Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
John Clifford (KD7KGX)
on
February 15, 2003
View comments about this article!
Everyone moans about Morse. Many new hams are not interested because they can't see the utility or appeal of it, and they don't want to expend any effort at all to learn a mode they perceive to be as dead as yesterday's fish. Many existing hams worry about the future of the hobby if the Morse requirement is kept for access to the HF bands; some worry that keeping the requirement will cause the number of active hams to plummet, while others worry that eliminating the requirement will ruin the hobby by leading to a flood of ex-freebanders who will trash every HF band instead of occasionally causing problems on 10 meters.
All of these viewpoints have some merit, but I believe that Morse is uniquely important to the hobby. It ties us to our ham radio roots, it reminds us of the millions of earlier communicators who started the Information Age, and it remains as the only digital mode that doesn't require a mechanical means of translation from the audio signal to understandable text. More important, like the cockroach that outlives everything else after a nuclear cataclysm, Morse will get through when nothing else will and when just about nothing else is working. It is up to us, existing General-and-above-class amateurs, to come up with creative means to keep interest in Morse alive.
Here's my proposal:
For decades, the traditional path to a ham license was to get a Novice ticket and then, within a year, get knowledgeable enough and good enough with CW to pass the General exam and code test. That path is gone. Now we have the Technician license which is good only for operations above 30 MHz, and the Technician Plus (or Technician with Code), which allows for limited HF CW operations in the existing Novice HF band segments.
Why not allow no-code Techs to use the existing Novice segments of the HF bands for CW only, with a 10 watt maximum?
This allows them to get a taste of HF and work on their code while not interfering with higher license levels due to ignorance. They can work some DX, but it will be hard with 10 watts. If they don't know what they're doing, then 10 watts won't let them interfere with the entire world (unless conditions are good). And, the best way to learn the code is to have to use it. Best of all, it lets new hams get on the HF bands without causing problems for the more advanced licenses.
These new hams have to find someone else to talk to, otherwise they'll give up. The solution? Bring back the Diamond Jubilee award (working 75 no-code Techs) for Generals and higher classes. Institute a Diamond Jubilee WAS award, and even a Diamond Jubilee Clean Sweep (WAS on all HF Novice bands).
Finally, the ARRL (or someone) could get interest in CW higher by perhaps having an annual speed contest for EVERYONE to hear, where contestants could check in on an HF net and then test their sending and receiving skills and speeds. The rest of us could listen to the net, or view a real-time score on the ARRL's website. The winner would be crowned "The Fastest Gun" and get a plaque or trophy (maybe a specially engraved paddle), and his name in big bold letters in QST.
In summary:
The 'no-coders' get limited HF privileges... probably won't make all of them happy but what will besides capitulation? Enough will be intrigued to plunk down the money for an HF rig, and then they will motivate themselves to get past the 5 wpm "hurdle".
The existing amateur ranks will not have to worry about "CB-ers" taking over the airwaves. They can also earn some neat certificates and awards.
The old-timers (who complain about having to take the 20 wpm test after walking five miles in the snow to the local FCC office) can show off by demonstrating just how fast IS their "gun."
There you have it: Morse is preserved, no-code Techs get limited access to HF so they can quit their bellyaching, the rest of us aren't bothered by unlicensed ruffians, some old curmudgeon (or young upstart) wins a nice paddle, and we get the chance to earn some more wallpaper to cover up the squashed flies on the walls of our shacks.
What do you think?
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
|
Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
|
|
|
by W3DCG on February 2, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Whatever works...
However, I recall being eleven, and simply- too scared to even thinks about doing a QSO Live, On-The-Air, until I got my receive speed up to around 10 wpm, while 5 was required.
I think listening on HF alone gives people a taste which should translate to enough motivation to learn the vestigial & token, 5 wpm required. It is a reserved belief at best, that being allowed to transmit on HF at speeds less than 5 wpm would enhance motivation to suddenly learn Code. If anything it may be discouraging, because less than 5wpm, perhaps even 5 wpm, takes so long that may well be as ineffective as staunch No Coders tend to espouse.
But regardless of any opinion, thinking about proposals to strengthen the popularity of CW are a good thing in my book!
As well, the idea to give No Code Techs HF privledges up to 10 W in the former Novice sub-bands could actually be the Wolf in Sheeps Clothing, that if passed, would set the legal precedent to completely remove the CW requirement for HF operation.
Though I seem to hear a lot about how the US and the World will soon pass such a resolution, it has not yet come to pass. Until such time, my opinion is, keep the 5 wpm requirement. If a person is not motivated enough to attain 5 wpm without first having a taste of less than 5 wpm CW qso's on HF, why would they suddenly become interested because now they can transmit at a non-proficeint level Live On-The-Air.
Should not we wonder about the kind of operator who would be willing to go Live in such style?
I never met Samuel B. Morse, but I'd find it hard to believe that he ever intended it to be a mode of communication at rates less than five words per minute.
In deference to anyone who disagrees, I report an observation that strikes me daily:
Often, I tune down past .025 Mhz on a given "classic" HF band- and I can't transmit, and sometimes- man alives, I really wish I could.
Because digital modes really don't occure down there much, it seems to be mostly- CW only. In the past you had to pass Extra Theory PLUS 20 wpm to gain access to those sub-bands. Now the CODE requirement for access down there is a mere 5 wpm, while no one goes that slow down there.
As much as I want it- what I don't want, is for it to be handed to me- even though as a virtual CW Only Zone, one could wonder, Why then, Extra Class theory matters at all- since it is a CW only zone in practice, should not the only requirement for admission be, demonstrated 20wpm or greater proficeincy?
Such might be argued, and I for one, would be EXTREMELY DISAPPOINTED IF THIS HAPPENED, IN THE SAME MANNER THAT I WAS DISAPPOINTED WHEN I DISCOVERED THAT THE EXTRA CW REQUIREMENT DROPPED NOT EVEN TO 13, BUT THE TOKEN 5 WPM.
In otherwords, I want to earn my Extra 25 Khz, please don't try to hand it to me before then.
Until such time as I get motivated enough to stop surfing, stop playing with the radio, and study enough to pass the new Extra exam, I simply don't deserve to be an Extra, period.
No moaning. No groaning. When I get it, it'll be because I earned it with hard work and study, and I wouldn't want it any other way.
|
| |
|
Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
|
|
|
by AD5GX on February 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I'd like to add my 2 cents on making CW more popular...
I recently upgraded to Extra, but my CW had been long forgotten from my Tech Plus days. I learned CW then as only a hurdle to pass.
However, some things about CW have intrigued me. I am now up to about 12 WPM. I can't wait until I have the opportunity to get on the air with it.
Here are the reasons I pursued CW:
1. I found a learning method that truly was painless (Code Quick). I know there is debate about the mothodology used by that program but it worked for me, and worked well.
2. Although I've always wanted to learn a musical instrument, it was always beyond me. I am finding that a key is an "instrument" I can master. Some of the keys out there are truly works of art, I wanted one in the shack but couldn't justify it if I didn't know how to use it!
3. I'd like to operate QRP. The best QRP radios seem to be CW only models. I am intrigued by the incredible happiness of QRPers and their satisfaction with the equipment available. (Just look at the QRP product reviews!) I'd like to build a radio and a CW only model is the place to start.
4. The hospitality of CW operators seems to be legendary. In many discussions the kindness and openness of the CW community is referred to. I am looking forward to meeting them.
5. Many overseas hams seem to operate solely CW or are more available with smaller pile-ups on CW.
6. There is a certain joy in decoding the signal yourself. Each QSO is a kind of discovery, or an accomplishment.
Im sure if I thought about it, there would be many more reasons, but those are the main ones.
CW will be alive as long as people make beautiful keys, as long as there are quality CW rigs, and as long as we are permitted to use it on the bands-even if it is no longer required. (Just look at how many Elecraft K1 kits have been sold!)
Even when code was required at higher speeds, how many people learned it only to forget it as fast as possible not to use it as fast as possible?
I think you have some good ideas, especially the awards that will favor established ops working the newew operators. (I'll be one soon when my staiton gets back on the air.) Really, CW may benefit from dropping the requirement. This will bring more people into the world of HF and a certain percentage of those will be attracted to CW after seeing first-hand some of the benefits as I did. How many of those wouldn't have tried it in the first place?
There are many positive reasons to learn CW, we don't really need to force people to learn it! I wish that the people who really value code would share some of the wonderful stories of using it, I love hearing those stories and that is also part of why I wanted to learn it!
|
| |
|
Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
|
|
|
by AB0XE on February 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Works for me. I especially like to 10 watt
max. It might encourage a new ham to built
an inexpensive kit , knowing that is all he
(or she) will need to get on.
As for the fastest gun, I will leave that
for those that relish speed. After working
at a high speed stressfull job all day, I love
coming home and listening to slower speed
(7 to 13). Its like meditation for me. Very
relaxing and fun.
But yes more new hams on cw on
the novice bands. GREAT IDEA.
|
| |
|
Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
|
|
|
Anonymous post on February 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I have never been able to figure out what is the obsession with forcing people to learn code. The only people who like code and want to force the requirement to learn it are those who already had to learn it. SOUR GRAPES.
Morse code is a joke for most. If someone wants to learn and use it , fine. Otherwise, who cares.
If the do-gooders want to force an issue they might want to work to change the low written requirements. Learning radio / electronics has some merit. Look at the questions asked by licensed hams on this site in the forums. It is obvious some new hams know nothing about antennas, feedlines, general electronics; but they can buy a $3k rig but won't buy an ARRL handbook and READ IT. Newcommers seem to want everything spoon fed to them.
|
| |
|
Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
|
|
|
by KG6AMW on February 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Right, force the little bastards to learn it through incentive licensing. Everybody needs a little more baggage to carry.
|
| |
|
Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
|
|
|
by NB4J on February 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I like this proposal, but currently it would be illegal to implement. By international agreement, no government can issue HF privileges to an individual until they show minimal CW proficiency (5 WPM). So the FCC can't give no-code Techs permission to use the HF bands right now.
However, I expect the CW requirement to be eliminated at the upcoming WRC-2003 meeting. I don't base this statement on any first-hand knowledge of the preliminary deliberations; it's just a gut feeling based on what I've read recently on the issue. I think that the license restructuring that took place a few years ago is a sign that the FCC also expects this to happen and will drop the code requirement when it can.
It always seemed strange to me that the FCC decided not to track which Techs had code proficiency certificates and which ones didn't. I now think that the FCC is anticipating the elimination of the CW requirement and will grant Novice-type or even full CW privileges to all Techs after WRC-2003. The certificates will then become irrelevant.
In the "no-code" world even new Extras will be granted full CW privileges without having had to demonstrate proficiency to the FCC. But I don't see this as alarming. On the contrary, I see it as a positive. As the original poster pointed out, the best way to learn CW is by using it. It's one thing to send CW on a lifeless code practice oscillator - it's quite another to use it to have a conversation with a real (hopefully interesting) human being.
I'm not worried about ultra-green CW ops getting on the air knowing only a portion of the letters and numbers. Human psychology being what it is, most new ops will make sure they at least know all of the characters before trying their new privileges, even if they can only send and receive at 2 WPM.
Perhaps this will be a blessing in disguise. Maybe we'll see the return of CW proficiency nets where new ops help each other build up their code speed and learn all the Q signals, abbreviations, and other short cuts. Maybe it will spark a revitalization of the ARRL's Code Proficiency program, since it will be on OUR shoulders (not the FCC's) to motivate and educate new hams to use CW. Maybe the FCC will be able to devote just a little more time to enforcement issues once they don't have to administer and monitor a CW testing program. And finally (and perhaps most importantly) maybe we'll get a new wave of good CW ops when the newcomers feel INVITED to learn CW rather than FORCED to.
73,
Dave NB4J
|
| |
|
RE: Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
|
|
|
by AE7G on February 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Nice prose.
An interesting article.
I believe 5 WPM is simple recognition of morse code characters. I don’t think dropping the requirement to use code, to 0 WPM makes much sense; 1 word per minute would put anybody to sleep—that is just sending your call in 1 minute; sending your call twice in a minute is still very painful to copy; at 3 words per minute you could send your call 5nn and the other stations call—still painfully SLOW to copy; 4 words per minute you could add two pro-signs, AR KN—still painfully SLOW to copy.
In the long run, I think it makes more sense to allow non-code ops to use computers for generating and receiving code, if one wants to create a pathway into code for those unwilling to practice for a month to get 5 wpm. I’ve read that our brain does much better at code under varying conditions that present computer programs.
Sick non-code ops on the CBers on 28 Mhz, below the beacons, or plunk ‘em down on 6 meters.
“Many new hams are not interested because they can't see the utility or appeal of it, and they don't want to expend any effort at all to learn a mode they perceive to be as dead as yesterday's fish.”
Could be true? But, non-hams complained about having to learn code before anyone asserted it was a dead mode.
When I couldn’t get to 5 wpm just by studying, i.e. reading and memorizing vrs practicing, I complained that morse code wouldn’t make me a better operator. After all, who needed code when there was SSB? That was in the middle 70s.
Bob
|
| |
|
Good proposal - wrong reasons
|
|
|
by W2PA on February 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
First, let me say I've been an avid CW operator for a long time. I operate HF almost exclusively, about 60% of the time on CW and 40% phone. Nevertheless I frankly see no reason to retain a CW requirement for licensing.
I like your basic proposal, even though many of your arguments supporting it are flawed or wrong:
1. CW doesn't need to be "saved" or promoted, there's plenty of activity. Just listen to the bands this weekend. The CW ARRL DX contest is running and the bands are jammed. But you don't need a contest to see it. Listen around any time the propagation is good and there will be plenty of worldwide activity. And it's not just a subjective impression, there's lots of data to support the fact that CW is alive and well. Just look at the record participation levels in CW contests of all sorts. It's only one example.
2. CW doesn't need to be "saved" or promoted. It's advantages are abundantly apparent to anyone with any experience operating HF or under marginal propagation or weak signal conditions. It just gets through the best (aside from other digital modes). You do make this point. It's the simplest digital mode to use since it doesn't require any extra peripheral equipment - just your ears. Those who like to operate HF and want to exploit the various advantages of CW operation will make the effort to learn it. Those who don't, won't. Does it matter?
3. "Everybody" does not "moan about Morse." Aside from the above, there are many other reasons for an individual to learn and use CW without being forced or pitched to. Other posters have already mentioned some.
4. I find those arguments for keeping a CW licensing requirement based on tradition to be irrelevant and those based on it's filtering effect (on applicants) to be baseless. No regulatory body (US or international) will ever pay any attention to arguments of these kinds. We just sound silly when we make them. Only arguments of a practical nature will ever be listened to, such as CW's inherent advantages (see number 2). Even so, one then needs to make the case that it should be required for a basic license.
5. None of this has anything to do with preventing operation by unlicensed individuals. It's another empty argument.
So, putting aside the requirements debate - it looks like the main good idea here is to give more licensed hams the chance to experience CW - if they want - so that they can make up their own minds about how to operate (see number 2 above). That seems like a great idea. As you suggest, one way to do it is to permit no-coders to operate in well defined HF subbands, like the Novice bands used to be. I don't see any reason for a 10W power limitation though. Make it 100W and most transceivers will be permitted. Why make it unnecessarily difficult for a beginning CW op?
|
| |
|
Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
|
|
|
by KC7MM on February 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Wonderful idea! It sounds good, and gives the new ham that needed "carrot" in front of him/her to get better and move forward with code.
I was able to do 20 WPM once when needed 20 years ago. Getting that Extra class requirement completed was a real relief. Then I pretty much dropped CW, at least at those speeds, for the past two decades.
Now, I am looking for the new ones on DX. I find a lot of them on CW, but my speed is too slow to work most of them. So I have, via EHam, discovered that most excellent Koch CW program by Ray, G4FON. I am presently struggling up into the low 20's and really enjoying it.
Note the reason for the returning interest. It has nothing to do with pressure from my peers in the ham community; it isn't making me a better emergency service operator; It doesn't prove that I am an expert in communications; it's purely for fun.
I think this proposal has enough of the right idea to work. Let's give it some support!
BTW, contrary to one person's comments, don't the Japanese for one have a 10 W, no code HF license? I sure used to work a lot of them in the phone and CW contests.
Please keep these positive and forward looking ideas coming. Good form.
Dale KC7MM
|
| |
|
RE: Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
|
|
|
by K8DIT on February 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
CW is not for everyone, but does have a sizeable niche
with respect to ham radio's appeal. Noone is ever going to squash its use, but you cant make a person be hungry for something for which they have no appetite.
Can an appetite be created for CW? Sure, and I think all current marketing for today's rigs point to that.
About the only way to create a resurgence in this mode is to give it sex appeal a la Madison Ave. People who find appeal in cw's mystique work very hard to learn it and reach conversational speed. Dxers must learn it.
Without it Dx would be half of what's going on. Everyone else's need for cw speed is a matter of self motivation. Qrp and ragchewing on cw is a matter of concentration. If you havent discovered that the excercise of concentration relaxes a body something akin to meditation.
Our pop culture pretty much follows current technology so with the exception of seeing cw portayed in the occasional Hollywood product, cw has no sex appeal whatsoever. Something so vacuuous should be made illegal. Being made illegal cw would then attain sex appeal, and the cw subbands would be crowded once again.
|
| |
|
RE: Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
|
|
|
by WA4DOU on February 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I've been licensed for 41+ years. Were it not for cw, I'd be gone.
|
| |
|
Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
|
|
|
by KG4OOA on February 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
How do you operate CW when you don't know CW? All 5WPM indicates is the minimum knowlege to get on the air. It sounds to me like more of the usual give me SOMETHING FOR MOTHING attitude. Keyboarding and using electronics to decode the message is not real CW. Learn the code, pass the test and get on the air. That is why the Novice license was so sucessful. Like my Elmer, Weck (W8AL) said when I was whining the same way as new hams today, "Do you want to be a ham or not!" CW at five words per minute is easy if you are willing to spend some time learning it. Five words per minute takes only one or two weeks to learn if you want to devote some time to it. YOU WANT TO BE A REAL HAM OR NOT!
|
| |
|
RE: Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
|
|
|
by N0UY on February 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I think the intention of the article has good merit. However as pointed out it's not legal as currently writen and has some hurdles to cross. I also believe that anything slower than 5 WPM would not be of much use on the bands. However I don't agree with the fellow who said he can't understand what use there is in learning this mode. When I first was licensed as a no code tech I didn't see the need for CW either, until I heard my first aurora on 2 meter ssb. Hearing those pulses in the ambient noise rather than an actual tone hooked me to say the least. This is what I had been looking for. A REAL reason to learn morse code. I still am not very good at it but getting better with time.
Now my 10 year old daughter has expressed interest in ham radio. Partially because of her involvement in Kid's Day, but for the most part she thinks listening to CW is pretty neat. I wish I had been exposed to this hobby at her age when my head wasn't so thick and my ears weren't so poor. She is using the Koch method on the computer but prefers to have Dad send her some code in the shack while she tries to send the same thing back. I got to tell you, this makes me so happy to see her interested in a mode that will NEVER go away as long as there is ham radio. I say that full well knowing this is not my favorite mode, but a most important part of this hobby.
Best Wishes,
73 Ray N0UY
|
| |
|
Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
|
|
|
by WA8VBX on February 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well I am going to be a stick in the mud, I think code should still be a requirement, and that a 5wpm to be ok for General/Advance and 10wpm for Extra. As far as theory goes, most operators are take it out of the box and plug it in. There are kit's etc, but building and understanding what you are doing, and why, has gone the way as Heathkit/KnightKit days.
As far as allowing No-Code to use the Novice segments with a 10 watt limit, problem is how can you say they are running the 10 watts and not 100 watts. It sounds good but to enforce it, well that would be diffcult at the least.
CW is not a dying mode, it is still useful and still fun.
|
| |
|
Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
|
|
|
by N5XM on February 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
There are plenty of Hams who have 13 and 20wpm tickets who don't even get on the air on CW. That is their privelege. You cannot motivate anybody to do any particular mode unless they want to. I love CW, but I used to not care a bit about it. People can change, but they won't until the time is right for them. I think the best thing we can do is enjoy CW ourselves, and if we really enjoy it, others might get interested and give it a try. Proficiency comes over time, and I think lots get frustrated at first because when you first get on the air, it is really hard work. Hey, I just worked China this morning, and I sure as heck won't get such juicy DX on phone with my inverted vees! I'll work you at 5 or 40wpm, I don't care, but too many refuse to slow down for newbies. Here's a proposal...let's go back to when folks followed the unwritten rule to answer somebody at the speed they are sending. Maybe if more of us didn't have the need to make others look bad or show how great they are, we wouldn't need to even make proposals.
|
| |
|
RE: Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
|
|
|
by JN3XCV on February 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Why not allow no-code Techs to use the existing Novice segments of the HF bands for CW only, with a 10 watt maximum?"
Because the ITU rules governing HF operaton say they can't!
The ITU is a body of the UN and the specification they make are treaties that we agree to. The FCC cannot make a no-code HF licence until that ITU regulation has been removed.
I have an article in the queue on eHam to be published describing how this could happen and the process that is followed. In teh meantime if you wish to see the article I think the temp link is. http://www.eham.net/articles/4697
73
Scott
|
| |
|
RE: Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
|
|
|
by JN3XCV on February 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Why not allow no-code Techs to use the existing Novice segments of the HF bands for CW only, with a 10 watt maximum?"
Because the ITU rules governing HF operaton say they can't!
The ITU is a body of the UN and the specification they make are treaties that we agree to. The FCC cannot make a no-code HF licence until that ITU regulation has been removed.
I have an article in the queue on eHam to be published describing how this could happen and the process that is followed. In teh meantime if you wish to see the article I think the temp link is. http://www.eham.net/articles/4697
73
Scott
|
| |
|
Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
|
|
|
by N3NL on February 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Great idea! Please file a petition with the FCC to
accomplish this. In a way, this would be somewhat like
the Foundation Class amateurs in Britain.
Frankly, I think that HF is a better introduction to
ham radio than the two-meter repeaters are.
The procedure for filing a petition with the FCC is
simple and it is described in the ARRL FCC Rule Book.
Petitions have to be hard copy preferably sent in via
FedEx (their are big delays with the Postal Service
due to their radiation treatments).
73, Nickolaus E. Leggett, N3NL
n3nl@arrl.net
|
| |
|
RE: Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
|
|
|
by N3NL on February 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
By the time the petition is considered, the ITU will
have dropped the Morse Code requirement.
73, Nickolaus E. Leggett, N3NL
|
| |
|
Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
|
|
|
by WD6EJN on February 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I have been trying to accomplish this feat for over
five years! although I may be overgeneralizing, I just happen to think the real issue is antenna restrictions.
I mean it's like, why would anyone go out and buy a 300 watt stereo without the salesman recommending the
proper speakers?
It's the same thing with a ham rig, why do you go to the candy store and buy the first ham rig you see because it has the most bells and whistles, without any mention of an antenna? when you could have just as much fun with a rig costing a fraction of the cost
and which would work in high density living.
This is really the main issue in my opinion and the
manufacturers have to change their thinking especially
since many ham families have to move into high density
conditions due to the current economic situation.
"Win the Golden Coathanger" award,,,if I build them
they will come,, I havn't made these yet as there are
no followers, please send me your recommondations (and donations!)on the best design.
As I mentioned before on my Yahoo Group Radio Penpals you couldhave a separate band just for prospective hams, these hams could make special slow speed contacts with licensed hams or (not that they are more equal,,,extraclass hams) this would keep down the monkey business.See my new post (probably in "clubs")I have a brand new idea I came up with for making contacts "having to use an indoor antenna".
|
| |
|
RE: Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
|
|
|
by WD6EJN on February 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Bring back the Diamond Jubilee award (working 75 no-code Techs) for Generals and higher classes. Institute a Diamond Jubilee WAS award, and even a Diamond Jubilee Clea...........
.............oops! I thought I had an original idea,
you mean they actually had this?
could anyone find some archives on this and post the information or any magazine articles.
I think you could also promote cw on part 15 devices
which could work within a community and using so little power would not cause interference to cheap
consumer devices,, I once cw switched a cheap am broadcast transmitter, and heard it on one of RAdio
Shacks inexpensive sw receivers almost 2 miles away!
the salesman couldn't believe the signal was going so
far,,,but this is due to the receivers narrow band
mode.
|
| |
|
Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
|
|
|
by W7COM on February 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
First, I'm still a no-code. I do want to learn code someday but I've been busy with working on repeater projects with on of the local clubs. It's fun and I've met a fine bunch of guys. One of the reasons I've not really jumped head first in to CW is the lack of affordable CW and SSB gear for 50MHz and up. I find myself not wanting to spend money on a HF rig that I can't transmit with (or spending almost the same amount on a receiver) when there is still so much I want to on V/UHF. Now I've gotten into APRS and IRLP and the money is going quick.
Even though I realise that I wouldn't try to send code on HF until I've learned enough to handle a RST QSO, just knowing that I could transmit would get me to the point that I should learn how. QRP looks fun and I think an actual small taste of it would really prod people like me to upgrade. I don't know if I want to play with HF and the cost of getting the equipment to work it is too high just to find out that I may not like it. Maybe I need an elmer to let me hang around his or her HF shack for a while. Until then, there is so much candy to be had even as a no-code that it already fills my time and emptys my wallet.
IMHO there are two solutions:
1) Something like John (KD7KGX) suggests, although there are some international regulation hurdles with it.
2) Simple and affordable VHF and above SSB and CW capable rigs, and hams in the local area willing to work those modes.
I'm able to work a lot of VE7 stations and repeaters with my 2M rigs now. I'd love to try some other mode besides FM but the cost of the equipment and not being sure that there will be someone to contact makes me hesitent to plop down the money.
If YeaComWood would offer a 2M rig that could handle CW for about $150 or a SSB/FM/CW rig for about $200 I'd be right on it. And then I would be working on my code so I could talk to the hams I would hear on those bands. But $1000+ for an IC-910H is just too much to spend. I'm not looking for all options, just something to get the job done. I'm thinking something like the old SSB CB radios.. nothing fancy but enough to try out the mode.
I guess that it comes down to the same old thing. If you want to encourage no-codes to upgrade they need to be shown that the investment, not so much in time but in money, is worth it.
This is just my two-cents. I'm not saying that everyone feels (or should feel) this way. This is just some of the issues I'm dealing with as I make my way up the ham upgrade ladder.
73,
Joe W7COM
|
| |
|
Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
|
|
|
by W8VOM on February 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I am not so sure this Proposal would *promote* the learning of morse code!!! It may just promote fully *automated* cw and I think that is the *real* reason behind the proposal. Many people who do not *know* the code are very good at sending code and receiving it with a keyboard and a reader! This proposal would allow access to the mode without understanding it.
It's all about automated access and it does not promote the learning of morse.
|
| |
|
Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
|
|
|
by WD8OKN on February 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Not everyone moans about CW, mostly just the newer hams.
|
| |
|
RE: Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
|
|
|
by KG4RGN on February 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Here is another idea. Rather then CW testing to "here and write 5 WPM", have the test require "sending 5 WPM" (transmit). I can send much better then hearing. Just an idea.
|
| |
|
RE: Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
|
|
|
by CLEVE on February 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
About 20 years ago,(hmm, more like 25...) I studied and studied and tried to "get" morse code down. And I finally (just barely!) got good enough at it to pass the test. What happened? My paperwork was lost and I never recieved my ticket. A few years later the no-code tech license came out. But did I bother? No. I never did again pursue getting my amatuer license. Oh, we've talked about it again and again. But I've never followed through. I've sold ham gear. Antenna's, key's, keyer's, filter's, books, etc.. I've owned ham gear. (No, I never put it on the air!) I've had many friends who were hams. One of my brothers is even President of the HP/Tandem ham club in California. But I just never followed through.
Until now that is. March 4th is my test date. (And my father's!) And I will follow the normal no code path that so many take. But even still, I am starting out once more to learn code. (Thanks G4FON!)
Why? So many say that you don't need it. That it is obsolete, a waste of time, a dying anachronism, etc., etc.. But the facts are that we DO need it! And there are not enough people who know it and are proficient with it. As mentioned before, it gets through when phone can't. It uses less bandwidth. Travels farther. But perhaps most important is that during an emergancy (say the aftermath of a huricane or earthquake for example) you can use code when everything else has failed. If worse came to worse, if and only if, you know code, you can broadcast your need for assistance, etc.. And someone, somewhere, may hear you and pass the information along to someone who can render aid. Under those circumstances, phone may not get through.
Here in Northern Utah, I've been told that the average age for those who volunteer for the Red Cross emergancy net is 67, and that they have lost 50% of their membership in the last few years. There is, I believe, a crying need for more of us to step in and make ourselves available and prepared to help out when needed.
So, I for one like the overall idea of the original proposal. I'd like to see awards for working us "newbies", and sponsoring them, and helping them along. I don't think we should try to drop the code requirement for HF until that is done internationally. And even then, I would hope that there is still an active, thriving community of CW practitioners! I didn't used to feel this way. I used to agree with the comments of the "no code" group. Not anymore.
What about utilizing the 2 and 6 meter code only portions for working with those of us who want to become proficient at code on a more localised basis? Wouldn't that accomplish the same goal? Maybe a portion on 70 cm set aside for code as well? That way, we can practice live without interfering with the rest of the world. Strictly line of sight (more or less). And with 6 meters, we can reach out further as our abilities improve. Just a thought.
73
Cleve
|
| |
|
Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
|
|
|
by N0NTH on February 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I like CW too. I do it alone at night while my wife is at work. I fly a hot air balloon, and have a 1978 Truck. Young people don't always love the old things we love. I sill fill in my log with lampblack and a quill pen.
|
| |
|
Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
|
|
|
by AB7RG on February 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Wow, I am sure pleased to see that the
replies to your article are much better
than the ones that I received when I
basically mentioned this same proposal
in 1996... My Inbox was flooded with
hate mail and "techs have CW privileges
on the VHF bands!" notes. Of course I
was blasted for wanting to "lower the
bar" by reducing the CW speed for
General to 10 wpm, and was blasted by
the other side, by Advanced class
license holders for wanting a 15 wpm
test there. A 5 wpm step up system if
you would. I knew that we couldn't
implement the CW privileges below 30
MHz for techs however, due to ITU regs.
But at least it was a thought/hope, to
promote even more interest in actually
using CW. Many guys I knew back then
learned it then left it. Why? Because
they never used it on the air...
Anyway, I'm very pleased to see all of
the positive replies to your article.
I honestly thought that you were going
to get torn to pieces! Perhaps we will
see a "Foundation" class of license,
with CW only HF privileges here in the
US. It would be nice to find some
newbies to work in the old Novice
bands! I still do support the 5 wpm
requirement for full access to the CW
bands however. And I would only support
a proposal that was CW only for techs,
with a max power of say 25 watts, in
the old Novice CW bands.
73 Clinton AB7RG
|
| |
|
RE: Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
|
|
|
by G3SEA on February 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
A quick scan around the HF bands during the current
ARRL CW Contest is evidence enough that this mode is still very popular and certainly no JOKE :)
CW will endure if only for it's simplicity and
efficiency.It DOES get through when other modes are
buried in the noise and QRM.
|
| |
|
RE: Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
|
|
|
by KG4PZZ on February 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I suppose I'm one of those kids that likes all things retro. I've purchased a few things Heathkit (picking up my first Heathkit transceiver a week from today, in fact), enjoy classic cars, and I suppose it's 'retro' -- CW.
Do I use it? No. I honestly couldn't receive much over 10 WPM with little noise on the signal. I've had a single cross-mode with me sending CW and receiving voice from a very kind and patient VE6, I believe it was. But I enjoy listening and decoding what I can, and practice sending (with a Heathkit, coincidentally). So to the previous poster who said kids don't like classic things; some do. Some teens consider it "counterculture" to drive a muscle car, like all things 70's/80's, and I suppose if they knew enough about it, use CW. There's just so few young operators that the percentage of those who use CW is quite miniscule. The youth are here, some of us enjoy CW, and the hobby is not dieing.
I think the older generation is just spazzing out about the entire thing. I never once -- once -- had somebody tell me I just HAD to learn the code. I had a few tell me that being so young I couldn't do the General or Extra theory, but, well, they were proven wrong. I never once had somebody tell me to be a real op I had to run 1500 watts into a beam on a 200 foot tower or anything else. I've always had hams tell me to be a real ham you just had to do what you wanted. I don't know where all these horror stories online are coming from, but apparently I've dodged a few bullets in this hobby. Maybe everybody should just take a breather and relax. CW isn't dieing, it's constantly growing. Amateur Radio isn't dieing, it's constantly growing. Put a sock in it already, and let those who want to operate CW operate it. Forcing somebody to do it will only make them despise it and eventually give it up. Think of it THAT way.
My personal feelings about the 5 WPM code test? Too easy. I feel like I was cheated. It's too late to bring back 13 and 20 WPM tests; you'd have to retest hundreds, thousands even. It's not too late to keep the 5WPM code test, though. I think it would be interesting for somebody to petition the FCC about keeping/dropping the code requirement should it come to that, and see the percentage of amateurs in support of it and those who oppose it.
Until then, operate your mode of choice, be it SSB, CW, SSTV, AM, RTTY, FM, or one of the other dozens of modes available. Just don't force it on anybody else.
Fred KG4PZZ
|
| |
|
Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
|
|
|
by NN7B on February 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I was fortunate to learn Morse Code in high school by a non-ham electronics teacher who wanted to see his basic electronics students succeed. It was not required but, if you were making a "C" in the class and could show some proficiency in Morse Code, you would be moved up to a "B".
I do like the idea of having technicial class licensees able to use the former Novice CW bands. We could use our VE's to test them for the 5-WPM requirements and call them "CW-Tech's" or some other endearing term. As long as there are still Novice operators, those band segments will remain.
For me, I don't argue with anyone about the good or bad of the CW requirement. If they don't like CW, don't use it. If the rules say you need 5-WPM to have certain priviliges then, learn it. Until that rule is changed, let's continue on. The 5-WPM is not rocket science. It does take some effort, wasn't easy for me but, like anything else, it requires practice. I would much rather use CW for a relaxing QSO simply because I don't have to try and pull words out of a foreign accent and broken English on SSB. CW works for every ham around the world that I want to work and there isn't much to replace that other than some of the digital modes where the operators use the English
language....
I guess the bottom line is, present "no-code" technichans (I dislike that term) should put a little more effort into their licenses, get their general class, learn 5-wpm code and be done with it. It just ain't that tough to do.
|
| |
|
RE: Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
|
|
|
by K9KJM on February 16, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This is one of the BEST IDEAS I have seen on the
CW subject!
It seems to me that this could be implemented
NOW, As the ITU regulations only state that
"an operator has to demonstrate proficiency
with code" The international regulations do NOT
state any particular speed. And by operating CW
only in the novice segments, Tech class operators
WILL be demonstrating code proficiency!
I really hope that those who are good at writing
these things up makes this proposal to the FCC!
How about it N3NL? Your writing skills would
be appreciated doing this!
|
| |
|
Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
|
|
|
by AE6IP on February 16, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I decided to get my license a few months ago. It took three weeks of study to pass all four elements, including Morse. Actually, it took one week study to pass all three written elements, and another two weeks to pass the 10 wpm.
If I want to do CW, I can always hook one of my computers up to my rig and use software to decode/encode the CW at whatever speed.
As far as 'roots' arguments go, how many of us still hand crank our cars to start them?
The only other hobby I participate in where more hand wringing is wasted on unimportant things is model railroading. Funny thing is that that hobby is 'dying' even faster than amateur radio in the US.
It cracks me up, in the day of web cams and broadband, that people are worrying about whether members of the hobby should be considered 'amateur', what to do with relatively obsolete modes of communication like CW, and what size lettering should be on the uniform jackets used by ARES volunteers.
Naively, I came to this forum expecting to read about ham radio, but it seems that the majority of the topics have to do with radio hams instead.
Maybe if hams would forget about legacy, take a hard look at the reality of modern telecommunications, and find some way to make the hobby appealing to those living in the 21st century, there wouldn't be a need for so much silly worry about
73s
de AE6IP
|
| |
|
RE: Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
|
|
|
by AE6IP on February 16, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"That is why the Novice license was so sucessful. Like my Elmer, Weck (W8AL) said when I was whining the same way as new hams today, "Do you want to be a ham or not!" CW at five words per minute is easy if you are willing to spend some time learning it. Five words per minute takes only one or two weeks to learn if you want to devote some time to it. YOU WANT TO BE A REAL HAM OR NOT!"
A ham who can do 20 wpm and doesn't know the first thing about radio propagation ain't no more a 'real' ham than a ham who has crappy code but aced the extra test because he's got a background in rf design.
a 'real' ham is one who has a license, and a lot of those license come without code requirements.
I'm sure that CW is enjoyable, and I think that those who enjoy it should have every opportunity to do so, but as far as a litmus test over who's a "real" ham, it makes no more sense than asking someone to demonstrate they can understand and apply a Smith chart.
the litmus test is whether or not you can pass the exams.
the hobby is whether or not you can use what you learned in order to pass the exam so you can communicate with others.
And there are a *lot* of valid ham communication modes, of which CW is only one, and, from what I can tell, a relatively minor one at that.
|
| |
|
RE: Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
|
|
|
by W7COM on February 16, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
One could argue that we should have spelling tests to operate RTTY and tests to enunciate correctly for SSB/FM. How many no-codes know what a backporch is but are still allowed to operate ATV. Look, we're hams. We do this because we like to play with toys that emit and detect RF. The government(s) give us bandwidth because back when we started there was a lot to go around and we were the leaders in inovative communication modes. Now they mostly tolerate us because of international precident and we do offer a last chance emergency communication network (and Homeland Security hasn't yet deamed us a possible threat.) There are so many modes now that it would be very hard to learn them all to any degree of proficiency. Do I think that extra should be harder to get? Yes. Do I think the FCC has the time or inclination to worry about it? No. Maybe we should grant an "Elite" class, not granted by the Uncle Charlie, which would only apply to US hams anyway, but one bestowed by hams themselves via the ARRL, eHAM, or whomever. Something like having worked 9 out of 12 modes in 3 different bands across so many grids.
The basic point of this post is that I don't see why so many hams are afraid of people getting on the air. Ok, some are going to act "11M", but most are going to be people like you and I that, for some odd twist of the mind, like to spend our spare, and not so spare, time dinking with hot irons, climbing on roofs and towers, searching the web, ham fests, and eBay for deals, while causing massive concern to our partners because of our spending habits, and seeking out and talking to other strange, affected people all over the globe.
How we got here and how long we've been doing this really has no berring on the issue. What is important is to realise that by any socitial norm, we are very disturbed people. For God's sake, we're trying to get the right to plant a 200' tower to be equal to having access to a public building by a wheelchair. We are freaks, geeks, nerds and antenna heads! We think that perfect addition to a new BMW is an antenna that will tune DC to light, and then moan that it's hard to add the needed second battery. Why do we think that we need to have our federal (US hams mostly) government inforce our culture (and really, that's what it is all about) upon those poor souls that wish to join us is beyond me. The whole CB/Freeband fight is just prejudice. It's just the same as ebonics. We accept those that speak in a forigin accent but don't accept CB lingo. What a double standard! Let me give you a clue: if you understand what they mean, then it is communication. If you just can't deal with "10-4 good buddy, on the side" and can't read that as "ok, 73, listening" then gently tell them your cultural colloquialisms. Nowhere in the rules does it say which is the correct way to wish someone the best of days.
With all the restirctions that governments are trying to impose on us having ourselves set higher bars to join our small group of maladjusted and, hopefully, free thinkers is absurd. By not taking care of our own, but demanding that federal governments do it for us, is aganst all the ideals of free flowing information and independant help that makes this hobby worth participating in.
Anyway, back to the topic. If learning code is keeping people like us from getting on HF air then maybe we need to accept a change. If it were really a problem of overcrowding then we would actuall hear over 1% activity on the 2M repeaters where the no-codes are said to abound. Having to show up at an apointed time, plop down some cash, answer some questions (without being able to buy a drink and dance) just to use the common airwaves that (by my libral(tarian) thinking) is our right anyway should show to us geeks that a person is interested enough to be in our club.
What are we really afraid of?
Joe Hamelin (W7COM)
|
| |
|
Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
|
|
|
by K8BBE on February 16, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I think this is a GREAT idea... I've been working
CW since 1956, and had GREAT fun making new contacts.
I even thought of starting a CW net on Echolink for
codeless Techs to operate. The 10 watts is great.
Even with 10 watts, they should be able to work the
world. I made several contacts with my Home brew
one transistor oscillator at 100mw. I would like
to see some kits out on the market too. This would
get some of them interested in the technicial end
of things too. I thank my Dad now for not allowing me
to buy the equipment, but build it. Amateur radio can open the door for any Electronic field out there.
|
| |
|
Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
|
|
|
by W9JCM on February 16, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Why bother? I cannot name one ham in my area that wants to learn the code and could care less about stamping out code on the HF bands. They want to talk. Use voice. They are whining all over its tooooo hard to pass 5wpm. Well I say to bad. I just read a 6 year old got her general. And a 40 year old can pass 5 wpm. That a bunch of Bull. So we just let no coders on the HF bands No Way. They havent tested for the HF bands meaning learning what privs they get, how to operate a proper HF station. They can just pass the 5wpm and take the Gen written and then go play HF. I would not support it. Most hams dont support CW anyhow these days its gone away and will soon totally disapear from the testing. Which is to bad in my eyes. I want to see tuffer REAL works testing standards. Make some one Learn something not memorize the questions to pass. But again its just a hobby isn't it? (for me it is).
|
| |
|
Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
|
|
|
by K9WMM on February 16, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
When was the last time you saw an ad for a telegraph operator?. When was the last time you sent a telegram? How many people use a covered wagon to travel?
CW is a relic of the PAST. Life goes on, new technology is invented everyday. I say unleash this wasted spectrum to SSB, digital, etc. Show a kid a key or a computer terminal and which will he choose? We have to adjust to the constant changing future. Those who want to keep CW can, but don't prevent change. I have been a ham for 43 years and I want the hobby to continue and we must attract young people to carry on.
I would say remove CW as a requirement but replace it with a more comprehensive exam, covering computers and other advanced modes of operation.
73,
Rudy
|
| |
|
RE: Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
|
|
|
by K1MKF on February 16, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"I think this proposal has enough of the right idea to work. Let's give it some support!
BTW, contrary to one person's comments, don't the Japanese for one have a 10 W, no code HF license? I sure used to work a lot of them in the phone and CW contests."
Yes, it's true! And I agree. As a matter of fact long before the 13 and 20 wpm code tests were dropped I proposed the very same thing to the ARRL. I felt that with the elimination of Novice and Tech + the novice CW subbands should be opened to all and Techs limited to 10 watts. I also felt that the General and Extra Class, they should have called it Advanced so the "real Extras" would have nothing to complain about, should be required to use 200 watts or less in those subbands. Then the Tech + could have really been eliminated as was proposed.
|
| |
|
Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
|
|
|
by N6TZ on February 16, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
A very good idea, but it needs to go farther. Let them have 100 watts as most rigs run about that and also expand the novice frequencies to allow them about half of the cw band on ALL bands. I listen most of the time to underutilized bands unless there is a contest, so what would be the harm in this idea.
When newcomers find that the cw bands are a window into operators with positive attitudes in interesting parts of the world, they will work on their code ability.
As long as we are at it, the top half of 30 meters is seldom used as the h.f. packet has dried up. Let's let ssb have the top half of 30 (25 khz). What little digital is on there can move down between 10.120 and 10.125. Yes, cw can still have the whole band. AND another yes, we still have a commercial user in the middle of the band to protect.
Hal, N6TZ
n6tz@arrl.net
|
| |
|
RE: Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
|
|
|
by WD6EJN on February 16, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Making CW More Popular... A Proposal: Reply
by W7COM on February 15, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
First, I'm still a no-code. I do want to learn code someday but I've been busy with working on repeater projects with on of the local clubs. It's fun and I've met a fine bunch of guys. One of the reasons I've not really jumped head first in to CW is the lack of affordable CW and SSB gear for 50MHz and up. I find
Did you know you can do cw with a handie talkie?
Just hook up a bfo as if it were am, you won't get
the bells and whistles as with an exotic rig, but
it's better than nothing!
Just make sure you unhook the keyer before you go on
the repeater.
If you take care to hook the mic jack to ground,, the sig is actual quite stable!
Go on the local repeater and make a sched for a local
contact, it's pretty rare that anyone listening to
repeaters are into narrow band modes but you never know! some hams get downright ornry when you do, but
just qsy to simplex and give it a go.
|
| |
|
Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
|
|
|
by WD6EJN on February 16, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Just what do you intend to do with your no-code license when you get to hf?
you might as well get a commercial broadcast license
because any mode other than cw will take at least
a megawatt of power to really get accross the pond. Listen to the sw bands, how much power do you think they are running 10 watts? think again my freind.
If you just want to play a video game or send a high resolution pic across town, then just get on the internet or hook up a lan.
|
| |
|
Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
|
|
|
by W4VD on February 16, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Sounds good, and you are exactly right about using CW, when someone sees those dreaded dits and dahs spell out something like "QTH IS TOKYO" on that piece of paper, they take on a whole new meaning and give a huge incentive to improve upon whatever your CW level is, took me all the way to pass the FCC's 20WPM code test back in the "old days" and a lot of my buddies too. Back in those days we had a ball on the novice bands, they were all we had. I'll bet I worked 20 countries the first day I got my ticket on 15 meters.....dodging the carriers on 40 meters late at night.....ahhh the good ol days....
|
| |
|
Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
|
|
|
by JB4RT on February 16, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I found your proposal interesting yet amusing. CW is the root of our hobby, just like the pony express was the pre-curser to the current postal service. Next time you which to mail something, give it to a guy on a horse and see what happens.
I for one have no interest in learning CW, just as some hams aren't interested in working packet, or moon bounce. If I do decide to learn cw, I'll be like the majority of the general class lic hams and above, I won't use it. YET I AM NOT OPPOSED TO CW!!!!! IT'S JUST ANOTHER OPERATIONG MODE.
Bellyaching about not having access to the HF bands? I don't think so, I was at the candy store last week I was priveledged (ha) to listen to those profiencent hams on 80 mtrs acting like immature children. Heck 11 mtrs sounded better. In may area there are many proficent and competant cw operators and I have nothing but the utmost respect for them. If I ask, they would be more then happy to assist and elmer me in may quest. But I am not interested in that mode. It's just another mode!!!! I don't need to operate on HF. Especially with individuals who are opposed to positive change and they themseleves are violating all the operating rules that they accuse the newcomers of violating. No matter where you fall on this issue we know that the majority of violations are caused by hams who are general class or higher, that have held their tickets more then 10 yrs. So I guess that blows away the arguement that cw makes hams better operators.
I propose that we have incentive lic, every three yrs, you should have to demomonstrate profeciency in not only cw, but you should be able to climb a tower, solder, setup a packet station, build an antenna, work on old tube type equipment, etc. It's time to put up or shutup. OK, that was a little absurd, but there is a thread of truth in it.
Honestly, Techs should be allowed to operate on the entire 10 mtr band with no more then 50 watts of power. Two, if the Techs are so inclinded, allow them access to the old Novice portions of the band. So they can di and dah to their little hearts content.
That helps increase activity on the bands and who knows if it's coupled with the previous proposal, we may increse the number of cw operators (hmmm)
Programs like echolink, are getting operators to talk thru their computers to other hams. What affect will that have on the hoppy over the next five yrs?
This debut is heated and I am often amused to hear fellow ham get wrapped around the axel on this subject.
But something needs to happen, we must be proactive with our proposals (ARRL does not represent all hams on this issue)
Lastly I am not just a regular slug no-code tech, I have 25 plus yrs of RF experience, designing large system installs, building, overseeing the construction, testing, repairing and operating various commercial, military and amateur equipment and antennas around the world.
73'S
|
| |
|
RE: Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
|
|
|
by N6QL on February 16, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I usually stay out of the code/no code debates because they almost always degrade to some emotional and useless berating by the code affectionados (some might say fanatics) but since I'm an Extra who does operate code occassionally and the start of this thread was made by someone who seemed to be a bit reasonable here goes...
I am and Extra who occassionally uses CW but am not obsessed with it but rather consider it something that is fun to do but with no particularly useful purpose in todays world (kind of like ballooning or many other hobbies). The time I spent learning it was a tax I had to pay rather than something with real benefit. The only people who care that I achieved this are a few hams. Anyone else I tell that I took the time to learn morse code thinks I'm stupid for wasting my time on something useless so I actually shy away from telling my co-workers I do this.
I actively try to recruit friends and relatives to ham radio or to the HF bands but my experience has been that unfortunately, the code requirement keeps a good chunk of highly qualified and technical people out of amateur radio or the HF bands. I find that there is often high interest from very competent individuals but that as soon as I mention that they must learn code the discussion is immediately dampened. This phenominom inhibits the growth in technical competancy of those that use the HF bands by discouraging those that are on the leading edge of technology from upgrading to HF priviledged licenses. Why you say? We'll those work in today's high-tech businesses are often busy keeping there knowledge current to stay abreast of today's technology and working. The time it takes to learn code is often at a premium and serves no useful purpose to the average working professional. It is simply a "tax". Thus the phrase I hear from the the highly technically competent friends and relatives I know when I try to encourage them to get their HF priviledges is "maybe when I retire when I'll have more time".
Listen to our bands. The number of older retirees is a huge percentage of what you hear on the HF bands. That's not bad and it's not a ding on the older ham population but the demographics are abnormally skewed that direction on the HF bands. Given that technology is not an "age" thing one would expect that the demographics would roughly reflect the population - but they don't. Ham radio is considered by many as "something you do when you retire" because you have time to spend on less useful things. I've noticed that lately there seems to be a lot more new blood on the HF bands and this is refreshing bit I think we could do more and we can do it without "dumbing down" the bands.
Code is fun - if you want to do it. However, the concept of using morse code as a "right of passage" seems misguided and may actuall contribute to the "dumbing down" of ham radio if it is the main hurdle to getting one's HF priviledges as learning code merely takes the time to learn something "you don't need".
So, for those of you who haven't already stopped reading because this is not the usual "anyone who doesn't want to learn code is stupid" let's explore a bit further.
Let us assume for the moment that our goals are:
1. Encourage new amateur radio users
2. Attract the best and the brightest
3. Keep ham radio fun for all
4. Differentiate from "CB"
5. Keep out the rif-raf.
There may be more but that's what I come up with in a few minutes of thinking.
Putting ego aside because "I had to learn it why shouldn't everyone else" I can pragmatically come up a few solutions to the above goals:
1. Make the code optional but give some sort of "badge of honor" to those that know it. Some sort of special recognition on their license. Perhaps a modifier to their call sign so that everyone can see they took the time to learn it.
2. Strengthen the technical testing so that it is on things that really matter. Blows me away when I monitor the bands and listen to people discuss the "mysteries" of things like "RF in the shack" and debates on whether "baluns or good or not" or discussions about buying a DSP unit for a mobile because they have too much ignition noise. (there are better solutions if one has taken the time to study and learn something in addition to code)
3. Keep the CW only portions of the bands CW as a priviledge for those that took the time to learn code.
Bottom line is this, learning code is definitely an accomplishment however most of the world does not perceive it as such. Often times people that are highly desirable as new members of our community and could contribute to amateur radio are simply not interested in learning something they don't perceive as useful. In my experience, there are many who ARE willing to take the time to gain new technical technical knowledge that could be useful and a more comprehensive technical test would not a discouragement IF they didn't have to learn morse code unless they wanted to. In otherwords, make getting an HF priviledged amateur license something that a modern individual can be proud to communicate to non-Hams by making the technical (and useful) aspect of it truly an accomplishement and make it something that is considered an indicator of useful knowledge to employers (not just that they had lots of spare time) and you will attract more hams of the right kind.
Just an opinion. Anyone who responds that I am somehow "evil" or incompetent because I am not a die hard code fanatic is wrong. I can assure you I am quite successful in life, business, and ham radio. I'm having lots of fun and I make many contributions to the ham radio community. Some of which can be viewed here in reviews, Elmers, and forums here on eHam. If you have a differing opinion please respond to the subject and do not attack the individual (as ssems to so often happen with the "code" discussion).
Ron N6QL
|
| |
|
RE: Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
|
|
|
by NEWHAM13 on February 16, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Think about it.
If a tech passes a simple 5wpm exam then he/she can operate in the Novice portions.
If a tech cannot pass the simple 5wpm exam then he/she will not be able to unserstand the CW on the Novice portions of the bands.
It aint broke so don't try to fix it. The no-coders are just trying to get their foot further in the door of eliminating the code exam altogether.
|
| |
|
Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
|
|
|
by WA2JJH on February 16, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Ultra provoking idea. I will not comment on this one.
I will just see if this thread goes nuts!
|
| |
|
RE: Good proposal - wrong reasons
|
|
|
by K7LCS on February 16, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I AGREE WITH W2PA. AND IT IS A GOOD PROPOSAL. TOO BAD IT IS JUST A DREAM.........CW TODAY, CW TOMORROW, CW FOREVER...I'M SORRY, THATS THE ELITE COMING OUT OF ME !!
|
| |
|
RE: Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
|
|
|
by WA9SVD on February 16, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I think the idea of opening expanded portions of the CW sub bands has merit. It will promote and stimulate the use of CW (IMHO.) And IARU allowing use of CW for all licensee's on HF hands may be a real alternative to eliminating the CW requirement entirely! If those operators who haven't PASSED A TEST to prove code proficiency, let them operate on the CW portions to improve their skills. Operating is the skill, and to be honest, no-code Techs (and I DO NOT mean that in a derogatory sense) will NOT improve their CW prowess to upgrade to General (or above)by operating on 6M or above! They need to get real experience. By giving them CW privileges only on HF, those that wish to upgrade will have an interesting and pleasant way to learn and use CW.
|
| |
|
Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
|
|
|
by K0EX on February 17, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
As with ANYTHING in life, those who want to separate themselves from the masses will put forth the extra effort to do what it takes. Ambition cannot be legislated or forced.
I hated to see the code requirements diminished. To some degree, they were a good riff-raff filter (especially in those days when one had to correctly copy 100 characters in-a-row in order to pass the 20WPM test). But, on second thought, who would really care if EVERYONE is an Extra Class? I'm sure the Extra Class SSB portions of the bands would fill up (hee hee!), but I doubt one who didn't know code would dare venture into the CW end of the band.
So, let the FCC/ARRL continue to GIVE AWAY licenses. But, don't take away the CW-only portions of the bands... allow us a place to which to escape, please!!
-Mark K0EX
|
| |
|
Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
|
|
|
by KG4LMU on February 17, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
As a fairly new ham replying on the topic. I see both side's of the discussion. From my point of interest opening just the 10 meter novice band would suffice. As for learning the code its not a question of not
seeing its uses or it being out dated. In my case its just too time consuming to learn,on a greater scale I feel this and the fact that who wants to spend time dealing with crude people when there are so many other apects of ham radio one can experiment with. Myself I have entered into the VOIP community and have been having some of the best Radio experiences of my HAM Radio life. But this is just one hams veiw point alot of hams cant afford the equiptment related to the general upgrade,opening just the 10m novice band would create a more affordable means of entry level HF. As many of us already know 10m radios can be purchased relativly cheap.
Another problem I have I stated "crude people" Horror story's of foul langauge and disrespective hams is just another aspect of why bother. As more and more people enter the ham community with these new hams come new familys and perspective new hams. I dont think having to deal with these "Crude people" on a family oriented hobby is worth it or good for the general hobby. My ham shack is located in my living room with children passing within earshot of the radio/Cpu audio with kids passing through the room daily vulger language is not something that should be heard on a family oreinted radio.
So again the lure of HF may be attractive its also something that as a new ham I am not impressed with nor condone these types of activity's anywhere in within the community. So when you ask yourself why arent more hams comming to HF. Well to be quite honest its just a little to extreme for my taste. I do monitor Hf frequency's on occassion and hear quality DXing,contest and nets but its those quarks of unpronouncable words that seem to come out of no where that raises this Hams question of why bother.
Last but not least Internet Linking Echolink,Eqso,Irlp, and wires2 has made long range communication easier then ever over these new modes. With more and more dedicated servers comming online globaly the amount of contacts our unrestricted by any atmospheric conditions. This is a great new way to communicate and opens news doors for new hams looking for something more out of ham radio. I personaly feel the HF community needs to do a whole lot of catching up to compete for these new hams interest in the hf band exclusivly because of the so many different modes of communications and some of the problems within the community like vulgarity need to be addressed.
|
| |
|
Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
|
|
|
by W8FAX on February 17, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
These postings about CW come and go with the regularity of sunrise/sunset. What I really don't understand about the whole current situation is the constant push to reduce requirements for HF. Many threads contain, or get around to, the overcrowding of our HF bands now. So why in the world are we constantly trying to get even MORE operators on the air with some other "welfare license" scheme. The ARRL is constantly trying to get more hams active also, but on the other hand are claiming they are doing "research" into obtaining more HF spectrum to help aleviate the current overcrowding. With the decline of the solar cycle this situation is only going to get WORSE, as all those ops who are used to the easy 10/15/20 meter contacts of the past few years, move downward to the lower bands. And here is one more proposal to hand out tickets??????I must be missing something I guess
|
| |
|
RE: Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
|
|
|
by N0UY on February 17, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well this is my second post on this subject, and I seriously doubt most people have read this far. But I have another comment. Those of you that think CW is totally invalid as a means of exchanging information obviously haven't spent anytime using ssb on the VHF frequencies. It is very useful and widely used from 50 MHz and above. You don't need to go to HF to find many active CW operator's. Granted, you won't find many rag chews going on but CW activity, you bet.
To the fellow that feels echo-link is more established now and is not subject to propagation changes: these variables are what make the hobby interesting to me and a lot of others. Having to rely on your own abilities as an operator and the understanding of the propagation gives us great satisfaction when the contact is made. The fellows that run the qrp stations have my utmost respect with what they can accomplish by just knowing what and when to do it.
As far as the aging ham population, I don't believe it is an issue. The reason a lot of people don't get in the hobby until their 40 - 50 years old is because they are too busy raising their families and dealing with the rest of their lives to devote the amount of time and effort required to learn propagation, solar cycles, gray line and etc. For me, getting on the air as a Technician was fast and easy but the gratification was not there having my transmitted signal repeated for me by someone else's equipment. I soon migrated to FM simplex operation and to weak signal vhf from there. I currently have access to all the HF segments of this hobby but only because it fits into my current life situation.
N0UY
|
| |
|
RE: Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
|
|
|
by AE9B on February 17, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Since almost nobody will read this far.. I will post my opinon. Everyone ha | |
