge which might be useful to him gets crowded out, or at best is jumbled up with a lot of other things, so that he has a difficulty in laying his hands upon it. Now the skillful workman is very careful indeed as to what he takes into his brain-attic. He will have nothing but the tools which may help him in doing his work, but of these he has a large assortment, and all in the most perfect order. It is a mistake to think that that little room has elastic walls and can distend to any extent. Depend upon it there comes a time when for every addition of knowledge you forget something that you knew before. It is of the highest importance, therefore, not to have useless facts elbowing out the useful ones.""



"But the Solar System!" I protested.



"What the deuce is it to me?" he interrupted impatiently: "you say that we go round the sun. If we went round the moon it would not make a pennyworth of difference to me or to my work."




Sherlock Holmes & an astonished Dr. Watson, in "A Study in Scarlet"

[k7uz]

I feel like I'm beating a dead horse because I've plateau'd at 25 wpm. CW is now a communcations art form with a proud heritage and I am passionate about it's preservation. However, as with any other mode; "To each his own". Let the code guys do code, and let the non-code guys do what they want to do. I would prefer to see the written exams tougher technicaly in an old school way ie; draw a an op-amp circut de da de da ect. Make the written exams the filter for what a lot of old timers would use a CW exam to do; keep the Nay-bobs off of the phone bands. Make it tougher where it realy should/would count, in the technical arena. Mandatory CW is like requiring everyone to learn Latin before they can work any DX. Apologies to Woody for being redundant?
73's
Russ
K7UZ@aol.com

[N8UZE]

Well I am quite musical but had to struggle and fight to learn the code. I am very much a visual learner. I can sight read music relatively well but for the life of me cannot play by ear. It's necessary for me to have printed music to play.

Yet here is another thing to think about. We all learn to speak by HEARING people around us when we are babies. So it is not impossible to learn aurally even if we are visual types.

I learned my code at the age of 41 and passed the 20 wpm requirement within about 8 months of beginning my ham studies. I spent about an hour a day practicing code.

So the current 5 wpm should not be impossible even for visual learners.

[N3HGB]

In an alternate universe, what would happen if the telephone and telegraph systems was run by hams?
First came the telegraph. Telegraph operators were proud of their CW ability. The faster they could send, the more manly they were. They didn’t go down to the local saloon or the local house of ill repute after work. They didn’t really fit in with cowboys and saloon girls. These proto-geeks of the 1800s liked to hang out in the lab and wire dry cells together. The developed a “Telegraphers License” with a class structure so everyone would know who was the fastest. The operators who could send the fastest had the “Extra-Fast” license. They were the kings of the telegraphy world.
One night in the lab someone invented the telephone! Imagine that, you could send your voice down the wire without Morse code.
This caused some consternation, especially among the Extra-Fast license holders. What would become of them once Morse code was not needed to communicate? Their manhood would evaporate overnight.
After some consideration, they decided to have the government require a license to operate a telephone. These licenses would come in several classes to keep everyone aware of just who was manly and who was not.
Novice – They could send Morse code by pressing a tone button on their phone, but were not allowed to have a microphone. Had to pass a Morse test.
Technician – They could have a microphone and didn’t have to pass a Morse test. However, they were only allowed to have the numbers 1 through 3 on their phone and could only call people in their town.
General – Could have a tone button and a microphone. They had to pass a faster Morse test. They were allowed to have the numbers 1 through 7 on their phone. They could call all over the world, but sometimes the exchanges would get busy.
Extra Fast – Could have all types of phone equipment, including answering machines. They had all the numbers, including 0. They had to past a high speed Morse test.

There would be “phone contests”” to see who could talk to the most people. In case of “pileups”, higher license classes could use up to 100-volt batteries for their phones, while lower classes had to stick to 48 volts. Periodic attempts to let people talk without knowing Morse were attacked by the Extra-Fasts in order to preserve their status.

[W2BBQ]

TNX Friend for your calm cool thoughts out here on the sea of QRZ chaos. I aggree with you completely. As I've emphatically stated here before I have absolutely nothing against morse code. All we're talking about here is an operating mode. One that you don't ever have to use not one single time for the rest of your life after you pass the ticket test. So what is the point? Let those who desire to operate PSK31 do it. Let the code folks beep away to their hearts content. No one has ever suggested banning CW. However it has amply been shown that it is no longer relevant as a requirement to obtain HF privilages. I offered my protest comments here for the reasons stated in my original reply and I stick by them. Not referring to you but to the others who would come by and flame and cuss people just for visiting here and offering an opinion...well that's just absurd. 73's Woody

[AnoneMouse]

Good Buddy Woody does PSK-31 on 27.700 MHz. using his Cobra 148 GTL that he bought from Copper Electronics. This is no longer a matter of whether or not CW should be used for testing, this is a serious matter regarding a freebander who holds a Technician ham license and wants HF priivileges. No free rides Woody. If you want to operate on HF legally, learn CW like everyone else did. Its only 5 wpm. Even a moron like you can do 5 wpm. If not, then continue freebanding. But don't tarnish the name of amateur radio by freebanding while holding a ham license. Let your damn license expire first. Then you can do all the freebanding you want. Threes Woody. We down. We clear. We 10-7.

[KC9ASI]

Ugh... I've said it once, and I'll say it again. I'm not for CW preventing access to HF, I'm against people getting an Extra class license without being able to solid copy at 20 WPM. Extra is an honor (braggin' rights? 1x2 call?), and you shouldn't get it until you've demonstrated something moderately impressive.



Now then, as far as operating privileges go...



Let's drop the code requirement for HF access, but only allow 200W on HF until you're an Extra. That oughta be plenty to hit anywhere, and still allow 1500W on VHF+ for EME and weak signal.



Generals should have the same basic operating privileges as Extras (well, ok, a FEW extra slices of band for Extra), but without the CW requirement.

That way, it'll be a distinct decision so that people will WANT to learn code (even if indirect, because they WANT to be able to say that they're Extra class operators), and not, "Aww geez, I gotta learn this Ancient CW stuff so that I can get on the shortwave bands". Rather "I'm on the HF, now I want to say that I'm an Extra... Even though I really can't DO anything more with it"

CW Revolution (http://www.cwrevolution.net)



Just another Tech- trying to teach his pencil 20WPM...


KC9ASI

[KB1GYQ]

I can get the parts.... I have at least four catalogs from electronics suppliers on my shelve from which I can get almost anything. The rest can be built by hand. :)

I have to agree. I was 11B (Infantry) in the Army and company RTO to boot. We never used code, whether training in the field or during actual combat. There was simply no way to convey mission-critical, real-time information via code (especially when on the move and carrying a rifle). I never heard battalion or division TACs or TOCs operating code, either.



Sidenote: some of us carried an optional ruggedized (artillery?) laptop and tiny thermal printer for use in receiving op orders via fax or e-mail. Heavy, but kind of fun. Technology is cool.



I do not disparage those who operate code, nor do I have a problem with passing a code test in order to operate HF as part of the license exams. Those are the rules and, ultimately, we have to follow the rules as laid out by the FCC. These rules supercede any opinion/preference one may have.



The original post was informative and well-written. Thank you for the information.



73 de Ron (KCØLJJ)

Great chart! That looks very helpful and I will put it into practice soon. Thanks for posting that link.

73 de Ron (KCØLJJ)

[KC8OZJ]

Learning the code is like learning how to drive a 3 speed manual transmission on the column to drive todays cars and trucks. That is why I can't learn code. What is the use?! Make code an option. If you want to use this mode of communication, learn it and use it.
73's
John.

[AD6ZU]

Excellent article bringing up reasons why it may be more difficult for some to learn code than others. I don't particularly care about those who simply write off people as "lazy". There are those who WILL have a tougher time than others but will still pass the code test just like there are those elmers who realize this fact and will still try to help others pass and succeed at it.

You bring up a lot of good points Jeff. I learned the code and became proficient enough to pass the 5 WPM test in about 3 weeks, although I think I am actually a faster visual learner than an audio learner. With NuMorse, I can now reliably copy at about 7-8 WPM, but with the code displayed, I can do nearly 18 WPM.

Here's a suggestion to you "visual" folks. Until they allow lights or anything else in the testing session, how about trying this: visualize the dots and dashes and decipher the letters that way. With the new testing methods (faster dot-dash groups with more space between letters) it is much easier for you to visualize the code group in your head and write down the corresponding letter. I know this is not good practice, but it WILL help you pass the test. Once you pass the 5 WPM, you can use another method to "properly" gain speed. Those who are determined to advance to a higher speed for real QSO's will do so, those who don't will probably never carry on a QSO on CW anyway, but they will be able to do voice, PSK, or anything else on HF, and that's what they want to do anyway.

This past weekend, I just tried out the CW "decoding" program called CWget on some HF QSO's. While the software is far from the perfect decoder, it does show a visual train of pulses and I actually found myself visually figuring out the letters that the software couldn't decode. These were QSO's going at about 22 to 26 WPM!

Just remember, ham radio is a HOBBY, not a constitutional right, nor should it be an exclusive country club for old timers. The fewer of us there are on HF, the less attention the companies will have in making HF equipment and the more expensive it will be. Ham radio should be fun and learning new things should be a never-ending goal. Your radio is an object and tool of that hobby and not just an appliance. It's a great feeling to accomplish something that took effort, just ask anyone who passed the exam after a number of failures. If you want a pastime that comes naturally and never has frustrations, take up golf.

73
Roy
AD6ZU

[jxs2151]

"Anybody can learn code, and it's not hard for anybody. "

You are an educator and you have this attitude? I guess that explains a lot about the current state of the education system.....

[AC7RI]

Well, I certainly wouldn't want a teacher that instead says "Oh, this is too hard for you. You'll never be able to learn this."

DocRF is entirely correct. The same process to understand hearing the letter "A" in speech is also used to understand hearing the letter "A" in morse code. It just takes a certain amount of time and practice (I did it 10-15min a day for three or four weeks), and a positive attitude. If you think it's going to be hard, it will be hard. If you think it's going to be easy, it'll be a piece of cake!

[AnoneMouse]

You can't learn code because you don't want to learn code. I guess there are many no-code Techs just waiting for the code requirement to be abolished in order to get on HF. Everyone is looking for a free ride. What about all the rest of us that started out as no-code Techs that finally bit the bullet and did what we had to do to meet the FCC requirements. There are many of us that learned CW just to get on HF, even though we never used it again after passing the test. The CW requirement has nothing to do with operating proficiency, as it did when CW was the only method of communicating by radio (before voice). The CW requirement is there for 2 reasons. The first is history and tradition. The other is to filter out all but those who are serious about ham radio. Anyone can memorize the test question pools, but CW is something you have to actually work at to pass a test. If we throw out the CW requirement, we may as well just license folks for ham radio the same way CB'ers were licensed before 1981--fill out the app and pay the fee.

By the way, I was made to learn how to drive a three-speed stick shift truck. When I told my boss that I didn't know how to drive a stick shift, he told me its my job and I'd better learn if I wanted to keep my job. I learned. In the same way, I learned CW in order to get on HF.

[kf4wol]

Most people like to spend their time and effort learning something that they can enhance their life and be a useful tool.

Code like "outhouses, oil lamps, polaroid cameras,
horses & buggies, are no longer of a practical use, so why build and outhouse, why buy an oil lamp, digital cameras put the polaroid out of business, horse & buggies would get run over in our modern day traffic, just like code is run over and left behind by phone and modern digital modes.

Its a "Dead Dog" and should be completely removed from the hobby, so we can keep the hobby a live with vigor from some of the young folks that would be intrested, if not for this "old fashion" mode. It had a glorious past, so did MacArthur & Patton, they are dead and gone, so is code.

[n7ah]

I always have been under the impression that it is the ability to COPY code at high speeds and not SENDING code at high speeds. With the keyboards and keyers available today, a "normal" person can send way faster than they can receive. But what is the defination of "normal"?
Curt

[N8UZE]

Every test in every subject and hobby I have ever taken had questions on elements that I had no interest in. There were always items that I had to learn simply to pass the test. Does that mean they should be eliminated?? I think not. If we eliminated material that people were not interested in, eventually we would end up eliminating all testing in all areas. Such a philosophy leads to a general degradation in quality of life and ability in the field being discussed.

In addition, you never know when the material that you disliked or had no interest in may come in handy. Or when your interests might change for that matter.

It saddens me to see a discussion of learning differences and how to compensate for them turn into a debate on what should or should not be required. That is a separate subject and should be treated as such.

[N8UZE]

How did you ever have time to learn the theory then?

[N8UZE]

Still age is no barrier. I learned code at the age of 41 despite the fact that I am a visual learner and not an aural one.

Why not require people to learn to drive stick shifts driver's licenses? Vehicles like this are not rare. They are often used on jobs. Also, it gives you more choices in the purchase of a car. It allows you to shift a point more suitable for the particular situation than the built in shift point of an automatic.

[jxs2151]

The results speak for themselves. Teachers like DocRF created the current education system and it is without a doubt in total shambles. I say the best way to test his theory is to see what he and his like-minded ilk have done to schools and kids with his attitude.

Care to debate the rather obvious results of Doc's kind of thinking? I seriously doubt it. Besides, the results speak for themselves.

[KB1GYQ]

I cannot answer for kg4kvx, but I didn't "take the time to learn theory" in order to get an amateur radio license. I already knew theory from studing electrical engineering. But that darn, illogical code kept me from getting a license for over 10 years!

Enought with morse code! People who cannot design their own radio, shouldn't be permitted to operate one! ;)

[N8UZE]

Outhouses and Oil Lamps - STILL used in remote areas where it is not possible to bring in running water and electricity cost effectively. And also used by many recreational campers.

Horses and buggies - Well buggies seem to have disappeared but the above mentioned remote areas are accessed either by foot or horseback.

Digital cameras - Polaroid cameras might die due to this but there will be a place for the different versatility of film.

Almost anything that we consider "primitive" or "outmoded" continues to have some application. Just because it is not widespread, it isn't dead either.

Movies and television have not succeeded in killing books as was widely predicted. Cameras did not kill painting. Typewriters and now computers have not eliminated the need to be able to write with a pencil.

[KB9YFI]

The "theory" involved in the tech and general (I have not taken the advanced yet) is so basic that a retarded monkey could learn it in about 2-days. Any human that can read should be able to grasp it in about 1-2 hours depending on how slow they read. Read the 'Now You Are Talking' book and that's all you need. We are talking 6th-grade science here folks.


Now the code is hard. It makes no sense. It's rote memorization of randomized sounds. If you can't diferentiate between the dits and dahs you are screwed. They say "up yours buddy- your a moron dog CB-er whith no right to use HF" It's a bloody flaming hoop to jump through. At least the theory makes sense to anyone not on medication for sever psychosis.

[w3nrl]

wow somebody who understands.... sir you hit the nail hard on the head!!!!!!
i would love to learn the code and use it as well.
73 w3nrl

[kf4glg]

Correct on all three points, Fred. I'm glad you are a ham, for whatever that's worth. #'s 1,2,and 3 are right on the money. 73...mike

I posted my comments under the post of WA1IWH. I strongly encourage all who really are interested in this thread to read it.

[W2BBQ]

You're such a dullard Curt. What a pathetic attempt to sidestep the fellow's point. Score 0

[W2BBQ]

OK N3HGB! Yes! Ding Dong! Hello! Way to go! Bingo! Hot damn! Thank You!! Brilliant! Succinct!

Well you beat me to this one guy. Should of thought of it myself. What an excellent analogy and a funny read. I thank you again. You're a master storyteller. Please come back often as these QRZ people post this hooey every 2 or 3 weeks just to push our buttons and keep folks coming back. Sometimes effective but not overly clever. This exact same CW stuff gets run through the meat grinder over and over in the wafer-thin guise of "debate", sic, but I am no longer impressed. The geriactric codites are a die hard ol' bunch and they know they've lost, but they seem to enjoy a good long argument and I don't mind too much coming around to throw a few rocks at their glass shacks. Thanks for the great laughs. You're my new favorite person of the day! 73's KE4ENX Woody in Ga.

[ke4pjw]

I guess there are many no-code Techs just
waiting for the code requirement to be abolished in order to get on HF. Everyone is looking for a free ride.
What about all the rest of us that started out as no-code Techs that finally bit the bullet and did what we
had to do to meet the FCC requirements.


What about us former no-code techs? I think the CW hazing ritual should stop. I don't see how I have been "improved" by passing the test. All it did was make me despise CW. Next fall I hope to have an EME station together, by then I might start to care to use CW. As it stands right now, I don't care for it.


Terry

[KC8OZJ]

Julian, I couldn't have said it any better!
KC8OZJ. John. 73's

[KC8OZJ]

No flame away here. I understand and agree with your comments 100%. But this, I am afraid won't change the on going Morse Code debate.
KC8OZJ. 73's John.

[w5wn]

Julian,

Please don't be so bitter. I sense a great amount of frustration since you have a very strong opinion about the code.

You stated "how would you like it if we said to you, you would not be allowed above 30MHz unless you passed VHF,UHF,SHF exams which included things that you would never use anyway." This is already happening. The written exams already contain a lot of information that the average ham will never use. There are questions about VHF, UHF and SHF. There are questions about satelite operation. How many appliance operators actually use something as simple as Ohms Law? I would venture to guess that a large percentage never use it again once they pass their exams.

So, should we just do away with all technical questions on the exams? How about just a rules and regulations test? Maybe we could also include some basic operating skills to help do away with poor operating on the bands. Actually, why bother to have a proctored examination? Most people should be able to read and understand the rules and regulations and operating procedures. Why don't we just have everyone sign a certification that they have read and understand the content of the exams? If they violate the rules then just punish the violators.

Wait a minute, this sounds like what we used to have in the U.S. when the 11 meter Citizens Band first started! No tests, just read and certify that you read the rules.

Now look at the mess on 11 meters! Nobody pays attention to the rules. Foul language, working skip, etc. predominate the channels. I won't even get into the "freebander" debate.

Fortunately, hams have a history of "self policing". This has helped keep things under control. However, even with self policing, there is still plenty of rule violators on the bands. The reason the 11 meter situation got so bad was due to the lack of resources the governments had to deal with violators. So, they just gave up.

If amateur radio has a large influx of operators that aren't "forced" to have to learn some things they probably will never use, like ohms law, we will probably have the same situation as what occurred on 11 meters. People tend to value and respect something they had to earn and work for. They are more likely to obey the rules if they have an investment in obtaining the license.

Life's not fair. It's not fair that we have to do things that don't benefit us personally. However, if we are to peacefully coexist as a society, we have to accept the fact that everything is not going to be fair and equal. We can work to change things that aren't fair. However, sometimes it's best to leave things alone because changing them will cause more problems than it will cure.

Try to have a contact on the air in CW. You haven't really "earned" the right to bash proponents of CW. All you have done is pass a test. You haven't proven that you can use CW for communications. A test of 5 words per minute is easy enough to pass. If you want the right to bash accomplished CW operators, I suggest that you get on the air and make some contacts. Get your speed up to a conversational level. Work DXCC on CW. Or better yet, do it with QRP. That's a whole lot easier to do on CW than SSB. It's even more effective than the best digital mode (I know, I have worked just about all of the digital modes).

Once you've done the above, feel free to bash CW supporters. However, I think by the time you get that far along you will have developed a love for the mode!

73, Good DX and God Bless!

Jim, W5WN

[K5WDW]

i agree mike i purchased code quick and it is a lifesaver, learned faster than listening to the regular code tapes, i recommend this learning program to anyone who is having trouble learning code, will be taking my code test soon and will be passing it with no problem.

73s
david
k5wdw

Absolutely right on the mark.

Lou W7DZN

[kg4ngy]

Sounds like maybe you think you're talking to guys like me. I've learned things that are hard, welding is a good example, because I learned the old hard ways, not just picking up a spool gun. I have made a forge weld. I have made some textbook beutiful gas welds, good stick welds, TIG too. I spent many years, reading and doing. Got burned some, too.
I have worked thirty plus years ( I am a master mechanic) at a trade that has worn out parts of my body, yet I still work those parts.
I have worked pretty hard at morse for eleven months, can copy three to five WPM at best. Not good enough yet.
Seems that in your book, I must be lazy. Maybe I am a little lazy. But my sewer backed up last week. I dug it up, tore it apart, dug out what I had to, endured what I had to and fixed it. I don't think I am lazy. And I think you are wrong. Maybe you ought to rethink this.
Sincerely,
R. Shannon Boal KG4NGY

[ve3me]

Difficult to be too compassionate when you know that people who are deaf and blind learn to speak in sign language. NOW THERE IS A CHALLENGE.

[N3HGB]

I actually think CW is pretty cool, I just don't feel the need to make people do it. I have operated maritime and aviation HF and VHF radios for years before I got my ticket without any major disaster, so I figure if safety-of-life traffic can get by with no coders, so can hams on SSB. Glad you liked the story.
73

[KC8OZJ]

I also feel sad and sorry for them. By way of this Morse Code mode of communication, they think even today that they are Gods gift of Amateur radio!

[n7ah]

There are some societies right here in America that still thrive on the things considered obsolete. Ever hear of the Amish? Oil lamps- I use them during power failures. About the only thing considered obsolete by most people that I agree with is the corncob! I finally had to convert over to bog roll. (TP to the no coders!) Hi! 73 de Curt, N7AH

[n7ah]

Well, what I stated made about as much sense as 90% of the comments on this subject! This is an old issue that goes way back before the requirements were downsized to be a ham. Quite frankly, I am getting pretty tired of all the ranting and raving over this particular topic. Isn't there something else to bash for a while (until the same subject is brought up in two or three weeks)? Curt

[WA4MJF]

Unless they've very recently stopped, code burst
(300 wpm) is used by special operators.

Any MOS 18s out there or are all y'all over
there?

Code Intercept is still taught at Fort Huachuca for all branches of the service.

73 de Ronnie

[KD5KUF]

The simplest solution is that when the international requirement is dropped, drop it from our bands except for the CW subbands. Let the FCC keep the federal mandate that CW only is to be used there. Then have them drop the rule that says CW can be used anywhere in the bands.

I don't want to hear CW on top of my 2 meter QSO any more than I want to hear packet or RTTY on my phone frequency subbands. I get annoyed when someone gets on 144.200 ssb call frequency with CW regardless of an ongoing phone QSO, but I can't go into his subband and call cq on phone.

I stay off all subbands not devoted to phone operation until and unless I choose to use the modes required. It is poor form in my opinion to use CW on VHF and UHF (except for repeater ID)phone frequencies that legal no code operators are restricted to. I feel that anyone who does so is a lid no matter what his class (or lack thereof). KD5KUF Joe

[WA4MJF]

CW was done my 05 series, 18 series, 19
series (usin' the AN/GRC-19) amd 98 series
MOSs.

Speakin' of pet peeves, when I commanded
a Head & Head Battery for an 8" Bn. The
FDC personnel would come from Fort Sill with all
this computer genius on TACFIRE, etc and could not use sticks and charts. So that is the first thing we
taught them, 'cause 'puters are prone to fail when most neeeded. The high tech stuff is great, but when lives depend on it, you gotta have back
up.

73 de Ronnie

[ag4hy]

tomakawk1
uhh! you forgot, "barefoot", and, "being beat", to be sure one was worthy..
willie ag4hy

[kf4mkj]

When I was a kid there was a set of toy morse code paddles that even had the code wrote out on the case. These could either buzz, beep or would flash light. If you could find some of these it, maybe at a yard sale or flea market, they might would help. I am a tactile/visual learner. These would have probably have helped me also.

Good luck. KF4MKJ

[kb9tmp]

I just went to;

"A Learning Style Survey for College" written by Catherine Jester Learning Disability specialist Diablo Valley College at
http://www.metamath .com//multiple/multiple_choice_questions.cgi (http://www.metamath.com//multiple/multiple_choice_questions.cgi)

I took the test and here are my results.


Visual/Nonverbal 38 Visual/Verbal 36 Auditory 8 Kinesthetic 28


Your primary learning style is:



The Visual/ Nonverbal Learning Style


I always knew I learned better by reading it, now I have some proof.

Just for what it's worth!</P>
73

KB9TMP

[AD6ZU]

In the "old days" how did hams who are like you become hams when code was a requirement for any license? There must be some old timers who came across this problem and solved it. I'm sure there are some tricks that will work for you. Have you tried the NuMorse drills with the sound and visual code turned on? You'll probably do well with that. From there, you're one step from passing the code test. You just have to figure out how to get your brain to translate the sound into a visual picture of the dots and dashes.



Don't give up. I'm just as sick of hearing the old farts who refuse to help someone like you than of the no-code techs who rationalize that CW is worthless (They're both wrong). There's more to learning than just the "old fashioned way".



73
Roy
AD6ZU

[k2nut]

I have been a non code tech for almost a year. I took and passed element two and three together. Now I decided to bite the bullet and study code. I have until March 2nd to take element 1 or I have to take the written test again (I just started two weeks ago using Morse Academy and I am doing quite well). I really don't want to learn code but I would like HF privledges. I see Woody's point but I don't agree with him on "freebanding". I am a truck driver by trade and I could care less about what you think about it. I got the HAM bug from using a CB radio, as a truck driver it is a very important tool. The problem is I can't stand to hear all of the "crap" on the CB frequencies so it's usually off most of the time. I decided to get my tech and now I want my general. One thing I will say though is to you "AnoneMouse". You give HAMS a bad name. You have done nothing but bash and insult Woody for voicing his opinion. You are just as bad as the "CB'rs that I hear every night that force me to shut the radio off. If anyone is tarnishing the name of amateur radio here it's you. Maybe you need to read section 97.1(e) of the FCC rules on Continuation and extension of the amateur's unique ability to enhance international goodwill.

[AE0AL]

Thanks Jeff.
For years I tried and tried to the point of tears to get the 20 wpm. Barley got the 13 wpm.
I wanted the extra call, ok for vain purposes, but I had the head knowledge and yet could get there. When they lowered the code to 5 wpm. I jumped for joy.
I knew I wasn't stupid and I did try, I tried HARD. Now I know why I'll NEVER get there.
TNX
AL (JOHN) AE0AL

[K5WDW]

i passed my code test last night 1-30-02, i used code quick to learn the code, best program i have used, i would recommend this to anyone having problems learning the code

73s
david
k5wdw

[kc4ybe]

I have limited experience as an educator. My training as an Air Force instructor agrees with your obsevation that motivation and desire are important factors in the learning experience. However these alone will not carry some individuals to the accomplishment of learning whatever task is set before them. I view learning CW as learning another language, a dialect of english if you will. Therefore my approach to learning or teaching CW would be based on language learning skills. 73, Tony D. dah-di-dah