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 has the right to enjoy the mode of their choice. While trying to get hams to try and use "new" old modes like AM.. the new Old Fad... I have found enjoyment in "the challenge". Some may want to try something new and different simply because it's a new challenge. That's what happened to me.. and I happen to like it now because I find it fun. It IS a useful mode and can be used in to most difficult circumstances. And it may be more useful during extreme conditions but until those conditions present themselves.. let people enjoy and practice the modes they prefer. You can't make a child eat food they don't like.. they'll just spit it out..
|
| |
|
Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
|
|
|
by YO4RLP on February 17, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Let me to tell you a little story:
As beginner I have starting into traffic using a homemade transceiver (A412, very popular in YO) in SSB using only 1.5 W and a Windom multiband. After few months, I put in my log a hundred of contacts and 30 countries, in 7 MHz only. In a day, YO4BII, Victor, my mentor, came in a visit to me. As a an old wolf CW, seeing my results, he tell me: "Let's try together: you in SSB, me in CW". And we try: while I try the karate technics to bawl to mike, YO4BII, nice and easy, had contacts after contacts in CW. After one hour, a little statistics: YO4RLP, 3 contacts, in SSB, not more than 1500 km range to the NE of Europe and YO4BII, in CW, put in his log 10 contacts from GM to A6. All using the same A412 and the same Windom, in 7MHz, from my shack. For me was enough: from that moment I use SSB only for YO rag chewing.
How many of you try this?
|
| |
|
Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
|
|
|
by KG4IHJ on February 17, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Here's a proposal, and I really don't mean to be skeptical or cynical. This is just a proposal to promote CW, although it might actually be rediculous to those of you who use CW every day. I will probably get flamed for this opinion anyway, but here's my proposal: ELIMINATE computer generated CW and contest keyers, OR just limit them to say 20wpm. That way, when us techs turn on HF, we have a fighting chance to actually hear, understand and comprehend the code, instead of just giving up and flipping to the phone portion of the bands to have a listen to something we CAN understand. I rarely hear any CW UNDER around 15wpm on ANY band, and I do a fair amount of listening.
|
| |
|
RE: Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
|
|
|
by WB2WIK on February 17, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KG4IHJ, you're really listening in the wrong places or possibly don't have a suitable antenna to hear weaker stations.
There is a *lot* of slow-speed CW activity between 7100 and 7150 kHz, daytime and nighttime (although after dark, a lot of commercial SW BC interference makes selecting a clear frequency a bit of a science); and also between 3675 and 3725 kHz, at nighttime; and between 21100 and 21150 kHz, daytime; and between 28100 and 28300 kHz, daytime. A lot. So much, in fact, that if I call a single slow-speed "CQ" in those window when those bands are open, I can't even remember the last time I didn't get an answer.
This past weekend (February 15-16), I went out of my way for a couple of hours each day to work nothing but slow-coders, since the "low ends" of all the common CW subbands were filled with DX contest activity. After calling a single "CQ" on 7112 kHz on Saturday, I ran off almost an entire log page filled with slow-speed CW contacts, without having to call another "CQ."
Where are you listening, that you don't hear any slow-speed CW on HF?
WB2WIK/6
|
| |
|
Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
|
|
|
by K0RGR on February 17, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The interesting thing about this proposal is that it has already been proposed, by none other than ARRL, to boot! During the last restructuring go-round, ARRL proposed allowing No-Coders CW priveleges on most of the HF bands. Their argument was that by using the privelege, the user would demonstrate his ability to send and receive Morse Code, which is what the ITU regulation requires. FCC did not reject this argument entirely, but expressed puzzlement over it. Apparently, the only way to prove your competence at something is to take a formal exam.
FCC's comments on the matter at the time seemed to indicate an unwillingness to take any such action until the ITU regulation is changed, which everyone expects to happen this year. Once the ITU reg goes, it will still be up to individual countries to set their own requirements, so FCC will not have to eliminate the CW requirements entirely.
I think we should examine the British Foundation License. I would much rather have applicants earn their basic license through successful completion of a comprehensive class rather than memorizing 500 test questions and their answers. And I would also like to see them have very restricted but useful HF priveleges. Perhaps we could modify the Foundation concept to permit low power CW on HF and voice on VHF.
|
| |
|
RE: Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
|
|
|
by WA9SVD on February 17, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
To K0EX:
Mark, I agree completely. We should keep the CW sub-bands, but give access to those that are willing to operate with that mode. What better way for someone (regardless of license class) to improve their CW proficiency! I know old time Extra's that lament the demise of the 20 WPM code test, but haven't touched a key in 20 years. And I know a couple of new Generals' (probably upgraded by now) that can copy 25+ wpm and would just as soon give away the mike that came with their rig. For now, keep the CW sub-bands, but let's do something to promote the use of CW.
|
| |
|
Make N/T CW same as Gen. on 80,40,15,10 @ 200W
|
|
|
by N5LF on February 17, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Instead of the author's suggestion, I favor extending the Novice/Tech CW freqeuncies to equal those of the General Class on 80, 40, 15, and 10 meters, and keep the Novice/Tech 200 watt PEP limit.
This was in an FCC petition by Joe Speroni a few years ago, and is currently included within the ARRL proposal to "re-farm" the Novice/Tech subbands. Although, I am not totally faviring the rest of the ARRL's "re-farm" proposal, I support this portion of it.
|
| |
|
Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
|
|
|
by KB1HYR on February 18, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Dear Mr. Clifford,
I'm not going to argue over whether CW should or shouldn't be a requirement, is or isn't an anachronism and all that jazz. I'm just responding to your idea - how do we get more folks doing CW?
I like your idea, in general. The fact that Techs have the ability to use CW on VHF frequencies already isn't very helpful because ... well ... there's a REASON the repeater directory is so thick. The odds of a tech having a magical QSO across the Atlantic using CW on VHF are practically nil. Most VHF equipment isn't equipped for CW either. It's mostly FM, and setup for dealing with repeaters out of the box.
For folks to practice CW, they need access to HF bands. And HF bands are where you find those inspiring call signs that don't start in W or K. I would modify the proposal thusly, though.
Find one band - maybe 40 meters or even 15 meters - and take the novice portion - and open it up to everyone up to 200W, even no-code techs. On this band, anyone on it will understand that some of the folks on it will be using sub 5wpm cw. Anyone on it will be there either to learn, or to help.
This will allow people to get their feet wet on HF bands using less expensive QRP gear or whatever - and thereby provide incentive for them to want access to the rest of the HF bands. If they buy a standard HF transciever .... they'll want the license that will let them use ALL of its capabilities!
---------
5 wpm is no great shakes.
I just got my license last year. I did the Tech, General and code all in one session. I got a copy of Gordon West's 0-5wpm code tapes, and made use of them during traffic for two weeks and passed the test first time. I'm no old-timer code junkie or super genius. Anyone can do it. Really. 'tis no major hurdle. All the barriers are self imposed.
Having passed the tests, I thought I was ready to hook up an antenna and get on the air! After all ... that's what the tests are supposed to determine - right?
Wrong. I knew nothing. I found an empty portion of the novice subsection of 15m - and sent out my CQ. To my surprise - I got a response! Guess what? I couldn't understand it. The other ham was beyond courteous and sent back crystal clear, slow code that I SHOULD have been able to understand first time around having passed the test. I knew zilch for prosigns - how do you tell someone to repeat a transmission? I didn't know. After many retransmits, and considerable patience on the part of the other ham - I got it. (And I also "got" a computer program to help me improve my code!)
That ham's courtesy and patience with a newbie like myself is a MAJOR ingredient in keeping newer hams like me in CW. He could have sent back at 13 wpm, or just given up. I don't remember his call, because I didn't keep logs then like I do now. But hams like that are what it takes to inspire guys like me to stay on CW and improve, rather than give up and pick up a microphone.
It's just my way of reporting a positive experience with hams, and pointing out the importance of that crucial human ingredient that has to go along with any regulatory proposals.
Where will you find me on the bands? In the novice portions, of course, because I'm still no master; and to help pass on a good deed that another ham did for me!
Let's open up some bandwidth for the techs, so some of us generals can help them with code.
|
| |
|
RE: Make N/T CW same as Gen. on 80,40,15,10 @ 200W
|
|
|
by KD7EZE on February 18, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I see we're still beating this dead horse, so let me get out my whip again. Who really cares if CW is more popular? Knowing code doesn't make you more intelligent. I have a BSEE (Bachelor of Science in Electronics Engineering) degree, and could care less about CW. As I've said before, CW is just another "mode" of operating. Quit trying to force people to understand it, to be able to use the "phone" portions of the HF bands. When I make contacts, I like to hear the person's voice, and/or accent. You can tell alot about a person by the sound of their voice. You can't tell anything about someone who is sending dida dida dida. You could even be communicating with bin Laden, and not know it! Make CW a requirement, ONLY if you intend to use that MODE. Get off of your high-horses, and open up the phone portion of the HF bands. You've already slaughtered the original ham radio by reducing the license classes to 3. You might as well go all the way, and reduce it to 2 classes: CW and Voice. Either you're a licensed operator or you're not. Just get off this kick that someone MUST learn code, to operate voice on HF, it's just plain silly. Whether or not it happens, is not the core of my argument. All of the constant infighting and arguing amongst hams, both on-the-air and in these forums, is causing more and more people to shy away from wanting to become a part of our hobby.
Now that this dead horse has been severely whipped, I'm off to log some DX contacts on 6M SSB.
'73 de KD7EZE
|
| |
|
RE: Make N/T CW same as Gen. on 80,40,15,10 @ 200W
|
|
|
by CURMUDGEON on February 18, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Finally, in the midst of it all ! A grain of truth: "All the barriers are self imposed"
|
| |
|
Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
|
|
|
by N4OB on February 18, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
First off. I am a CW op about 99% of the time. It was my choice. I retired from the military and used HF phone all the time so when I became a Ham I chose to not do the same thing that I could do at work.
I belive the whole reasoning behind this disscussion is to get more folks involved in radio. Will doing away with all code requirments accomplish this? I don't think so.
If you tell a kid today that if he only passes a test he will be able to talk with folks from all around the world he will just say that he can already on the internet using voice chat. If you say you can use your computer to send digital images or text to the far off places he will probably say he was talking to some girl in Australia last night on messenger.
So I ask you. What is the only mode that we have that is unique? Yep CW. Is it a relic from the past? You bet.
Do I think we should help out those that can not show any determination in passing a minimal speed of CW. It seems that folks just want something for nothing.
I believe the whole point is to get more folks involved in amatuer radio but what would happen if you did away with CW. I belive you will see calls just like is posted here.......
"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."
Now you will lose more hams then you gain when you allow the splatter of misaligned rigs throughout the band.
|
| |
|
Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
|
|
|
by RADIO123US on February 18, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Once again, another code - no code debate !!!
Although I think the author of this post has
good intentions, I think the point of why we need
a CW requirement is being missed. As I see it,
the CW requirement is in place to show that a
person has the DISCIPLINE to learn something.
A person can easily memorize the answers to
a bunch of test questions, but CW takes some
dedication and practice. While I was disappointed
to see the code speed requirements dropped, I believe
from reading some of the previous posts, the the
5 wpm requirement is exactly doing what it was meant to do...to reward those who have the dedication and desire to learn something new with HF band priviledges, and to keep those that don't have that
dedication off of the HF bands. I know there are alot of hams who disagree with me, and that fine. I listen
to the local 2 meter repeater in my area and hear 10-4 and other CB jargon daily. At least for now, I can escape the CB crowd by tuning into 20 meter CW....
|
| |
|
RE: Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
|
|
|
by KA1EZE on February 18, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I used to think cw was a good "barrier" but at 5wpm it's not much of one. I don't worry about the popularity so much anymore.
The way I see it is, if there is an interest in HF, perhaps and interest in code will develop.
The bug will bite you or it won't. I don't think anyone operating cw on HF is forcing themselves, or doing it just because they don't have voice privs, they are already converts!
And yea some things are sound like cb, but what can you do? I was inactive for a while and back on a year ago, and it's all relative. Coming back on has me wondering what's with the "qsl? qsl!" all the time (I used to only say that when I needed a card!), and I notice that many hams are now plural (we're running 500 watts here and we like to dx!)
This idea isn't bad, but 5wpm isn't much different than 0!
rick
|
| |
|
Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
|
|
|
by WA2JJH on February 18, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
OK I was not going to comment. This is just an idea.
I may not even be serious.
Let No code techs have 100W CW privledges from
27.675-27.950. They can have voice too.
Let them have all the freqs. The freebanders use.
They can practice code. Have voice only with their Ham ~~~~ ~~~~.
Maybe they can entice the freebanders to go legit.
They can do CW at their own pace. Have a little HF voice.
If 27.600-27.950 does have legit business users
forget about the idea.
11M was a Ham band way back when.
The manufacturers can produce ultra low cost rigs.
CPU imposed limits.
Like I said it is just an idea. I may not be serious.
|
| |
|
RE: Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
|
|
|
by KA4KOE on February 18, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I propose the following to make CW more popular, by extending operating priviledges, contingent on passing a 50 WPM code receiving and transmitting test (I've got to get cracking here guys, since I'm only good up to about 35 wpm myself). Sending test can only be done on a genuine Vibroplex bug, with a serial number indicating manufacture no more recent than 1946. Paddles, Keyers, and keyboards are verboten. Nicht!!!
1. The FCC shall increase maximum power output from 1,500 watts to 150,000 watts, contingent only to restrictions placed by the local power utility. Looks like I'll have to get a 480 volt, three phase service run to the house.
2. Allocate spectrum continuous from 1.8 to 50 Mhz, no breaks. Lets give the broadcasters on 40m a run for their money.
3. Remove all restrictions on antennas and their maximum heights (propose 1500' foot to be realistic). Really give PRB-1 some bite. Anyone objecting to ham antenna erection will be sentenced to 20 years in the Federal Penn, at hard labor.
4. Anyone presenting the certificate of successful completion of 50 WPM code test shall be eligible to purchase 91 octane (or 100 octane av-gas) at a rate not to exceed 50 cents per gallon, 55 cents on weekends.
5. Open season rights, with no bag limit, on freebanders who dare to intrude on our precious, holy spectrum. 30-06 ammo free with every Garande M1 purchase.
6. One year free membership to those with CW certificate to on-line dating service (I'm married, so I'm ineligible) of their choice. We need to get more of these single types married off so the passing on of CW enhanced genes is assured for posterity.
I guarantee the above incentives will make CW the predominate mode of preference for the forseeable future.
Philip
The CW Machine
|
| |
|
Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
|
|
|
by WA2JJH on February 19, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Gee Philip, If your ever want to run for president, you get my vote.
|
| |
|
Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
|
|
|
by WA4AOS on February 19, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I like the proposal and would like to make a few additional points that prospective Ham Radio Operators or Technician Class operators might consider.
Yes, it is true that no business uses CW because it is no longer an efficient method of transferring huge amounts of data and other digital information.
Yes, The military for the most part has given up using CW for same the same reasons, Although, I understand that the Military still uses CW for a few applications.
So what does this mean to Amateur Radio? Why should we use CW? Why learn this very old method of communications? Does it keep the freebanders out of the hobby?
As Ham Operators, we are not usually tasked with the transmission of huge amounts of data. In fact Amateur Radio is very different from a business and the military.
We operate in a very different way and with a very different agenda. We are about Global Communications, Experimentation, Emergency Traffic Handling, Contesting, DXing and a myriad of other applications. Let the Internet and other venues of communications transfer the huge files.
In an emergency situation CW is be a very viable form of communications when conditions are poor. Often CW works reasonably well when SSB just can’t get through atmospheric and other types of noise..
As a contest mode, CW is outstanding and STATE OF THE ART. Many CW stations can coexist in a given bandwidth that could only support a single SSB station. The use of CW filters and the filters between our ears allows for the separation of many CW signals.
As a DX mode CW is once again STATE OF THE ART; not only for the reasons listed above but also in many countries around the world where the hams have little to no disposable income, homebrew and older cheap rigs are more common. These operators are doing well to have these older rigs in many cases. An older rig with many problems might still work in the CW mode.
CW has been to some degree a language translator. Using the Q signals and learning just a handful of English words has allowed and continues to allow Hams in other countries to communicate with English speaking stations.
CW lends itself well to low power applications. QRP operation is more popular than ever. Look at the success of companies such as Ten Tec, Elecraft, Oak Hill and others who make inexpensive kits that the average ham can sit down and assemble. This allows the Ham to learn a little about how his rig works internally not to mention the pride he or she takes operating a rig that they built.
QRP is generally thought of as a CW mode and many people have learned the code so that they could enjoy the QRP activities and equipment. QRP operators can work a station eight to ten thousand miles away with a single watt of power, at times and this is a real thrill.
CW has been and is still used by some individuals who have certain disabilities, which impairs or prevents them from speaking or speaking clearly. Again CW overcomes a barrier and allows an individual to enjoy a hobby.
CW is one of the most spectrum efficient modes around. I know PSK 31 is very efficient but this takes nothing away from CW.
CW is part of our heritage. It is where we came from and to a great extent what we have been about for many years. Do we really want throw out our legacy. It’s funny how the majority of the anti-CW people are often ones who have never been CW operators or in many cases have never even learned the code at all, Do we really want to dumb down Amateur Radio even more than it is now?
CW is still STATE OF THE ART in many areas of Amateur Radio and hopefully will always be. I agree that those of us who have been around for a while need to do as much as possible to encourage the newcomers to learn the code. They need to try a few contest or get involved with CW traffic handling. Work a little CW DX or go and build a QRP rig and work the world with 5 watts or less. TRY IT YOU MIGHT LIKE IT and if not maybe you will be content to hang out on 75 meters and learn to belch in your mic. Yea Buba….
I
|
| |
|
Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
|
|
|
by KB1GMX on February 20, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
After reading the orginal article and many of the follow up replies.
First some info. I'm nocode tech, learning code though. It bugs me that HF is all about code for some reason.
If you want to run CW you can as nocode tech already! The bottom 100khz of 6 and 2 are for that. They are even exclusively CW, no digital. The rules allow me and why not enjoy that. My TT6n2 is a exfine CW rig at 20W on those bands. There is a shortage of CW activity there most of the time though. That is a shame as there is plenty of ways to get a good CW signal out there and antennas are small too.
I find it funny that just about every decent HF radio these days and a pot load of small radios all do CW, they all do 6, maybe 2 and some 70cm! Is there a rule that says it aint CW if it not 80m?
Keep the code as is. It works and 5wpm is a great threshold, fast enough to be useful. slow enough to want faster.
Allison
|
| |
|
Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
|
|
|
by WA2JJH on February 21, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I think Alison wa1--- made an excellent point. Like others said ...if it aint broke dont fix it. Yes there is plenty of 6M 2M 70CM portion for low speed code. You can buy tribander h-t's for under $300. Like the VX-5 or VX-7. Yes it is not true CW but you can use modulated FM CW. Add a 50 watt amp if needed. Antennas are small and easy to build . You can make plenty of fm-cw contacts.
No it does not have the world wide appeal of 80,40,15M. One can set up skeds for Mod-CW. Code practice oscillator in front of the mic.
Maybe the ARRL wants to get involved, and have no code tech CW contests! Maybe 6 meters should be the band for CW and FM-CW for those that want to upgrade.
Also for local use, FRS can be used licence free for FM-CW. These 1/2 watt radio's can be had for $20.00.With a good antenna, I once had a 20 mile hop.
There are many ways No-code techs can get the practice they need for 5 WPM.
Hey folks, the reason while we are just not letting the CW requirement go is for many good reasons.
Transceivers can be built dirt cheap. CW can be used with Laser pointers. A 5mw green laser has a range of
4 miles or more.The green laser is good because you can see where the beam is going at night.I am building
a 1watt green laser now. 10 watts of IR laser in 2 watts of green out using a YAG XTAL. Hams and non hams can practice using sun mirrors for 10's of miles.Yes I know it is an old boy scout trick
CW is the most efficient mode, no ifs ands, or buts.
99.55% of the worlds population does not know CW.
Only hams and military know it.
One can build CW transcievers out of one or two transistors and an I.C. This would lead to hams building their own rigs again!
Maybe 2/70cm repeaters can have off hour CW times!
I like that a new no code tech wants to get up to 5 wpm. That is the force behind ham radio!
The young New code tech before my thread wants to get to 5 wpm.
Just idea's 73 de MIKE
|
| |
|
Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
|
|
|
by N3QT on February 21, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Thank you for the article
I would also like to suggest "live demonstrations". How about a "Drag Some Punk Off the Street Day"? Math was a worthless endeavor for me until I saw what could be done with it. Now, I am a math-freak.
On the Downside:
I imagine folks would have to come up with a snappy new nickname to replace "No-Code Techs".
John de N3QT
|
| |
|
I reject the notion that we need to make CW popula
|
|
|
by KD6JLS on February 21, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I don't buy the idea that we need to keep CW because "It ties us to our ham radio roots, it reminds us of the millions of earlier communicators who started the Information Age", etc.
Hey, let's REALLY tie us to our communication roots. Let's keep our logs as paintings on cave walls, illuminate our own QSL cards instead of mass printing them, and deliver them by pony express.
The government doesn't require us to learn how to ride a horse before buying a car, but that makes about as much sense as requiring us to learn CW. I mean, the same logic applies, right? It would tie us to our transportation roots, it would be good for people to know in emergencies because horses can go places that cars can't, they take up less space on the freeway...
That's pretty much what you CW advocates sound like.
|
| |
|
Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
|
|
|
by RADIO123US on February 21, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KD6JLS, I believe you are missing the point.
Why do we still have a CW requirement when
there are much more efficient ways to communicate ?
The reason has to do with DISCIPLINE. Discipline
is what separates the hams from the CBers. There
are a large number of CBers that would love to be
able to operate on the HF ham bands. The fact that
they will not invest the little time that it takes
to learn 5 wpm CW tells me that they really don't
care about ham radio.
You know the old saying.."you don't get something
for nothing" ? That saying applies here.
CW is our investment into the hobby. It shows that
the person has the desire and DISCIPLINE necessary
to operate legally. Is it a perfect filter ? No...just listen to 75 meters.... But right now, it's all that
we have. Anyone can memorize a set of answers to
test questions, but to learn CW takes an effort.
If those that are whining about the CW requirement
would spend as much time practicing the code as they
do complaining, most would have already passed the
CW exam.
|
| |
|
Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
|
|
|
by WA2JJH on February 21, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I agree with radioman123. It is how bad you want it.
It requires focus. I remeber when I was becoming a ham,
The CW made me more focused in general. I did not remain a Novice long. I wanted to be on 20M phone.
The 5WPM was easy. It took me 3X to pass the 13WPM.
During that time I studied for advanced and extra.
If it was not for that initial bump in the road 5WPM,
I would have not so driven. I was advanced within 2 years. With all that studying, I was able to get My second Class commercial ticket before I got my extra.
After 13 WPM the jump to 20 WPM was easy. Got the extra
right after.
Yes, to many the 5WPM is a brickwall. You can scale a brickwall if you want to.
It is that 5 WPM that will give you the drive. It does get easier as you go along.
If we had no code requirment 20M would sound like CB.
It is the journey. The people you will meet,on the way.
You learn the ropes. If we had an instant General cw free test, you may not meet certain people. People that will help you set up your first antenna or shack.
If we got ride of any code requirement, why just not make becoming a ham as easy as getting a GMRS ticket.
I have found GMRS to be a little better than CB radio with repeaters and callsigns.
You may hate us for it now, but you will appeciate
it later. The idea of the technicians ticket was for those that wanted to experiment above 50MHZ. build you own equipment. Work with microwaves,and new modes.
For a time there was a conditional Tech exam. It was for those that could not make it to a FCC field office. The code was not required. 2 meters took a dive because of it. The conditional Tech went out in the 1970's. So we have a no code tech now.
The communications act of 1934 mandated that all Hams be proficient in electronics. That is not a bad thing is it?
In those days many novices and techs built their own rigs.(with tubes and high voltage) CW rigs are the easiest to build. Their are transciever kits that just have a few transistors and one or two I.C.'s.
The idea of the FCC was to make the average joe, know some electronics. That is a good fringe benefit.
I guess if enough people did not want some CW and electronics, we can have a CB service 1.8-23GHZ wide.
We have to have some standards. Other wise it is a RF free for all.
Many electrical engineers find engineering school easier because of thier ham radio background.
73 de MIKE
|
| |
|
RE: Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
|
|
|
by KA4KOE on February 21, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I was a ham at 16. Got my engineering degree at 23. Didn't study at all for my professional engineer exam. Passed on the second try.
I have designed projects worth millions of dollars and derive great satisfaction when a school, or a university nursing building, or what you, lights up.
Did my ham license help? You bet. If you love this stuff you will excel.
Philip
|
| |
|
RE: Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
|
|
|
by WA9SVD on February 22, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hi Mike,
There's one point that's partly in error. The Conditional Tech (if you lived too far away from an FCC Office) DID in fact require a code exam, administered by a General or higher. And there was a "Conditional (General) license for the same reason, administered by an Advanced or higher licensee. But the "conditional" licenses DID require passing the code test. (In those days, the theory for Tech and General were the same, so the FCC didn't have to send out different versions of the "mail order" exam. And if you DID move close to an FCC Office, you had to then take the FCC administered license. (I think I would have just driven a few hundred miles than have to worry about taking the exam again if I moved.
Also in the "old days" you had to state that you were still proficient in code at your license level before you could renew your license (for five years.)
Yes, much has changed!
|
| |
|
RE: Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
|
|
|
by WA9SVD on February 22, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
To WA2JJH:
Hi Mike,
Just a suggestion, but check the FRS rules and regs. I'm not sure you can change or modify the antenna on a FRS radio without voiding it's type acceptance. GMRS is different because it's licensed and supposedly regulated.
|
| |
|
Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
|
|
|
by WA2JJH on February 22, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Yes, I knew about the conditional Tech code. The Joke was that it was found out that many of the generals that gave the conditional Tech, never tested for code.
It was an inside known fact. I am sure a few conditional Techs were legit. It was just an easy way to get on 2 meters. The FCC stats showed there was a direct connection between liddy 2 meter use, and conditional tech.
The conditionlal tech did help many handicapaple people get thier licence the legit way! The FCC did away with conditional Tech because they sowehow knew the code test was faked or never given.
Some just wanted a quick and code free way to get on 2 meters. 2 Meters used too be very HOT in the 70's.
73 de MIKE
|
| |
|
Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
|
|
|
by WA2JJH on February 22, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
You are right about FRS radio's. In fact all FRS radio's have built in, non removable helix antennas.
There is no law about putting a code practice oscillator in the external mic jack. In fact the better
FRS radio's have VOX. If you plug a CPO in, you have a full break in CW rig. It is not CW, but FM modulated CW.
I am amased by what a quality radio you get for $40.
I had an FRS radio, next to my Motolora commercial P-68
The recieve was identical.
My idea was this. If you had a group of Hams, non-Hams, Boyscouts, or those looking to upgrade, this is a nice way to do CW at less then 5WPM. Work your way up. I get an honest 1/2 mile in NYC using FM voice The worst case condition. These 500mW radio's will provide miles of range else where. Turn down the squelch or PL. I bet with MOD-CW one might get 10 miles. I did once work some guy on an FRS radio, He was
25 miles away. Yes, it was over water line of sight.
This is just another way hams and non hams can learn
CW. Do not use FRS channels 1-10 or so. You do not want to interfere with family communications.
73 MIKE
|
| |
|
RE: Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
|
|
|
by N7JI on February 23, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
HF is a place where international borders mean nothing.
CW is maintained as an "interoperability" requirement so that people with language barriers can communicate, even if only minimally, nonetheless.
There's a reason it's called "International" Morse Code.
Not that I don't want to see everyone using it - I'm 34 and can copy faster than my age and the more operators I have to chat with, the better.
I DO want everyone to be using it. Let's not forget, however, that as a 2 wpm operator learning the ropes, you won't be having many HF contacts.
Nearly every new no-code licensee ends up with a VHF HT. There are plenty of ways to send Audio CW over FM.
THAT should be our emphasis at this point.
And remember, nobody is discouraged from LISTENING to any band (except cellular telephone).
I've been a teacher and examiner, and I KNOW that 5 wpm just isn't that hard to do if there's an interest.
73,
Scott N7JI
|
| |
|
Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
|
|
|
by W0ZPT on February 24, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Yes, I believe the current No-Code Technician Class licensees should be granted at least the old Novice CW privileges on the HF bands. However, the maximum power allowed should be 150 watts verses 10 watts for the simple reason that 10 watts would be nearly impossible to enforce and I really don't believe they would be that big of a disruption because anyone trying to make a contact for the first time would at least have his/her characters memorized and would be pretty capable of doing 5 wpm. Myself, all I did was memorize the characters and I passed the 5 wpm test easily.
By already having these limited HF privileges, the current Technician Class licensees would be "picking up their code" a lot quicker because having a QSO is a lot more fun than just copying from a tape recording or listening to someone elses QSO. They would also enjoy the thrill of working HF and not have a tendancy to get bored with their hobby because of the limits of VHF/UHF.
|
| |
|
Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
|
|
|
by W6TH on February 24, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I use cw only and I enjoy it. Cw is getting popular more and more every passing day. More CW operators now than phone operators, isn't this great?
|
| |
|
Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
|
|
|
by N2NNU on February 24, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I sincerely believe that this debate CW versus Non CW must be put on hold until we define (or re-define if you will) what a Radio Amateur IS.
In my humble opinion our hobby has been divided, artificially I will add, in Radio AMATEURS and Radio OPERATORS.
The Amateur class is encompassing persons that are interested in the technical aspects of the hobby, experimenting, constructing, and bettering their UNDERSTANDING of what makes a radio tick
The Operator class is comprised of persons that have no other interest in the hobby but to use it
to communicate through it. They are not interested on what makes a radio tick.
It is like the difference between a car mechanic and the casual driver. The mechanic drives the car just to test it, to investigate if his work has been properly done. The casual driver has different reasons for the same action.
Is it fair to put them in the same bucket and asking them to comply to the same rules? I do not believe so!
It is useless to say that a driver without a mechanic is a lost proposition in a country such ours thus
We should give a listen at what the NO CODE persons have to say. They are the majority and in a true
democracy they make the rules. Or is it that we are pushing them to get the CODE TEST so they will
swell the minority group ?
Let’s not forget that the need for CW proficiency has been imposed upon us by a government (not only in USA) that needed highly skilled people without to pay for their training. The burden has being carried by our enthusiasm for the hobby to the benefit of the government. This is what generally speaking is perceived as “brain washing”. Now that technology provides better avenues to communications that the “good ol’ fist” the Radio Officers Of the Navy have bin renamed Communication Officer and they are NOT required to know Morse Code 
Our Hobby has been simply abandoned by the powers to be! The only voice we had in Congres, Senator Goldwater, is Silent Key for many years and we did not even bother to start a search to find
a replacement for him ! We spend large sums of money on Radio Cops but we are not putting a dime in creating new voices in congres, voices that will represent OUR interest!
Moreover IARU has recommended, again, the abolition of the CW required TEST for HF privileges. Please read
http://216.239.37.100/search?q=cache:xDvzFsa1YYsC:www.darc.de/referate/ausland/iaru/r1c02/aktuelles/docs/C3-recommendationsSM2002.rtf+/SM/c3.25&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
Lets see how long will FCC and ARRL drag their feet to implement it!
I happen to like CW. I passed the tests in 1956 and had fun with it. and held full privileges Licenses in Many Countries. However I despise the fact that it is used to divide our hobby into those that have and those that do not have.
One more thing. Since discovering EchoLink, all my HF aspirations (not they were too many) have suddenly disappeared. No QRM, no arguments of “who is on first” no BS !
Congrats to K1RFD that put so much work and resources into a REAL AMATEUR Project.
YES! K1RFD is REAL Radio AMATEUR!
So… How about this. I propose just THREE Licenses for ALL Privileges:
One for Radio AMATORS, Highy Technical, College Level. All privileges but they must prove that the equipment they use is BUILD BY THEM from scratch.
One for Radio OPERATORS. Operations only and CW. No Technical Requirements but the minimum basic, say that the 110VAC outlet is dangerous!
And one FREE FOR ALL to be used with EchoLink :)
What do YOU think? Are YOU ready for this?
Alex, N2NNU
|
| |
|
Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
|
|
|
by KB3JAM on February 24, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I am new to HAM Radio and currently working on my code. I don't think it should go away. I like the idea of giving some access to HF without code. I would think if someone passes the General test (but not the code) they could get access to a limited part of the HF Bands. This is simular to if you get a Tech Plus. To get more bands you would still need to pass the code to get the General.
|
| |
|
RE: Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
|
|
|
by N2NNU on February 24, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hmmm ... 150KW ??? Full Break IN ???? WOW ....
Give me your dealer phone! I'll order one maniana...
I allways dreamt to reverse engineer such a thing :)
Alex
N2NNU
|
| |
|
RE: Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
|
|
|
by N2NNU on February 24, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
My kind of man :) As I said in MY posts,
Lets have a test for OPERATORS (this includes CW)
ans lets have a test for AMATEURS!
If the OPERATORS like chocolate vanila ice cream with horse radish mustard why do have the AMATEURS to eat it
too ?
Alex, N2NNU
|
| |
|
RE: Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
|
|
|
by N2NNU on February 24, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I think it has implemented as such in UK all ready
Alex N2NNU
|
| |
|
RE: Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
|
|
|
by N2NNU on February 24, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Interesting point you make here that the abolishment of CW test might produce more CW users. It is entirely possible as many people (me included) are alerginc to nonsensical COMPELLING laws.
Good point here :)
Alex, N2NNU
|
| |
|
Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
|
|
|
by RADIO123US on February 25, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N2NNU, on your QRZ page I see your comment:
"Protesting against FCC and ARRL that do not allow European callsign equivalency in USA."
Sounds to me like you have a problem with the FCC.
Is this why you are against the CW requirements ?
The fact is, the 5wpm CW requirement is NOT an
obstacle to those that really have a desire to
learn and to follow the rules. Just because a
person doesn't want to learn CW doesn't mean the
CW requirement needs to be changed. Like I said
in my previous post, there are a large number of
CBers that would love to be able to use the HF ham
bands. CW is what is keeping them from getting a
license to do that. I would say that's a good thing.
|
| |
|
Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
|
|
|
by RADIO123US on February 25, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N2NNU, now I see what is going on !!! I found this
on the web :
The FCC has told a Technician-class operator from New York to stay off 20 meters or risk having to defend his license at a hearing. FCC Special Counsel Riley Hollingsworth wrote Alexander Sandbrand, N2NNU, of Yonkers December 12 notifying him that the FCC plans to designate his ham ticket for revocation and suspension proceedings if it learns of additional
incidents of out-of-band operation.
|
| |
|
Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
|
|
|
by RADIO123US on February 25, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N2NNU, I also found this :
Hollingsworth told ARRL that after the first Warning Notice, Sandbrand called him to complain that it wasn't fair that he had to pass additional
examination elements to operate on HF phone. "I told him if he wants to operate on HF, he has to take the test like everybody else," Hollingsworth said.
Alex, it sounds to me like you have a problem
with the rules. One thing that separates hams
from the CBers is the fact that we care about
following the rules. The law says to operate on
the HF bands we must pass a 5wpm code test. While
you may not agree with this, it doesn't change the
fact that it is the law.
|
| |
|
Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
|
|
|
by WA2JJH on February 25, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Bottom line...A split between two types of hams.
The newbies want a no code general. Those of use that have passed the 5,13,20WPM. feel that 20M will become more CB like.I THINK THAT WILL HAPPEN IN 10 YEARS!
If there was a no code general, I do not think people would go for EXTRA.
This is what I am seeing in new hams. They feel they should get voice segments 160-10M now as a no code Tech.
Learning a code gives the brain better cognitive
synapses. Code can be used in an emergency with a flash light.
You may think we are code elitist snobs. A 6 year old girl got her GENERAL ticket. Yes the code is a barrier. The FCC came up wit the TECH ticket for thos that wanted to experiment above 50MHZ. 2 meters was a big deal in the 1970's The techs were supposed to have transmitablity with Micro waves 900MHZ-40GIG.
The whole idea of the tech ticket was to be an experimenter. If you want HF phone, you just havr to do 5WPM. I found it slow.
|
| |
|
Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
|
|
|
by RADIO123US on February 25, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
WA2JJH, I agree with you. I think that this is
a reflection of society in general today. No one
wants to have to work for anything these days, whether
it be a college degree, job promotion, or ham ticket.
Those of us that believe you have to work for
what you get are seen as "snobs" or "closed minded".
Your point about the "no-code general" is right on
the money. There would be absolutely no incentive
to upgrade if such a license existed. All we would
end up with CBers in the "no-code" portions of the
HF bands. That would be a nightmare !!!
I am constantly hearing CB slang on the local 2 meter
repeater and I would shudder to think what a no-code HF
band would sound like. Wait a minute, there is a no-code HF band...it's called CB radio !!! Does anyone
like the way it sounds ???
|
| |
|
RE: Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
|
|
|
by KG4IQB on February 25, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I think this is great. I am one of those that have been worrying about doing away with the code, and ham radio going down the old cb chute. I think this is a great idea!
|
| |
|
RE: Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
|
|
|
by N2NNU on February 25, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
In response to:
Making CW More Popular... A Proposal: Reply
by RADIO123US on February 25, 2003
Big snip >>>
>I am constantly hearing CB slang on the local 2 meter
>repeater and I would shudder to think what a no-code HF
>band would sound like. Wait a minute, there is a no-code HF band...it's called CB radio !!! Does anyone
>like the way it sounds ???
I believe that there is a profound misunderstanding why a CBer is behaving as he/she is.
If any one would just stop and analyze the situation, the rogue attitude so despised
is a direct result of ANONIMITY and not to the fact that CBer do not use Code!
Get rid of the call sign for the CODE MASTERS ant they will become 10 times worse than
A CBer  Lets not kid our selves of what CODE realy is!
A NO-CODE General class will not get rid of the REQUIREMENT to identify your
self on the band! Hmmmm… did you hear much CB language on the 50.100.00 ???
or on 144.200.00 ??? I do not think so.
In contrast what I heard on 14.178.00 is much worse than a CB hornet!
And one more thing. No one wants to abolish the PRACTICE of CODE!
Just the fact that it is used as an artificial barrier between the haves’ and have not’s!
So, who is happy to “da dith dah” will continue to be able to do so. Just do
not force me to do it as YOU PLEASE!
I guess that I am arguing for Democracy –the great equalizer- in Haming 
Ah… I just had a “da dith dah” session over EchoLink with an old friend from DL land.
Can’t beat the Internet for propagation, is it not ?
OK… RADIO123US is after sensationalism. He quotes out of context for
maximum impact on the senses. A low grade journalist perhaps?
Here is the entire text as it can be seen on QRZ. You make your own decision
about the alleged “problem” :
=====================================================
First licensed in 1956 as YO4CAA. Passed CW test at 15 words per minute. Held full privelege call signs in France, Germany, Romania, Russia and Africa. Technician PLUS (in USA) class since 1990.
Protesting against FCC and ARRL that do not allow European callsign equivalency in USA.
IARU has recommended the abolishment of the CW CODE TEST as a requirement for HF privileges. Read page 27 of: http://www.darc.de/referate/ausland/iaru/iaru-documents/sm-confe rence-report.pdf paragraf O2/SM/C 3.25, 3.26, 3.27, 3.28.
You need to cut and paste the above URL as this page has problems with long URLs. An other example of mediocrity: (
Let's see now how long FCC and ARRL will drag their feet implementing it :(
================= END OF QUOTE =====================
What is YOUR call sign mister RADIO123US? And since when do you have it ?
Are you hiding behind anonymity like a CBer?
Come out and take responsibility for your writings!
You call learning CODE work ??? Hi… Hi.., Hi… What about designing and constructing a transceiver?
Or at least a good PLL! But I understand you. It is easier to clap nonsensical sentences on the manipulator rather than exercising your brain with electrical engineering formulas 
Alex, N2NNU, a happy “da dith dah” er
|
| |
|
RE: Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
|
|
|
by KG4PZZ on February 25, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
" ...FCC and ARRL that do not allow European callsign equivalency in USA. "
Well, I've racked my brain to it's limits and can't figure out just what the equivalent of a European callsign would be. Somebody care to translate and explain in little-people words?
Fred
KG4PZZ
|
| |
|
Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
|
|
|
by RADIO123US on February 26, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The bottom line is that N2NNU got busted by the FCC for operating on 20 meters with a Technician class license. It seems he doesn't care much about the rules.
Maybe the FCC wouldn't give him credit for the
CW exam he claims he took in 1956. N2NNU can you explain your "issue" with the FCC ?
|
| |
|
Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
|
|
|
by RADIO123US on February 26, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Also, so I don't get accused by N2NNU of taking
something out of context. Here is the link to the information regarding N2NNU's FCC notice.
http://www.arrl.org/arrlletter/03/0110/
http://www.arrl.org/news/enforcement_logs/2001/0825.html
http://www.arrl.org/news/enforcement_logs/2002/1224.html
|
| |
|
RE: Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
|
|
|
by KA4KOE on February 26, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"My kind of man :) As I said in MY posts,
Lets have a test for OPERATORS (this includes CW)
ans lets have a test for AMATEURS!"
-----I don't wish to give credence to people who do not take the time to learn the code the way the rest of us did as we were required to by LAW. I learned morse at age 15 with NO help from ANYONE. I am now a 35+ WPM CW operator, AND I use a BUG. So therefore, I am NOT your kind of man.
The law is the law. I diagree with the government taking so much of our money, but I still pay my taxes...I don't want to end up in the pokey learning first hand why it is called that.
Ifs ya wants to play, you gotta pay.
|
| |
|
Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
|
|
|
by WA2JJH on February 26, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
OK here is a very controversial way to make no code and code hams happy. A CW less GENERAL is out of the question! That is what the no coders really want.
How about a GENERAL MINUS ticket. They would get 25KHZ voice and CW sections on 80M 40M 15M. No they can not have the EXTRA CW 25KHZ's. Make the last 25KHZ
of 80M 40M 15M for under 5wpm CW and SSB. The ~~~~ ~~~~ would have a conditional prefix after it. like/-G.
This way they can practice CW with other non coders in the 25KHZ space. They would also have limited HF voice. Every ham buys radios that covers the full bands\and modes anyway.
Instead of having OO,s police the band, All manufacturers can put in a /-G code generator after
each transmission.
Upon upgrading to GENERAL after passing the CW test,
The manufacturer can have Email the Ham to Dial in his FCC FRS# to remove the /-G CW ID. Just have a VFO menu funtion to do this.
This would also make the FCC happy. The RIG maker would have to go to the FCC site to get the upgrade varification. The FCC will charge the manufacturer for the look up.
Avid, a non linear editing company use's this appoach. The software and hardware cost more than $80,000. Avids are just Apple computers with some extra cards for video editing. With out the dongle,one
could build an Avid for under $10,000. That is if one obtained the dongle for the editing software.
This would also limit freeband users,stolen radio's and terrorist using ham radio's for communication. The radio can be programmed to stop working, if you do not enter in a pass word on the VFO.
When you buy a New rig, the seller will have to have the VFO DIAL IN for your FCC FRS# and privledge.
This is very easy to do. With this dongle approach, every rig has the FCC FRS Number in a memory. If radio is stolen, one can make it not work. The owner would simply have a menu option for the feature. It does not have to be used. When the radio is sold, the new owner just has to VFO dial in his FRS#
With the FRS# the radio will only operate for the owner
and the licence privledge.
So you can give no code techs limited voice and CW.
They cannot operate out of 80M 40M 15M 25khz band slivers ,untill they get the 5WPM down. This would also give them great incentive to earn a real GENERAL TICKET. The GENERAL/-G would be limited by the radio for the 25KHZ CW/SSB segments. If the limited general went out of the 25khz the cw /-G IDENTIFIER would remind him and one on the air, he is out of band. he This idea would also make Ham radio's only workable to the licenced ham.
The incentive to upgrade is built into the radio!
Maybe put in a 5-13 CW code practice device.
Before everyone jumps down my back, it is just an idea. The no code techs can buy a nice full featured
radio. They will have the CW and SSB only at the end
of 160M 80M 40M 17M 15M. Only 25khz CPU limited. Upgraded with a phone call. Maybe 30KHZ of CW, and 10KHZ of SSB. That would be incentive to pass 5 WPM.
Because of the CW ID /-G prefix, The TRUE CW guys can
work on thier slow CW skills, and help a fellow ham to pass that 5WPM barrier. I feel the CW barrier may make for a ham radio civil war, if not taken are of.
(hey PHILIP can you do 3 WPM on a Vibroplex, that is hard!)
So the rig manufactures can make rigs steal proof,and
make new rigs that have the Band limits for each class.
A new ham can now buy that D.C.-450 rig now. The upgrade incentive is built into the radio! The FCC
has a track of radio's owners.
No code techs can have real practice on HF bands.
10KHZ of SSB, on certain bands. A cw id prefix, so no body will stay out.
EVERYBODY WINS?
73 AND LOTSA LAUGH'S MIKE
Just my 2 cents of literary trash!
|
| |
|
RE: Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
|
|
|
by KA4KOE on February 26, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
As a matter of fact, Mike, I can. I just tap sideways on the dah paddle like a straight key. Sounds good too. I do that rather than switch keys, as the vibroplex won't go slower than about 22 wpm.
P
|
| |
|
Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
|
|
|
by RADIO123US on February 26, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
WA2JJH, what an interesting idea !!! Why not
channelize the GENERAL MINUS segments so it will make the transition a little easier for them ???
|
| |
|
Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
|
|
|
by WA2JJH on February 27, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
OK radioman123us. I understand your concern. You are right. Your implying that freebanders would become GENERAL MINUS over night. That woould be some of the people getting the GENNERAL Minus. There might be a majority that truly do want a chance to work a tiny segment of HF CW in a real life, real time situation.
I still think the idea of all ham radio's being able to store a Hams frs# is good. It would cost the manufacturers next to nothing. If your radio is stolen b the average crackhead, your FCC FRS number is in it.
Lets say if you do not punch in your code every couple of days, your radio will only transmit your FRS#
No other function in the radio will work. ou FRS# will be transmitted every time the crook keys the mic.
It will act like a normal radio. But will transmit only
on 27.995MHZ. Hopefully it can be tracked. It will also be useless to a freebander,drug dealer, and other
scum.
I look like it this way. The way people are whining about having to learn CW to get full HF phone, there
will be a way to restrict the use of a full featured radio work on certain freqs and mods.
What ever crazy new ticket class schem the FCC will impliment, If a ham is not licenced for that mode or freq., they will not be able to transmit.
This will provide incentive and accountability.
BESIDES, MAYBE I WANT BIG BUX FOR THE PATENT!!!!!!
|
| |
|
Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
|
|
|
by WA2JJH on February 27, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Radioman123US,look at my hardware plan for all
new rigs. Your buddy N2---The one the FCC wants talk to.
With the FRS# eprom or software approach, people will not be able to transmit on 20 meters for example...If the code plug for the grade of ticket is in memory.
Or if they do, a /g- CW id gets transmitted over the air. This is fair right. Any ham or OO will know that
they have just broke an FCC law. It can be time stamped too.
This will make the revocation hearing go easier!
The ham can say a CW test is not fair, But hey his own radio warned him!!!! OH, the irony!
|
| |
|
Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
|
|
|
by N3NL on February 27, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I have a real problem with the various proposals for
ham rigs that would inforce the rules by features built
into the rig itself. What about homebrew radio
transmitters? In addition, would the modifying of your
own equipment be outlawed? Frankly, ham radio without
building, modifying, and learning electronics would
have almost no appeal at all to many of us.
If these proposals become law, it would be time to
petition for a new Experimenters Radio Service.
73, Nickolaus E. Leggett N3NL
|
| |
|
RE: Making CW More Popular... and Big Brother, too
|
|
|
by K1MKF on February 27, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I think this discussion has gone too far, way too far.
It was about how to encourage more CW ops. Now it's about Big Brother getting his hands in everyone's rig. Like Al Gore's V chip and then some. Because of the FCC I can't buy a qrp HF linear amp that are sold for a couple hundred dollars throughout the rest of the world. I also can only buy a brand new HF amp that works on 160 through 15 meters. I have to open it up to use it on 12 and 10 meters. The FCC should stick to type acceptance and enforcement. Just get on 75 and 20 meter phone everyday and listen to the crap people say and they use their callsigns! What is automatic callsign I.D. gonna do about that?
Actually maybe this discussion did encourage more CW ops. A nice and simple homebrew CW transmitter sounds pretty good after reading some of these posts.
|
| |
|
Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
|
|
|
by WA2JJH on February 27, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
YOU make a good point. Homebrewing is good, because most people build CW transmitters and receivers.
I was not even serious. I just thought if we opened the door to no code tech on HF, the next thing would be no code techs using SSB on 20M. You can go inside and modify/improve your rig all you want. Many HF rigs can transmit general coverage by snipping out a few parts. A CPU limit would prevent that. If no code techs do get HF
voice privileges, I was just suggesting a way how to limit the band use. If no code etches do get a CW/SSB section, which the author was proposing. I just came up with a way to limit the transmitter to the band segment.
It would be tempting to some no code techs to use all the bands and modes on HF.
Also having your FRS# burned in or dialed in the radio, could help with radio's that get stolen from hams.
73
|
| |
|
Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
|
|
|
by RADIO123US on February 27, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
WA2JJH, your GENERAL MINUS idea got me to
thinking....maybe a good compromise to the
no code HF license would be a one time
non-renewable license that is good for 1 year.
It would have very limited privileges and
low power levels. Also, a special callsign
would identify this type of license. This would
give the licensee the chance to use voice on
the HF bands, but would require them to pass
the 5 wpm code test before the year is over,
or lose their HF privileges until they can pass
the CW test. This would allow new hams to try out the HF bands and also provide a very strong incentive for them to learn CW and upgrade.
|
| |
|
RE: Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
|
|
|
by KG4PZZ on February 27, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Radio123, I think you might be on to something there.
Only problem is, once they learn 13+ wpm code, where to go from there? I doubt the Tech test could be made much simpler (sorry, it's the truth...), but I'm sure something could be done.
Possibly a "recognition" test like that being implemented in the UK currently could be used for this test, and then given 1 year to upgrade to the 5WPM test?
Not a bad idea, bringing back the Novice ticket. That would create a definate split in which license to get first -- the Tech or Novice. Would definately set apart quite a bit of the VHF/UHF/SHF "experimenters" and people who just want to get on and talk HF.
There could be some real valid points to that post, no matter how comical you may have been in posting it.
Fred KG4PZZ
|
| |
|
Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
|
|
|
by RADIO123US on February 27, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This is really no different than the
"try it before you but it" shareware
idea. Maybe by getting someone hooked
on HF it would then provide the incentive
to upgrade and learn CW. I feel that one of the
reasons people don't upgrade from a no-code tech
license is that there is really no motivation
to do so. If a person knew they would lose their
privileges within a year, they would really work on
upgrading. What a great way to get people to
want to learn CW !!!
|
| |
|
Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
|
|
|
by RADIO123US on February 27, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Another benefit of this type of
license would be seen a year after
it is implemented....alot of cheap,
1 year old HF gear for sale at the
hamfests !!!
|
| |
|
RE: Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
|
|
|
by W5MIT on February 27, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I think the reason new hams can't see the utility of it is because there is none. Morse code is a dieing beast that is dragging ham radio down. We need people who are interested in the new and cutting edge-- not brass pounders.
|
| |
|
Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
|
|
|
by KF6PBN on February 28, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well here is my story. I licensed in 1996. When I was a kid in Northern California a few decades ago with nothing else to do and a good radio receiver I learned code at about 9 WPM, enough for a Novice. Since the exams at that time were only at FCC locations I couldn't get my Mom to drive me the 200+ miles to an office, so no go.
Now I join the service and I'm a electronics technician (navigation) I do all the radio work I want. Next comes raising a family etc. No time. My youngest, a Boy Scout says, hey dad there is a Ham class want to go? So I did.
I've passed the General exam 2 times but cannot pass the code in 4 tries. I have a block that stops me from differentiating the characters in the word, I know, practice, but I practice at least an hour each day. So I go out a buy a 706 MkIIG so I can use CW on 6 and maybe 2 Meter, guess what nobody around on those bands to practice with. My location in hilly terrain does not allow for good propagation.
So do I like this idea, yes I do! Why not allow the NOVICE code user (a beginner learning the code) a chance to practice this mode. Maybe take it a step further and restrict the NO-CODE to a .05 Mhz bandwidth of the lower CW section of each band, gives us a place to work quietly and will make it easy for the ELMER'S to find us and help. You got my vote!
You can find me calling daily on 50.075 Mhz
Pat KF6PBN Central Coast of California
|
| |
|
Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
|
|
|
by RADIO123US on February 28, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W5MIT, morse code is our only filter
to keep the CBers off of the HF ham bands.
For the most part, it works. It's not perfect..
...just look at 75 meters....but it is all
that we have right now....
|
| |
|
Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
|
|
|
by KB3JAM on February 28, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
OK, I am a new HAM working on my code. I think the code should remain a requirement for General. However, from my view point I think there should be limited access to HF so I can learn code. If there were a regular NET on 10 Meters (a CW Only NET) would that not help me learn the code? So what I am saying is if I pass the General (written) exam why not let me have access to 10 Meters (same frequencies as Tech Plus). Then have someone setup a regular NET or NETS to help me and others learn the code. This helps get more people into CW and does not destroy the HF bands.
As for dropping the code, I think it is part of the hobby and the issue is to show why it is important. It needs to be more than a stop sign for CBers. It needs to be around for a reason. Telling the story of its history and letting people get some access to it, as I suggested on 10 Meters will make it more popular. Code is not for everyone but it seems to it is being looked at as a road block. By letting myself and others experience it some of us will get hooked and stay with it as we grow. If we don't learn the code I DO think we should still be limited. Either limit that to the 10 Meter space with Tech Plus or have the General (no code) expire after a year.
73's
|
| |
|
Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
|
|
|
by WA2JJH on February 28, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
After reading the last two post, I have changed my mind. Theses post were from no-code techs that want to up grade.
A 10M section sounds good for no code techs to practice CW. 15M due to its 450khz badwidth, would also be good for a no code tech CW portion.
It seems I have met two types of no code techs.
Those that really want to get thier GENERAL the legit way. There are a minority that will think once they have the no code tech, They can do as they please on HF. One NY guy is in trouble with the FCC because of that.
I am sure most no code techs want to earn the General
ticket. If there were 10 and 15M segments for no code tech, I would be down in those segments to help.
My 5 WPM cw after my getting my novice was not that great. I had my first CW QSO'S at a club WB2JSM. Here many hams helped me with my first ultra nerve wracking QSO's!
Many hams are just turned totally off by some no code techs, that say us code hams are relics and in the way of the state of the art.
Check out my eham profile, if you do not think I am at or above the STATE of THE ART.Some of us are in the cutting edge of electronics in fact.
Us code hams have an attitude, just like some of the no code hams.I guess it is like when a walked into a club station with my CB, and thought I knew it all I got a lot of flack.
If there were no code tech segments on HF, many code hams and I would be the first ones down their to help you OMs make your first QSO.
It is just many hams are not open to no code tech
segments, because of a minority attitude of no code techs.
Of course a few rotten apples will go on HF voice.
That is the main concern. I have received email saying
we are just relics. Relics have much knowledge to offer. Like which HF rig to buy, antenna, and other knowledge that only comes from years of operating.
Operating CW and the New digital modes.
My fear is that the Hard to earn GENERL TICKET, will
be as easy to get as a GMRS ticket. Many ham wanna be's are up thier now. It is test free 70cm in NYC.
Most of them use FCC call signs. Most do not! There are repeaters there too. Sounds like CB. Actually it is class E CB. Buy a $20 haandheld and see for your self.
Most Hams would be more then happy to work you on CW.
If you have an attitude that we are just old relics, why should we be in favor of giving up HF spectrum to you.
|
| |
|
RE: Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
|
|
|
by KB3JAM on February 28, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
WA2JJH I agree with you. a long time ago I was a CB User and that became popular and I gave up. A friend of mine got me into HAM Radio and I don't want to see it trashed. I am not sure if I am in the majority of new HAMs or if most want to do away with CW. I am working on learning the code and just purchased a keyer so I can use it when I pass the test. I am not sure how well I will do at CW but I will be giving it a try. My friend just got his extra and someday I hope to get that too. I am taking it one step at a time and doing it right (I hope). If it is worth having it is worth working for!
73's
|
| |
|
Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
|
|
|
by RADIO123US on February 28, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"If it is worth having it is worth working for!"
KB3JAM, that's a great attitude !!! I have no
doubt that you will get the Extra ticket that
you are working for....
|
| |
|
Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
|
|
|
by WA2JJH on February 28, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KB3JAM has the right attitude. I know you will go far.
There is an old saying...It don't take a brain to complain, one must make a start to make a piece of art!
I have no problem with the no-code tech licence at all. I cannot stand those that think they have to change the world, when they do not know enough about the world!
We do live in an ugly and unfair world. This same world assinates the profits who have a plan for a better world. Just look at world history for the past 2000 years . (I am paraphasing Charles Manson)Psycopathic, but he does make a point.
The the no-code tech that is under FCC investigation because he alledgly operated many times SSB on 20M, said the FCC is NOT FAIR! The FCC test schem is not fair. Capitalism is not fair. The fact that all hams
who do operate HF-SSB past a CW test is not fair.
It is a conspiracy against his political beliefs is not fair. The fact that he received many warnings from many OO's and FCC warnings first is not fair!
Its not fair that I do not date Britney Spears!
I have to relearn advanced Calculus to get my Masters in BIO-MEDICAL engineering. I know much of the calculus will not be used for new devices. However by forcing myself to relearn math I had 20 years ago will make my mind sharper for the ultra high tech state of the art medical devices, materials, and techniques.
Some really incredible things.
I feel the same is with CW. It is a barrier to some yes. However speaking only for myself, just getting my mind set to learn CW made the other elements easier to
pass. KB3JAM you are on the right track.
As Radioman123 pointed out, it is easier to do it..then just to complain about having to do it.
The idea Radioman123us had is not a bad one.
In the OLD days a NOVICE ticket was only good for 2 Years. I guess the FCC thought that was not fair! This
made people upgrade to TECHNICIAN or GENERAL. If you could not get up to 13WPM and passed element 3, you got the TECHNICIAN. One had monthly attepts to get to pass the 13WPM. If you choose not too, you could always try later. Many became technicians just for 2 meters. Some technicians pioneered 440 and above.
I guess it would be fair to let no code techs to have some HF-CW, so they can pass 5WPM. Maybe 1 year is not fair, lets make it two years. One would think after 2 years of CW, you should not only pass, but want to go for EXTRA.
|
| |
|
Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
|
|
|
by NJ6F on March 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
CW to me is like a form of meditation. Yes it is soothing and enjoyable when you are in the mood for it.
But why not PSK31 or some other digital means with error correction if needed. I find the enjoyment in the conversation content, not the slow process of dealing with CW. Yes I am an Extra and like CW to a point but so many more people can be brought in if we make our tests harder in the Q&A section not the act of being able to read Morse.
Getting through... what is this about... it reminds me of having a backup rig...what bull... ever hear of SSB or changing to a better band...thats why we have multiple bands, or the internet......don't let me go there... Check out Echolink, it puts all this getting thru stuff to shame. If we all know in our hearts that CW will die sooner or later, lets be realists and get on with the program of at least keeping Ham Radio as a hobby before it dies just because someone could copy code or not.... is not a measure of a good Ham to me. Love affairs with CW, like old girlfriends will fade fast. Thanks for trying to understand a different view.
|
| |
|
Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
|
|
|
by RADIOWEENIE on March 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
KD7KGX, i think your idea is an excellent one! The *only* change i would suggest would be to limit the HF CW operations to strict QRP levels i.e. 5W, (and not 10W). There are many people who have DXCC QRP. As for me i am working on it myself!
|
| |
|
RE: Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
|
|
|
by RADIOWEENIE on March 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
N2NNU, why don't you study up on the Morse Code? All you need do is open the dictionary to Morse Code, photocopy the list of characters, and memorize it in less than one day. Then you will be at ~4 wpm! You KNOW that Techs are not allowed to operate SSB on the low bands! What is the big deal about all this?
|
| |
|
Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
|
|
|
by N2JDQ on September 6, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I love when people compair modes. ' Why cw when there is psk ' My word.. Why radio waves when there is tcp/ip.. this is radio, and its multitude of modes. Why cw? here is my 2 cents...
Dont sell cw on spectrum...
Sell it on its USEFULLNESS!
Take a pc out of the equasion.. and cw IS the most reliable form of communications PERIOD.
Show perspective hams the difference of a SSB signal @ noise floor or even durring AURORA vs. CW.
I challenge somne one to win a VHF contest on SSB ALONE! It will NEVER EVER EVER EVER may I add EVER happen. Try dooing moon bounce on a budget w/o CW may happen on ocassion but wont be very fun.
Glorifing spectrum space wont sell cw... Lowering the requirments of Cw DEFINATALLY wont sell cw. U must sell cw for what it is CW!
U will never hear a car salesmen say.. If u buy this car, U will be able to go from here to there! Thats just not enough. You must sell its outstanding abilities and usefullness.
Thanx
-Steve Raas
N2JDQ
k
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Related News & Articles
Does Anyone Live in Idaho?
Finally, Enough Nerve to Get on the Air!
The Hijacking of 40-Meter CW
CW and SSB Coexisting
How is Your Call for DX'ing?
Other Opinion Articles
EMP a Real Threat to Hams and the USA
High Speed Packet?
Amateur Internet
40 Meters -- What Are You Doing?
Aren't We All In This Together?
|
