I never knew this was possible on CW!

OK, I've read the responses to date, and I've looked up your license, and now I am curious to know why you replied with so much hostility.


I know a lot of people who learn code, pass the test, and decide that they don't like code.

On the other extreme I know tech hams who listen to one or two letters of code, decide learning code is as hard as learning another language (even though it is easier), then throw childlike tantrums because the rest of the world won't change the rules so they can become extras without code.


Personally I learned code, and I often have to use code (weak signal VHF, EME) but I've never really learned to love it. However I know that in certain situations your beloved voice communications just plain fail, my beloved computer based communications fail, and all that is left is code. Also, with the exception of developmentally disabled people or people with hearing disorders, I've never met a person who cannot learn code if they just put in an honest effort. And for those who honetly can't, I believe they can still get a medical waiver.


So I guess what I would like to see in response is:

- An explanaition of your immediate, open hostility to CW

- A LEGITIMATE reason why you claim you can't learn CW, if you wish to make that claim.

- A working alternative to CW for when I see no alternatives


Now as a warning, let me say that if you want to say there is no need for CW you will have to tackle that last point. In order to do so here is the non-hypothetical, real life situation I have been in for you to explain away:


I, and others I know at other times, have been in really nasty storms where hams were called up for emergency communications. The storms knocked down power so only hams with notebook computers could use those, and the phones were also out. The power outages lasted a minimum of eight hours, far longer than the best notebook batteries or repeater batteries will last. Through much of this there were very large thunderheads passing over with an incredible amount of lightning. Because of the lightning SSB and AM communications were not an option, and over half the time FM would be unusable. Because of power supply limitations people couldn't use the computers for digital modes. All that we could use was CW, and even through the worst static crashes we were still using CW without a problem. And this was on VHF and UHF, not HF.

So your mission, should you wish to give ANY legitimacy to your beliefs, is to tell the world how we can use amateur radio for emergency communications (our primary justification for our bands) when voice modes don't work, digital modes are unusable, and in the experience of far more knowledgable hams than you, only CW will get through.


I feel confident that if you can give a good reply to this message then at least some people here will start to respect your opinion instead of thinking you are a baby who is too lazy to learn code and therefore wants the rules to be changed so you don't have to do so.


73,
Brian
Who doesn't think standards should be reduced just because medical school is so hard.

 

BTW, I work as a counselling psychometrist and, in my profession opinion, the neuroscience offered here is incomplete and
inaccurate.


I don't know anything about neuroscience, but I can tell you that psychoacoustics are fun to experiment with.

 

Well, Mr Counselling Psychometrist! Thanks so much for your expert opinion on the subject. Where did you get your training? McGill under D.O Hebb? Wilder Penfield? Harvey Cushing? Visited Herb Benson at Harvard Med? Assisted at Einstein Med in the Monte Fiore Medical Center? What do your own forays in the field of neuroanatomy and physiology tell you to the contrary about this very complicated and highly investigated subject? I do not know what you may think, but as for me, I find that N9AS has written an extremely interesting article. It is rare in that it requires thought and work to understand. Kudos to him!

 

Paul- this is really old stuff. I can remember learning about it over 35 years ago, that if one was to copy CW with headphones, to use a selective filter on one side and wide bandwidth on the other ear. When tuning the bands with high selectivity cranked in, it is easy to overlook weaker signals. It is kinda like tunnel vision in eyesight terms. By opening up the bandwidth to the other ear, a person gets a sense of "seeing" what is on either side of where he is tuned. As long as both ears have the ability to hear things, it is great. However I have not seen any postings here regarding what a person with hearing in only one ear would take it. I have a definate hearing loss in one ear, and I find that adjustable volume in each earpiece to be of advantage. Curt, N7AH

 

Hi Brian, I will gladly answer your questions anytime. I don't like code because I just don't. I don't like code. Code doesn't like me and I don't like it back. I don't like code. What part of the word [no] do you not understand? And as to what is wrong with code? Well nothing my friend, nothing at all. Can I learn code code? Well yes I can my friend, if you had read a response of mine just a little further down the page to another fellow you would have learned that. The real question, er...a...debate left is as to wether code proficiency should still be a requirement to receive HF operating privilages. And the answer is NO. But you act as if you just fell off the back of a turnip truck today and know nothing of this debate. It [this debate] has already been beaten to death here at QRZ numerous times, where hath you been? Do not forget that amatuer radio is a world wide hobby. Numerous countries are now calling for the code requirement to be dropped for an HF ticket. This matter is on the dockett for the next IRC in 2003 and all indications are that code will be dropped. Now, I tire of repeating myself but I will add the following: Nobody, including myself, has anything against the existance of CW. It is just another operating mode. If you like CW then by all means you are eternally invited to beep away from the treetops as long as you like. However CW is and has been irrelevant for years. No other services are using it. It has been replaced by other and more efficient modes. For us hams though, the biggest issue is attracting more, and particularly young persons to the hobby. ALL PREVIOUSLY TRIED ATTEMPTS TO DO THIS HAVE FAILED, MISERABLY !!! Competition for the hobby times of our youngsters is fierce as they are mostly attracted to computers and video games. The SINGLE BIGGEST OBSTACLE towards attracting new persons into our wonderful hobby is the morse requirement and has been for a very long time. It's simply time drop CW as a REQUIREMENT and relegate it to an OPTION. Do it if you interested but it shouldn't be forced upon the rest. No argument to keep the code has ever panned out. Many would like to say that HF will go out of control and be loaded down with CB'er types, this is absurd. Present day CB'ers like their style of operation and freedom on 11 meters and will stay there. They also find the cost and complexity of amatuer equipment to be prohibitive. Further, there is no correlation whatsoever between possessing proficiency in CW and being a good person or a good radio operator. Just consult the list of FCC Enforcement Actions against amatuer ops for all offenses and the vast majority of these persons are coded ops., many of them even 20wpm Extras. I think I've about covered it Brian but please feel free to respond back if you have something else. 73's Woody in NE Ga. KE4ENX

 

Howdy,


I had hoped for some better answers to Brian's questions but I suppose that you did the best that you could. I have a few thoughts for you.</P>



(1) The original post didn't have anything to do with the Code / No Code debate. You created the debate. Congratulations.</P>



(2) CW is a very efficient mode. I would guess that it is second only to PSK31 in minimum bandwidth usage. That, however, means squat if you don't have a PC. I can carry on a conversation with 1/4w or less when SSB is nothing but hash. There is plenty of proof of the viability and efficiency of code and CW. You just have to have the capacity to comprehend it.</P>



(3) Do you really think that dropping Code as a testing requirement will bring more young people to the hobby? If you do then you are kidding yourself. Code isn't the obstacle. Lack of interest is the obstacle.</P>



(4) Numerous countries are indeed calling for the code requirement for HF to be dropped but not all countries. The result of the 2003 IRC will be interesting. I wouldn't count my chickens before they hatch though. The Russians are a powerful influence as is the USA.</P>



On the rest of the topics, I think that we agree, at least in part. I think that some HF privileges should be made available without a code test. Frankly, if I would have had to start my HAM life on UHF/VHF, I would have been bored to tears. I started as an Extra and operated for nearly 8 months before I even tried 2m. HF is where the fun is at and it's a shame to not let Technicians use some of the HF spectrum. I don't think that HF will be any better or worse if the code requirement is dropped. I will be disappointed if it is dropped completely however. For no other reason than many people will miss the opportunity to learn code.</P>



One other thing, if you look at my logbook you will find a mix of RTTY, SSTV, PSK31, CW, SSB, and even a little AM operation. I prefer every mode that is available to me. I am pro code test with one caveat. I think that the HF spectrum ought to be partially opened up to those that don't want to learn code. That won't stop the whining but it will bring HF to people that otherwise can't or won't take the test that is currently required for the privileges. If nothing else that will eliminate the illusion that young people aren't interested in HAM because of the code test.</P>


73</P>


Mike,
WM5LL

 

No. The question of "How can CW be of more interest to non-cw liking hams?" means just that! It does NOT mean that VA3FCM is stupid, nor does it mean that he who posed the question reflects an arrogant position! Where on the earth does he get the idea that posing such a question could possibly reflect an arrogant position? If VA3FCM is to be adjudged "stupid" he will have no-one to blame but himself, for he will be adjudged "stupid" (or "not stupid") on the basis of his own words-- and not on the basis of one kind or another innuendo by someone else. Sounds like just another typical cry-baby who would rather pout and sit on the floor sucking his thumb and be given a ham ticket in lieu of applying himself to earn same by working to learn something about radio.

As far as you are personally concerned, VA3FCM, realize that just because someone poses a perfectly good question in the way of offering help to someone else does not mean that they are involved in a cryptic agenda to insult, humiliate, or otherwise degrade YOU. Those who happen to like CW neither need nor appreciate such condemnation by faint praise. I have always had high respect for Canadians (and I have known many); but you are posing a singularly sorry (and unrepresentative) example for your country.

 

Well lookit Mr. .....enviroweenie?....enviroweenie? I think we've all had quite enough of your asinine doofaanisms. You rarely have anything intelligent to add. Could we just shorten that to just plain weenie? I do believe we can and I just did. All you ever do is whine, complain, flame, berate and try to stir up trouble. Apparently your many attempts at argument cannot withstand honest debate elsewise you would post your NAME, callsign [if you have one] and email address, like everyone else here does. Step forward and be identified and counted as a real person or butt out. Says me, Woody Parr in Mt. Airy Georgia KE4ENX

 

Hi Mike, Thanks for your comments....but

I wasn't talking to you I was talking to Brian

You plainly are pro-code by your own admission and then you aggree with me "partially" by stating that no coders should be allowed HF privilages...somewhat curious

Next you comment that the code requirement isn't what's keeping young persons away from ham radio, you say they arn't interested. Well I say they arn't interested BECAUSE of the code. Also I did not refer only to young folks like kids or teenagers. I know more adults who won't get into ham radio because they want to be on HF but don't want to learn that darn ol' ancient morse code.

Next I never said that CW in an inefficient mode and have emphatically stated over and over again that there's nothing wrong with it at all. In fact I will say that CW is a super excellent gee wizz bang up great mode and that eveyone who wishes to use should do so to their hearts content.

When the word hits the major media outlets in a couple of years that you can now talk around the world on ham radio without having to learn tedious beeping crap anymore, I'll bet ya a pile of cash that we'll see tens of thousands of new ops who otherwise wouldn't be around...wanna bet me that we won't? 73 Woody

 

I keep reading the responses to your diatribe against code and can detect no animosity towards your point of view at all. You, on the other hand, seem to be foaming at the mouth! One can almost imagine you as a redfaced, blustering,whining little cry-baby with spittle drooling from the corner of your mouth because somebody won't let you have a candy bar! Once again: no one gives a damn whether you want to learn code or not. YOU DON'T HAVE TO! The article wasn't written for a closed minded whiney little dick like you in the first place! Yes that is a personal attack 10-4?

 

You, on the other hand, seem to be foaming at the mouth! One can almost imagine you as a redfaced, blustering,whining ............. He's not using a lot of Capital letters for somebody who's screaming...

 

Why don't you just give everyone who wants one a license? Or , better yet just drop licensing altogether? That way you could attract more people to amateur radio than ever before. Young people, old people,all ages would be lining up at Walmart trying to get a bargain on that hf rig of their dreams! How far will it "get out"? Where can I plug the "box" in? Does it come with echo? That's where your heading, Woody. Of course you may be one of those standing in line! Oh, And 73 already is plural. You don't have to ad the "s"

 

well said

 

I have always had high respect for Canadians (and I have known many); ...........You better!!!hihi

 

I have been using the same principle for picking up SSB signals deep in the noise by putting a switch in one of my earpieces to reverse the polarity of the transducer...works good.