Morse is History

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KC8TGU @ Aug. 28 2003,14:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But eliminate it from the exam? CW still has enormous importance. In emergencies, when conditions are outrageous, morse code can be the only mode that will get through.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Um, wrong.

PSK31 - It has narrower average bandwidth than Morse, AND it is more suitable to DSP processing for reception. PSK31 can get through in interference situations where Morse would not.

And please point me to a recent examle of an emergency situation where Morse was used.

9/11, one of the largest disasters in recent U.S. history? Nope. VHF/UHF NBFM and (possibly) packet were king.

The NYC blackout? - Same deal.

Routine SKYWARN operations??? - Guess what, VHF/UHF NBFM again.

Search and rescue operations? - V/U NBFM *again*, plus packet (specifically, APRS)

Morse is dead. It is no longer used in maritime situations, it is no longer used by the military, it is no longer used by any emergency organization, and it isn't even used by hams in emergencies. The only people who insist on clinging to this archaic and obsolete mode are hams.

I do agree that simply dropping Morse from the General and Extra exams is not a good solution. It should be replaced on the examinations, not eliminated. I agree that there should be an effort required to reap the rewards of a General or Extra license, but clinging to a long-dead method of communications in a manner that destroys the image of our hobby to the outside world is not the way to do so.

 

N2YPH:

"Morse is dead.  It is no longer used in maritime situations, it is no longer used by the military, it is no longer used by any emergency organization, and it isn't even used by hams in emergencies.  The only people who insist on clinging to this archaic and obsolete mode are hams."

Um, wrong.

Morse is not dead.  It is still in use in many parts of the world by many people of many different professions.  Hams are using it.

Sorry, but you are wrong.  And besides, if other services are not using it - so what!  Why does that mean we must also cease to use it.  What a stupid example. In your case, stupidity should be painful.

K2WH

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K2WH @ Aug. 29 2003,11:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">All you no-code types should all go to hell if the entrance exam (Code) is dropped.  

I see this ground swell of sentiment for the ones who cannot hack the code.  This "Only Fair" crap is going to make the HF frequencies sound like a CB band and all you whiners and sympathizers will have to live with it.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
And the same people who are pushing for an abolition of tests and a means to determine a person's qualifications (i.e., tests) will be the FIRST people to push for more rules and regulations when they are inconvenienced.

Just you watch - these no-code advocates will be fine and dandy with letting the hoards on HF until they are splattered by Cooter T. Buttnuts with his overdriven sweep tube linear 5KHz down.  Then it will be time for additional RULES AND REGULATIONS.  It sure would be easier to just simply not let them on at all.  

No-code advocates have no respect for being granted HF privileges because they have no personal investment in the gain - it's just another hand-out they got for free.  

Forget about pride:

Pride comes from achievement, never from charity.

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kd5cir @ Aug. 28 2003,12:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K8YS @ Aug. 29 2003,09:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kd5cir @ Aug. 28 2003,10<!--emo&)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
KD5CIR/8

grow up.

With your attitude, WHY would anyone want to brefriend you?

I am sure you might find someone out there in Brown County, but I seriously doubt it.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Now come on Robert, dont get all mad here. If you can't take the heat, flip the switch, shut down your rigs and your pc. Just to show you what a nice guy I am, I'd like to invite you to our Hamfest, November 8, in Georgtown. Better yet, I'll even send you two tickets, paid for. Come on out, enjoy some good food, and meet some of the nicest hams you will ever meet.  Have a nice weekend Robert. 73's

http://www.geocities.com/garcohio[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
yea, send me TWO tickkets to the tiny little Georgetown hamfest. I'm in the book... www.qrz.com/k8ys

From your comments, I can only assume you want the same given to you that others have earned.

so, send the tickets.


and Joshie, get my name correct or you will anger me.

 

This poor old horse. I didn't think you could beat it anymore.  

 

Interesting earlier comment.....you can't hear Morse due to loss of hearing, but you want to get on HF. What will you listen to??? SSB..........sure.......

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N2YPH @ Aug. 28 2003,12:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KC8TGU @ Aug. 28 2003,14:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But eliminate it from the exam?  CW still has enormous importance.  In emergencies, when conditions are outrageous, morse code can be the only mode that will get through.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Um, wrong.

PSK31 - It has narrower average bandwidth than Morse, AND it is more suitable to DSP processing for reception.  PSK31 can get through in interference situations where Morse would not.

And please point me to a recent examle of an emergency situation where Morse was used.

9/11, one of the largest disasters in recent U.S. history?  Nope.  VHF/UHF NBFM and (possibly) packet were king.

The NYC blackout?  - Same deal.

Routine SKYWARN operations??? - Guess what, VHF/UHF NBFM again.

Search and rescue operations?  - V/U NBFM *again*, plus packet (specifically, APRS)

Morse is dead.  It is no longer used in maritime situations, it is no longer used by the military, it is no longer used by any emergency organization, and it isn't even used by hams in emergencies.  The only people who insist on clinging to this archaic and obsolete mode are hams.

I do agree that simply dropping Morse from the General and Extra exams is not a good solution.  It should be replaced on the examinations, not eliminated.  I agree that there should be an effort required to reap the rewards of a General or Extra license, but clinging to a long-dead method of communications in a manner that destroys the image of our hobby to the outside world is not the way to do so.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
WRONG !!

Hurricane Iniki,
Typhoon Omar
Hurricane Mitch

Those three that I know of personally.

911 was a LOCAL disaster, SAR is LOCAL, tornado is LOCAL, NYC blackout LOCAL AGAIN.

PSK is cute, my favorite mode is PSK31... but I do not see PORTABLE OPERATIONS using PSK31.

I camp, I use PSK31, I need a laptop, HF rig, and antenna. For morse, you need HF rig and antenna -- NO LAPTOP (don't try to feed me Palm device crap, they have not evolved for the computing power required for PSK31).

So morse is obsolete, well, so is high school math.. why teach math, you can use a calculator. If morse is dead, why is there soo much morse traffic on HF between the ham bands?

 

I support the elimination of the Telegraph exam. I also support the protection of the HF telegraph only bands. I would like to see the question pools made secret so people can not just memorize the questions and answers. Now here is the suprise for the telegraph fetish patients and grouchy telegraph addicts... I would have more incentive to learn the Continental Telegraph code if the requirement of a telegraph exam was eliminated. I have a 10 - meter band tranceiver (that has: telegraph, FM, AM, USB, and LSB capability) that I have not powered up for many months or years because I can not transmit on those frequencies. If my Technician Lite license allowed me to use all Novice HF frequencies then I would get an antenna and start listening to telegraph and other transmissions and I would take time to learn the continental code (not Morse) so I could start using telegraph to talk to other ARS telegraph operators on HF. If my 2 - meter rig had telegraph capability then I would have incentive to learn telegraph code now because the band 144.000 MHz to 144.100 MHz is a telegraph only band and I do have the license for that band. I want protection for the telegraph only bands on VHF and above.
My question is: Why are the bad operators on HF when we wimpering Technician Lites are on VHF, UHF, and above? I have heard a lot of "CB" type behaviour on ARS HF bands and I never hear that kind of garbage on VHF & UHF.
James Johnson
Arlington, Texas

 

Bonny writes:

Test Knowledge Not Talent:

Sending and receiving morse is the only  talent test that has ever been required for hams. If we are to continue to fall into the trap of testing for talent, why not test the operator's talent with keyboarding at 40WPM? Or perhaps the talent of rapidly tuning a mobile antenna for low SWR? These talents are much more appropriate to today's amateur radio and emergency services needs. Amateur radio examinations should focus upon testing the applicant's knowledge about amateur radio.

Tsk, tsk, tsk.  Sorry.  You are seriously misinformed.  Morse code testing is not about talent, it is about a persons personality, dedication and desire to be a ham.  It has nothing to do with talent.  This is proven by the fact that anyone who takes the test for CW is not required to use it.

Reading your passages, I was immediately struck that this kind of drivel could only come from the west (left) coast.  Seriously, I did not note you were a "6" call prior to reading your posting.  Wasn't I pleasantly surprised at my knowledge of peoples writing styles and twisted thinking.

K2WH (From the Right Coast)

 

She writes:

As a musically talented youngster at the age of 8, morse code was easy and fun for me.

Bonny,

As a musically talented yougster, I'm curious if any non-music oriented youngsters were allowed to play with you in a concert, duet or musical group?  Did you need to test them and if they failed, did you exclude them?  P.S.  what did you play?

And a last note, you entire posting sounds like a eulogy for the dead. Nice, but not convincing. I think you have been living in CA too long. Support ham radio, don't let it degenerate into a Gray Davis state. The last known state of liberal experimentation.

K2WH

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K2WH @ Aug. 29 2003,12:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">She writes:

As a musically talented youngster at the age of 8, morse code was easy and fun for me.

Bonny,

As a musically talented yougster, I'm curious if any non-music oriented youngsters were allowed to play with you in a concert, duet or musical group?  Did you need to test them and if they failed, did you exclude them?  P.S.  what did you play?

K2WH[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Of course being able to play an instrument well is required to be part of a successful band. Knowing how to do Morse well is not required to be a good operator. I guess that's the point of eliminating the code requirement. It's an anachronism and is no longer conducive to advancing the art of radio but is used to establish a caste mentality and pecking order among hams.

There has never been any evidence presented to recant the argument that Morse code knowledge makes someone a better operator -- Period. I've run into a far larger number of horrible HF operators than I ever have on the VHF bands (morse code or not). The morse code anecdotes of how it always comes through and saves the day when times are tough just doesn't hold water. If this were still in fact the case then the military and other mission critical applications would still be using the mode. It's time to move on.

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (k5xor @ Aug. 28 2003,14:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K2WH @ Aug. 29 2003,12:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">She writes:

As a musically talented youngster at the age of 8, morse code was easy and fun for me.

Bonny,

As a musically talented yougster, I'm curious if any non-music oriented youngsters were allowed to play with you in a concert, duet or musical group?  Did you need to test them and if they failed, did you exclude them?  P.S.  what did you play?

K2WH[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Of course being able to play an instrument well is required to be part of a successful band. Knowing how to do Morse well is not required to be a good operator. I guess that's the point of eliminating the code requirement. It's an anachronism and is no longer conducive to advancing the art of radio but is used to establish a caste mentality and pecking order among hams.

There has never been any evidence presented to recant the argument that Morse code knowledge makes someone a better operator -- Period. I've run into a far larger number of horrible HF operators than I ever have on the VHF bands (morse code or not). The morse code anecdotes of how it always comes through and saves the day when times are tough just doesn't hold water. If this were still in fact the case then the military and other mission critical applications would still be using the mode. It's time to move on.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Again, you got it wrong.  Learning morse code and passing the morse requirement does not make you a good operator.  It is about commitment and dedication and desire to get your license.

It has nothing to do with talent and is not intended to make good operators.

You say it is time to move on.  Move on to what?  Or is that just another tired worn out cliche.  Eliminating CW moves everyone no where.  So, where are we going with this?

K2WH

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KB5WIM @ Aug. 28 2003,14:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">K2WH: Sounds like you are God on this subject.

I don't buy it![/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
You may be surprised that I do not use CW at all.  Haven't used it in 35 years.  I just learned it to get my license.  Something everyone should do.  Remember, you are not required to use CW at all- just once, ONCE!!!! ONE ITTY BITTY 5 MINUTE TEST!!!!!!!!  HAS EVERYONE LOST THERE RESPECTIVE MINDS ON THIS SUBJECT?  IT'S A 5 MINUTE TEST 1 2 3 4 5 MINUTES!!!!!  I'LL BET THE NO CODE BUNCH LEARNED SOME OTHER LANGUAGE SUCH AS SPANISH IN SCHOOL.  PLEASE GIVE ME A BREAK ABOUT MORSE BEING TOO 'HARD'.

It's not a commie plot, it's not a right wing agenda, it's not punitive, it's not oppressive, ITS A 5 MINUTE TEST!!!!!!  SOMEONE HELP ME HERE.

Thanks for the compliment anyway.

K2WH

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K2WH @ Aug. 29 2003,13:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (k5xor @ Aug. 28 2003,14:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K2WH @ Aug. 29 2003,12:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">She writes:

As a musically talented youngster at the age of 8, morse code was easy and fun for me.

Bonny,

As a musically talented yougster, I'm curious if any non-music oriented youngsters were allowed to play with you in a concert, duet or musical group?  Did you need to test them and if they failed, did you exclude them?  P.S.  what did you play?

K2WH[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Of course being able to play an instrument well is required to be part of a successful band. Knowing how to do Morse well is not required to be a good operator. I guess that's the point of eliminating the code requirement. It's an anachronism and is no longer conducive to advancing the art of radio but is used to establish a caste mentality and pecking order among hams.

There has never been any evidence presented to recant the argument that Morse code knowledge makes someone a better operator -- Period. I've run into a far larger number of horrible HF operators than I ever have on the VHF bands (morse code or not). The morse code anecdotes of how it always comes through and saves the day when times are tough just doesn't hold water. If this were still in fact the case then the military and other mission critical applications would still be using the mode. It's time to move on.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Again, you got it wrong.  Learning morse code and passing the morse requirement does not make you a good operator.  It is about commitment and dedication and desire to get your license.

It has nothing to do with talent and nothing about making good operators.

You say it is time to move on.  Move on to what?  Or is that just another tired worn out cliche.

K2WH[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Virtually every pro-CW argument I've read falls along the lines of: "If we get rid of the Morse test standard then the HF bands will be full of incompetent CB'ers, etc." So the argument that Morse is a commitment and dedication barrier alone is a false.  Morse is setup as a discriminating barrier that tests only one *very small* portion of an operator's knowledge base, yet carries enough weight to completely disqualify an otherwise competent operator from enjoying the hobby.

You still need commitment and dedication to study for the tests and take the exams. If the exams aren't hard enough then make them harder, but don't insist that people learn a mode of communcation that is simply not advancing the hobby.

As far as moving on goes, how about the new digital modes? spread spectrum? etc. These are even more efficient than morse. The morse qualification argument falls flat on it's face when viewed against the future of amateur radio. With the evolution of the Internet and instant worldwide communication Amateur Radio must adapt to remain competitive. You can work to keep the old guard standards in place, just don't cry when the commercial interests site the lowering number of operators as the reason they took your bands away piece by piece.

 

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (k5xor @ Aug. 29 2003,15:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As far as moving on goes, how about the new digital modes? spread spectrum? etc. These are even more efficient than morse. The morse qualification argument falls flat on it's face when viewed against the future of amateur radio. With the evolution of the Internet and instant worldwide communication Amateur Radio must adapt to remain competitive. You can work to keep the old guard standards in place, just don't cry when the commercial interests site the lowering number of operators as the reason they took your bands away piece by piece.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
The digital modes fall flat on their face when one compares the amount of equipment required to operate. In addition, some of the digital modes require rigs that are extremely stablean will fall flat on their face if one tries to use some of the very good but older radios available to amateurs.

There is absolutely no evidence that changing the standard will lead to an increase in the number of operators.