Another Approach to Ham Radio?
Jurgen 'Jo' Geldhof (ON5MF)
on
March 31, 2003
View comments about this article!
A friend of mine found this on the Internet:
Ham radio -
big yawn.
You can't talk to anyone unless they too have passed an exam about how
to
build their own rig - very likely. Throw in the need to use your
callsign all
the time and keep a log book and you've a good recipe for boredom. And
they
all talk funny. For ages. About boring things. And they spell out
laughing as
HI! (LOL!)
Local potential : why not just phone them up?
DX
potential :
great so long as you want to learn the morse code!
For those interested, the entire text can be found at
http://www.geocities.com/euro446/
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
|
Another Approach to Ham Radio?
|
|
|
by KZ1X on March 31, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
HI
Not everybody gets it.
Try this one:
General Aviation: Big yawn. You can't just get in a plane and go where you want, there is a BIG Government test and months of expensive lessons to take. And when you're done, you are only qualified to fly a small plane that barely goes faster than a car, holds only 4 people, and still costs as much as a house does! Navigation points for most any trip are identified by Morse code, can you believe it? Nobody wants to be near a place where these things take off and land from. Plus it costs MORE per mile to run the small plane than flying on a commercial jet, which gets you there even faster.
Local potential: crazy, use a car
DX potential: even worse, try Orbitz.com
|
| |
|
Another Approach to Ham Radio?
|
|
|
by WB5PLJ on March 31, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
What urks me is that they didn't even bother to find out the truth before putting up that drivle. I am asuming that they are lazy, eithor that or they are out right lying. I didn't notice an email add on the site. but I did notice a line saying that some magaziene suggested their pages. maybe I will write to the magazine. you can't make people drink from the troth but you could at least lead them to a troth as opposed to bucket of dirt.
|
| |
|
RE: Another Approach to Ham Radio?
|
|
|
by KX8N on March 31, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
When you look at the whole site, it's not surprising. They are trying to promote their radio service - PMR446. They also bash every other means of communication in existence other than their own. So what's the big deal? The page is basically an ad. Ads usually bash the competitors.
|
| |
|
RE: Another Approach to Ham Radio?
|
|
|
by KG4RUL on March 31, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Oh Yeah!
These are the ones that were petitioning the FCC for permission to use these HT's in the U.S.. Unfortunately, their frequencies just happen to be in the 70cm band.
445.00-447.00 Shared by auxiliary and control links, repeaters and simplex (local option)
446.00 National simplex frequency
PMR466 Channels
446.000----band edge
1 - 446.00625 (446.005)
446.0125
2 - 446.01875 (446.020)
446.025
3 - 446.03125 (446.030)
446.0375
4 - 446.04375 (446.045)
446.050
5 - 446.05625 (446.055)
446.0625
6 - 446.06875 (446.070)
446.075
7 - 446.08125 (446.080)
446.0875
8 - 446.09375 (446.095)
446.100----band edge
After trying to use FRS radios, and listening to the CB type operations that FRS users like, I can't believe that having these folks here in this country would be a good idea!
Dennis - KG4RUL
BTW - I still think morse code should be dropped from the General licensing requirements.
|
| |
|
RE: Another Approach to Ham Radio?
|
|
|
by N6TGK on March 31, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Interesting points being made here...except the one about dropping morse code for General. Actually, I won't say that it's not an interesting point. Everyone has a right to their opinion. At first I thought the comment was unwarranted...didn't fit the topic. But after I thought about it, I realized that it did. Outsiders probably think CW is ancient and needs to be done away with. While I'm not really pro-code per se, I certainly don't think it should be dropped AT ALL for HF privileges. 5 wpm is not that difficult. What it really comes down to is the unwillingness of people to learn. Everyone these days wants something for nothing, especially American society. Back 15 years ago when I got out of high school I remember a fellow HAM who, at the time, was a pilot in the Navy and he was spouting off about the requirements for various jobs. Basically, what he was saying was that there's been a trend to make any test required for a job (i.e. law enforcement, civil service) easier to pass instead of educating people. The end result being you have the people but lack the quality and caliber. At the time, I thought, "What does he know?" But he was and is absolutely right. Any person can study for and pass a multiple choice test. Any person can study for and pass a morse code test. The difference? Morse code takes more time and therefore most people don't want to mess with it. They just want the instant gratification. Back "in the day" when I took the test, you had to get 24 consecutive characters correct to pass. Now you can also take a multiple choice test based on what was sent so if you didn't get the 24 characters right, you still had a chance. It can't get any easier. Oh, I guess it can...give it to me for free.
|
| |
|
Another Approach to Ham Radio?
|
|
|
by K7LCS on March 31, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
BIG YAWN......BUT,,IT SEEMS EACH SUBJECT ON THIS FORUM USUALLY GETS AROUND TO "DOING AWAY WITH CW"///BIGGER YAWN........CW TODAY, CW TOMORROW, CW FOREVER....
|
| |
|
Another Approach to Ham Radio?
|
|
|
by RAD1OMAN on March 31, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I do want to thank them for the heads up! Now I know where to listen during the winter (ski season) or even while in Miami in the summer.
And to think there was a request (by some LID) to allow these EuroFRS radios to operate in the USA.
As for the geocities site, it is just one big love fest for this tiny, milliwatt noise makers (all other services can't compare to our 500mw UHF radios, and we will tell you how to inductively couple a bowtie antenna!)...
not just a big yawn, but a HUGE YAWN.
|
| |
|
Another Approach to Ham Radio?
|
|
|
by KB1JPB on March 31, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
This just seems silly. MURS does everything these people want to do (and maybe more), and doesn't require a license. I don't understand what they're on about.
|
| |
|
Another Approach to Ham Radio?
|
|
|
by ZL2FZ on March 31, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well folks here we go again.......should we have to pass 5 words or not? Well down here in zl country, in my opinion if they dont drop it then...there wont be many hams left! As always with this type of arguement there are those( old school boy type....i did it so everyone else must) who say that....well we all know what their opinions on morse are dont we( yawn).
As with most things in todays society, things progress at a great speed of nots.......internet, comp specs..i could go on for ever.........what this hobby needs is to come into the new milenium and ask what is really needed to bring in more people to this dying hobby! I dont mean that the tickets should be handed out willy nilly........how about we keep the entry exam and then if the operator wishes to transmit on the HF bands he should have a kind of probation time( say 1 yr) if in that year he steps out of line then he isnt allowed to transmit on the hf bands.A fellow ham could be his big brother and make sure that he adhears to the correct procedures etc. If he then wishes to use cw then he has the option to go and do so( sit a test).
But what the hell would i know!
|
| |
|
RE: Another Approach to Ham Radio?
|
|
|
by VK4TGM on March 31, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I'm new to ham radio, having just recently passed my theory and regulations exams. This allows me to operate UHF and VHF. I'm starting out on 2m FM and have just bought a Yaesu FT230R rig. My plan is to live on 2m for a year or so, then sit my 10wmp CW exam to upgrade to HF. This way I reckon I have an approach that gives me something to aim for, it gives me a challenge and it gives me some excitement in my new hobby. During this year, I plan to homebrew a CW transmitter, probably on 40m. That way, when the time comes, my excitement and anticipation levels will be just right. So, what do I think about this current thread? I like things just like they are, and if they chance, so what? I make my own 'rules' and goals to ensure I get out of the hobby exactly what I expect. For me, it's still an adventure, and I am constantly astounded that, with the aid of a few tiny and rediculously cheap electronic components, I can build something that will allow me to be heard far away.
73 Grant.
|
| |
|
Another Approach to Ham Radio?
|
|
|
by N0MTY on March 31, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I had to laugh when I saw the frequency range that guy was referring to, given that it's in our band. The equipment's junk too. However, don't discount his viewpoint before you walk a mile in his shoes. He clearly lacks some knowledge, but that's not exactly his fault. Responsibility for your actions and respect for others is not being taught much today, given the continual degradation of our school system, teacher layoffs, absentee parents that let TV raise their kids, and things like that. Those things are apparent in many posts on here when posters show they have little comprehension of English, don't know the difference between 'your' and you're, or 'to' and 'too', or 'there' and 'their'. Gotta give the first poster credit, he got those parts right anyway, he's not stupid, and for what he lacks a lot of us are responsible. Additionally, they grow up with cellphones, pagers, the internet, and such, so don't understand the concept and need for licenses and callsigns. I can't say I ever went to a school and took time to teach anyone there anything about amateur radio, and until I do I'm part of the problem. All I ever did was get a couple of neighbors into the hobby. While the original poster's misinformed and misguided, let's spread the responsibility for that among those who aren't part of the solution, part of making amateur radio pertinent to today and relevant for tomorrow.
And as far as the deterioration to a CW or not CW fight this is growing into, well, let's just make the rules so that you need to pass a separate test for each mode you want to use, but not for those you don't. Tradition is what will kill ham radio. When you get your private pilot's license you're not required to learn celestial navigation, when you get a driver's license you're no longer required to have a guy with a flag walk a ways in front of your car to avoid scaring the horses, so why pass a test on any single mode of emission unless/until you choose to use it? Let's have a decent knowledge test on all of them individually, including voice, or just those you'll use, let the individual decide. Only the oldfarts think we need CW for a 'filter'. No, I don't disrespect those who like CW or any mode in any way, only those who want to keep the CW test for 'tradition' or as a 'filter', so please, no flames.
We have to realize that if we don't grow and change with the times, we're risking losing all we worked for in ham radio. I for one don't want to see that happen. That original poster may one day be a legislator. Anyone can get elected. There's room in the hobby for everyone that learns how it works and passes the tests, and we as a community need to find ways to help educate the rest about how ham radio works and stop trying to present more and more obstacles to people who might find an interest.
73! N0MTY Joe
|
| |
|
RE: Another Approach to Ham Radio?
|
|
|
by N2OBY on April 1, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Grant,
Great attitude! Setting your own goals and doing what you've got to do to get what you want out of this or ANY hobby is what it's all about. If we all followed some perceived course of action, we wouldn't have as much, if any fun.
Welcome to the hobby and good luck with your homebrewed projects. Make sure to share the results here.
73,
Ken N2OBY
|
| |
|
RE: Another Approach to Ham Radio?
|
|
|
by N6HBJ on April 1, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Do other countries still require HAMs to keep logs?-because we don't do that here in the USA for many years now.
5 wpm CW is really VERY easy to learn. It is SO slow that simple memorization (instead of hearing the pattern), is all you need to pass the test. Really these guys who bitch about CW are so lazy. Geez, make a little effort why dontcha? It can be mastered in a few weeks! If its that much of a pain then you must not really be that interested in HF. HAM radio is a PRIVIEDGE not a RIGHT. You want it bad enough, you'll work for it! And it ain't that much work.
And for all you chicken littles out there. HAM radio is not dying for chrissakes. It is a fringe hobby that happens to be at an all time high here in the USA. The bands are crowded enough as it is!
|
| |
|
RE: Another Approach to Ham Radio?
|
|
|
by N0MTY on April 1, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I didn't initially plan to add anything more to this thread, and I thought what I said up the log a ways spoke for itself. But, I see the poster that says CW is easy and all that. Well, sir, I agree. It was and is easy. I easily passed the first time, and have no further interest in it, not used it at all since.No, I'm not at all lazy, and yes, I'm very interested in and enjoy HF SSB. What I want to know is why, other than because it's currently required by the FCC, anyone needs to be tested on any specific mode he or she is not planning to use? There's not another mode of operation for which there's a specific test, nor is one required. I suggested that there be established question pools for every mode of operation, and the licensee that plans to use that mode can be expected to pass the specific test. Seems pretty simple. Entirely too many oldfarts think our hobby needs 'filters' or must maintain some sort of 'tradition'. I refer you to my previous post's paragraph regarding tradition, and add that I feel it serves no one but those living in the past and hinders those who desire to live in the present and walk into the future. I don't want to fight about CW or not, I already passed that test anyway and couldn't care less what mode anyone runs, I just had to respond to the last poster. My point is simply that there's just one mode of emission that has and requires a separate test, while AM, SSB, RTTY, AMTOR, packet, APRS and all the other acronyms don't require a separate test. We'd do well to do away with that sort of 'traditional' thinking, it serves no one. I'd like to see more young people learn about amateur radio, and that means making it relevant and accessible, and giving more of them a chance to see what we can do with what we have. I'm afraid that once we start trying, a bunch of 'traditional' oldfarts and 'filtering' elitists will turn them off before they see the good part of the hobby. How sad for them, and for us, because the future is for them, and they will judge us.
|
| |
|
RE: Another Approach to Ham Radio?
|
|
|
by N6HBJ on April 2, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well I'll tell you why: EMERGENCIES
1. CW is a UNIVERSAL LANGUAGE. So if there is an emergency and the only station you can raise does not speak your language (it can happen-think of all the maritime HAMs), even if you don't speak his language, you WILL be able to communicate.
2. CW is the MOST EFFICIENT form of communications. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING cuts through the noise better than CW. If there happens to be a station in distress (once again maritime being the most likely), that has to resort to CW because he has a very weak signal due to low power or poor conditions and he is sending out an S.O.S., one would hope that someone will be able to understand his CW. It may be the only way he can reach anyone. Hopefully that someone will be able to communicate with him and not just pass over his call for help because he thinks it is just a routine QSO.
3. And yes, tradition and history. Spending a few weeks learning a little CW to appreciate what our forefathers before us did ain't gonna hurt anyone. It might actually make them appreciate HAM radio that much more!
|
| |
|
RE: Another Approach to Ham Radio?
|
|
|
by ON5MF on April 2, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Is it really necessary for you guys to get into a CW/no CW discussion every time you get the slightest chance ?
This is a never ending story...
|
| |
|
RE: Another Approach to Ham Radio?
|
|
|
by N6HBJ on April 2, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
HAM HAM HAM HAM HAM HAM HAM HAM HAM HAM HAM HAM HAM HAM HAM HAM HAM HAM HAM HAM HAM HAM HAM HAM HAM HAM HAM HAM HAM HAM HAM HAM HAM HAM HAM HAM HAM HAM HAM HAM HAM HAM HAM HAM HAM HAM HAM HAM HAM HAM HAM HAM HAM HAM HAM HAM HAM HAM HAM HAM HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
|
| |
|
RE: Another Approach to Ham Radio?
|
|
|
by KX8N on April 2, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
You know, with all the complaining, fighting, and moaning about restructuring, CW, "real hams", "CB hams", and everything else, I'm surprised anyone on the air will talk to anyone else. I guess that's just a matter of time.
|
| |
|
RE: Another Approach to Ham Radio?
|
|
|
by N6HBJ on April 2, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Hey KZ0ZZ, do you have a REAL call? Or are you just another wise ass wannabe?
|
| |
|
RE: Another Approach to Ham Radio?
|
|
|
by N0MTY on April 2, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
LOL! All that and $1.50 will buy me a cup of coffee... well, yeah, and free refills too. Here in Midwestern America, had I an emergency, I'm not too worried about getting help from a foreign ham that doesn't speak English. No offense to foreign hams, of course, but it's gonna reach me from closer than that.
Given all those who choose to enjoy CW, I have no doubt that for many years to come there'll be plenty listening should some maritime station need help. Well, not any governmental agency of course, and I'm led to believe that not too many ships still use CW, but assuming they do, they'll be likely to find plenty of listeners.
My point was not to put down CW, but to say that each mode should be tested individually, and that test required of those who choose to use that mode, and no single mode test shall be required. I think it's best to require that any licensee qualify on -some mode-, of course, but the one or more of his/her choice. Those who like CW may of course still test for and use it, and the test can be set as high as the CW ops decide to petition the FCC for.
I passed my CW test at 5wpm easily, could have probably gone in at ten, but I had no interest and no plan to remember it. I'd say that most who aren't interested in CW did pretty much the same. So, the test for us was merely a filter set arbitrarily, having no other purpose for us whatsoever.
As for your tradition, well, I can't say what comes to mind initially. I will say that I believe it's meaningless, you can read all about it in any number of books. If we stuck to tradition we'd all be required to build and demonstrate all radios before they're accepted and we can be licensed, and of course the other arguments I originally posted regarding tradition. As a species we're entirely too blindly dependent on tradition and rituals, instead of thinking for ourselves and choosing those traditions and rituals we find meraningful, individually want to recognize and practice, and too often those things become enforced. Tradition is meaningless beyond a point of perspective. It will serve us well to read and learn about it, I believe that sincerely, and those that CHOOSE to practice it are very welcome and encouraged to do so. I simply think it should not be required, no rational argument can be made for requiring a test on any mode based merely on tradition. Heck, there's other old ham stuff that needs more to be made a 'tradition', like common courtesy, mutual respect, and simple good manners.
I was initially just replying to the first poster who seemed uninformed, and to make the point that we'd better start informing and teaching people, and making ham radio relevant to new people, else we're going to find them cutting our spectrum up for sale and limiting us in other ways because they have no interest or knowledge. That would be sad. How many schools have you been to to teach about ham radio? How many field days, N6HBJ, have you helped set up in places where a lot of people would see and have a chance to ask questions, and become involved somehow? What have YOU done to promote ham radio and encourage new ops? Or are you just relying on some obsolete tradition to keep our spectrum and rights?
Once again this has deteriorated to the CW or not CW fight, and that wasn't my intention. I don't play that, doesn't matter to me how you emit. I will say it once more and be done....
Test each mode a licensee chooses to use. Test every mode a licensee chooses to use. Test only those modes a licensee chooses to use. At initial licensing, a licensee needs to choose at least one mode to be tested on. Further testing on other modes can be done at any time by the usual testing plan. No single mode shall be required, all shall be encouraged.
Bottom line- If we don't make ham radio relevant and applicable to today and the future, we deserve to be relegated to the past, simple as that, and mark my words, it can happen. If we need to change how we do things, let's not choke on some silly tradition, let's do what needs to be done. Above all, don't you yourself, or as a group, work to place and keep obstacles to interested persons. "Well, if I had to do it, they should too!" Horsepuckey! That's a childish attitude that darn sure spells disaster. What reasonable person thinks like that? The young people I know don't, maybe they're more adult than we give them credit for in a lot of ways. Let's try to wlecome them, teach them, make ham radio for today and tomorrow, not make it a relic of the past that died for it's 'tradition' and 'filters' and failure to adapt. I'd like to redirect this thread to, as it should, be in response to the initial poster, whom I think is finding all this hugely funny, and perhaps even reinforcing his belief.
I'm done....
|
| |
|
RE: Another Approach to Ham Radio?
|
|
|
by VK4TGM on April 2, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
G'day once again from Brisbane, Australia. Fellas, I have been following this debate with interest, and I must say, in my opinion NOMITY speaks sense. I like what I hear him say. And I like how he says it. But be that as it may, my overriding impression at this point is that you guys in the States sure use strange language when describing one another. I'm not trying to be 'anti American' or anything, but let me explain ... I read that you call each other old farts. Now to my antipodean ear that has a rather derrogatory tone to it. I realise that I have probably missed the real meaning, not being American, but let me add this: here in Australia we call everyone 'Mate'. It's an easy way of referring to someone if you don't know, or can't remember, there name. Every thing is mate this, and mate that. "Yes, mate, I can understand," or "Mate, what the hell are you doing?" It is even used to tone down an intended arrogant or aggressive attack on someone, like "Mate, what kind of a dickhead are you?"
So my point is this: we are into communication in general, right? Then why take such a confrontational appraoch to it? By choosing one's words carefully, you can help ensure your communicative exchange will be fruitful, meaningful, and more imprtantly, successful. I like the way NOMITY has handled himself (I'm presuming it is a he) during this debate and I applaud him.
But what would I know? I'm new to ham radio (I've yet to make my first contact) and I live in the land Down Under.
73
Grant
|
| |
|
RE: Another Approach to Ham Radio?
|
|
|
by WA9SVD on April 2, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
RE: Emergencies and CW:
I have to disagree. CW is NOT a universal language. If a foreign operator is sending is German, Spanish, Kanji, of Greek, how many American operators will understand what they are saying? Do many U.S. operators know the Japanese Code characters? CW is NOT just American "English." Just because there IS an "International Morse Code" doesn't mean it must or will be used.
|
| |
|
RE: Another Approach to Ham Radio?
|
|
|
by N6HBJ on April 2, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
WA9SVD. You are dead WRONG! CW IS a universal language. QRZ, QTH, SOS, QSL, etc etc ALL MEAN THE SAME THINGS IN EVERY LANGUAGE. Oviously you can send English or Spanish or whatever but the Q codes are universal. And in an emergency, the Q codes will get you through to the other person regardless of his spoken language. Got it buddy? Or are you a no coder?
|
| |
|
RE: Another Approach to Ham Radio?
|
|
|
by N6HBJ on April 2, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N0MTY,
Field day this field day that, blah blah blah. OK so now we all know that instead of sticking to the issue of CW you choose instead to turn and point fingers. Not only that but now you are somehow psychic and can tell me all about my personal contributions to HAM radio. Who I am and what I've done is irrelevant. Lets stick with the issue here.
Regardless of your opinion of tradition it is undisputable that CW is the most efficient method of communications during poor conditions. You just might never know when that old decrepid CW might come in handy.
If you are a maritime vessel in international waters, the only person who answers your distress call may in fact be a non English speaking HAM. Or maybe you are running out of power and the band conditions are poor so CW is the best choice. You just never know.
I never suggested that HAM radio shouldn't progress with the times but there are some milestones and traditions that should never be forgotten. I believe CW should be one of them.
If someone is too much of a crybaby to become a HAM because he doesn't want to spend a few simple weeks practicing CW than I say good riddance.
|
| |
|
RE: Another Approach to Ham Radio?
|
|
|
by ANONYMOUSBOB on April 2, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Maritime vessels" aren't even required to know CW. Name ANY instances, other than someone on some boat, where CW saved a life in the last 20 years! That's just total garbage in 2003. Slavery was a very very old tradition in the states, too, but that doesn't mean it was right or should be kept for old time's sake.
CW tests should be required to use CW portions of the bands. Plain and simple. CW serves no purpose today other than to rack up points in contests, or to earn awards. With today's equipment standards, there's nothing that can be done with CW that can't be done with SSB.
|
| |
|
Another Approach to Ham Radio?
|
|
|
by WN3VAW on April 3, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Getting back to the original post for a moment...
This only goes to prove that the Internet is the ultimate expression of GIGO. It's actually quite sad that someone would be superficial enough to believe that at drivel at face value, but there are those in the world lazy enough to do so without doing their own research. And there are those who assume that if it's posted to the net, it must be true.
There is little we can do about either of those attitudes as it exposes an individual with a bankrupt education. So sigh and move on. It's not worth getting your dander up.
Now back to your irregularly scheduled skirmish in the eHam code/nocode war.
|
| |
|
RE: Another Approach to Ham Radio?
|
|
|
by KB0NLY on April 3, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
CAN WE POSSIBLY FLOG THIS DEAD HORSE ANYMORE ABOUT THE CW/NON-CW DEBATE FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!!
How does every subject turn into this. I can't wait until the WRC2003 is over and CW has been removed, just imagine all the bitching on here then!
73,
Scott, KB0NLY
|
| |
|
CW useful for emergencies?
|
|
|
by KD7KGX on April 3, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well... there was an instance a few years back where a ham in the Oregon backcountry had vehicle problems and was stranded for more than a week. He was on medication and didn't have any, and was quickly reduced to immobility and partial paralysis. He couldn't talk, but could still squeeze his hands. He managed to summon help via squeezing SOS on his VHF mobile rig's microphone PTT until someone finally heard him and asked if they could help. He used Morse Code to tell the other ham where he was, and he was rescued.
There was another instance where a ham who was backpacking in the BC wilderness fell into a river and lost most of his gear. He managed to keep a bag that had a little QRP kit transceiver, so he set that up and started calling SOS. A YL ham who was monitoring the QRP calling freqs heard his signal and was able to contact him, find out where he was, and send in an SAR team. The ham was suffering from hypothermia when he was rescued and wouldn't have lived another day.
A cruise ship was off of Alaska when it suffered a fire in the engine room. The ship had the latest satcomm emergency gear on board, but the fire destroyed the electrical generating capabilities of the ship and it was drifting and taking on water (pumps weren't working). The satcomm system was useless without power to aim the antenna and operate the radio. The radio op managed to take the old HF CW rig (supposed to have been removed but luckily it was still on board) and get it running using some batteries out of emergency lights, and was able to contact a US ham who called the Coast Guard and directed them to the ship. The Coast Guard delivered personnel and equipment via helicopter, and arranged for a tug to deliver the ship to port.
All of these incidents happened since 1985. Two of them happened since 1990. If the sending op and the receiving op hadn't been required to know CW to get their license, then these rescues wouldn't have happened and people would have died.
So... Morse Code has saved lives in the recent past, just as it has saved lives since the Titanic radioed the Carpathia.
Radio spectrum isn't infinite. We hams earn our privileges by possessing sufficient technical skills to be able to step in and handle communications when the regular infrastructure breaks. We also provide a useful 'listening' service on our bands... just ask those people above if they're glad hams are required to learn CW at a minimum level of competence. I don't care if you're a 'super-tech' who can build a PC using only your teeth, or rewrite Linux in your sleep without a text editor... if you can't rig up an antenna that will work on a specific frequency without a tuner, if you can't design and build a circuit that will power any specific DC rig (HT or mobile or base) off of a car battery without blowing the radio or the battery up, if you can't send and receive information by voice using the ITU Phonetic alphabet, or if you can't send and receive a message using Morse at 5 wpm or better, then you do not possess the skills you need to be essential during an EmComm situation. Sure... you can maybe pass voice messages, but what good are you when something breaks?
The spirit of amateur radio is not embodied by anyone who refuses to learn a valuable skill. Nor is it found in someone who memorizes the answers to enough questions in the pool to pass the Extra exam yet can't erect a dipole and prune it for low SWR, can't adjust their HF rig to eliminate splatter during PSK ops, and doesn't understand all of the controls on their rig and how and when to use them. Instead, it lives in the person who is inspired to get into ham radio to learn more about the magic of radio, who studies for their tests and aces them, who endeavors to be a respected operator thru recognition of their skills instead of the class of license they hold, and who is something more than an appliance operator. Really... which type of operator do you want to be? Which type of operator are you now?
No-coders spend more time and effort refusing to learn code than it would take to learn CW sufficiently to pass the 5 wpm test. I don't understand them... are you no-coders too stupid to understand why a minimum skill at CW is useful, or are you just too stubborn to admit that maybe learning something useful just might help both you and your community?
|
| |
|
RE: Another Approach to Ham Radio?
|
|
|
by N6HBJ on April 3, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
ANONYMOUSBOB=Another wannabe with no call who doesn't know squat.
It has only been recently that maritime requirements dropped the CW portion for their shipboard radio operators. Prior to that ALL operators had to know CW and monitor the emergency CW requency of 500khz. So there are probably hundreds of CW distress calls over the years if not thousands.
With the use of satelites as part of the communications for vessels, CW has only RECENTLY fallen by the wayside.
It is still a valuable SKILL which may be useful in helping a vessel in distress since all vessels can't afford satelite communications. Some poor fisherman off the coast of Latin America may need help and all us no code HAMs would simply ignore him and think he is playing with his toy because we all didn't know a distress call when we hear one.
I know it doesn't mean jack to you because you aren't the one on the water. But that rare incidence when it helps is very much worth the few weeks of training it takes to learn it. And once you learn it, you never forget it. I haven't used it for 15 years but I still remember 90% of it. Course you probably wouldn't know about that cause you apparently don't even have a call sign.
|
| |
|
RE: Another Approach to Ham Radio?
|
|
|
by N6HBJ on April 3, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
And BTW, your wrong also about the CW vs SSB. CW cuts through the noise much better than SSB-period. Maybe if you had a ham liscense you would know such things.
|
| |
|
RE: CW useful for emergencies?
|
|
|
by N6HBJ on April 3, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
KD7KGX. That was an excellant post. It is good to find hams like yourself that can put these lazy no coders in perspective. If anyone disputes the validity of CW after reading your post, then they surely are ignorant!
|
| |
|
RE: Another Approach to Ham Radio?
|
|
|
by ANONYMOUSBOB on April 3, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Your ranting is enjoyable to read, but you still didn't name one single instance, maritime or not, where CW alone saved a life in the last 20 years. Still trying to find one?
|
| |
|
RE: Another Approach to Ham Radio?
|
|
|
by KA4KOE on April 3, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well well well....looks like the kiddies are arguing about CW again.
Now, remember what mommie and daddie said the last time we had this problem? If you can't play nice we will take away your radios for a week and you'll have to go stand in the corner.
Jordan, You get to play with the microphone.
Sissy, You get to play with Daddie's bug.
Tell your friends you can't have company tonight because you have to do your homework.
|
| |
|
RE: Another Approach to Ham Radio?
|
|
|
by N6HBJ on April 3, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
ANONYMOUSBOB,
Oh sure, I've spent the last 10 years searching for specific incidents and have them logged just in case a gutless chickenshit moron who hides behind "ANONYMOUSBOB" decides to challenge me. I guess you're not a REAL ham are you?
Oh pooh pooh, you really got me with that one.
|
| |
|
RE: Another Approach to Ham Radio?
|
|
|
by N6HBJ on April 3, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
ANONYMOUSBOB HERE DIPSTICK READ THIS:
CW Super-Station Operator at Globe Wireless Saves a Life at Sea
Radio Officer in California Alerts Authorities to Man-Overboard Situation in the Gulf of Mexico
Half Moon Bay, California (August 8, 1997):
The life of a ships cook was saved today by the efforts, in part, of an alert Radio Officer at the CW Super-Station operated by Globe Wireless in Half Moon Bay, California.
Walter J. Kane, III, was on duty at the CW Super-Station control point in California. From there he was monitoring the receivers connected to high-gain antennas at four radio stations on the U.S. East, Gulf and West coasts (KFS, KPH, WCC and WNU).
He heard a distress call from the vessel Oituz and relayed the information to the United States Coast Guard. The Coast Guard, in turn, called in the Mexican Navy who affected the rescue of the, by then, very wet cook.
The detailed account below is in Mr. Kanes own words:
At approximately 1745UTC, I detected a weak Morse Code signal on one of my local scanners calling WCC. I answered the call, from the general cargo vessel Oituz, radio call sign YQIE, (on 8 MHz) and received a message which read:
FROM MV OITUZ YQIE TO ALL SHIPS STOP PSN 1848N/09459W FROM VERA CRUZ TO FRONTERA REPORTED MAN OVERBOARD / COOK DESPINA GHEORGHE / MALE / ROMANIAN NATIONALITY STOP MASTER
I asked the ship to standby and telephoned the US Coast Guard Rescue Coordination Center (RCC) in New York who then teleconferenced me with the Duty Officer at USCG District 8 (New Orleans). The Duty Officer plotted the vessel's position; it seems the vessel was actually in Mexican territorial waters, near Vera Cruz, Mexico, outside the jurisdiction of the USCG.
RCC asked me to ask the vessel if they were searching the area. With an exchange of Morse Code messages, the Captain responded that he had a lifeboat in the water and was searching. Upon relaying that information, the USCG indicated that all they could do was pass the information the Mexican Navy.
Later, I called Petty Officer Taylor at USCG District 8 and he told me that they had to enlist the services of an AT&T interpreter but did get the message across to the Mexican Navy. At approximately 1915 UTC the ships radio officer called, using Morse Code, to say:
1850 UTC CREW MEMBER REPORTED MISSING WAS FOUND ALIVE BY MEXICAN NAVY STOP THANKS FOR YOU AND ALL ALERTED STATIONS
I called Petty Officer Taylor back to give him the good news and his response was: "I feel good today, knowing I helped save someone's life."
I replied: "Me, too."
A short time later the ship sent a message to it's owners which read, in part,
2/8/1600LT/2100UTC S.A.R. OPERATION FINISHED STOP COOK DESPINA GHEORGHE OVERBOARD SAVED ALIVE BY MEXICAN NAVY A03 IN PSN 1848N/09459W STOP PATIENT AT PRESENT ON BOARD OF MEXICAN NAVY A03 UNDER MEDICAL ASSISTANCE IN ROUTE TO COATSA COALCOS FOR REPATRIATION STOP
|
| |
|
RE: Another Approach to Ham Radio?
|
|
|
by N6HBJ on April 3, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
MORSE CODE SAVES STRANDED FISHERMEN
Morse code was once again a life saver. This time for a pair
of fishermen who were stranded after their small boat swamped on
New Jersey's Round Valley Reservoir.
The February 25th edition of the Hunterdon County Democrat
news reported the plight of the two would-be anglers. Not having
any radio gear or a cellular telephone, the two used a flashlight
to send an S-O-S distress call in Morse. As luck would have it,
a passing motorist recognized the message and called the rescue
squad.
The news report said that the motorist had learned Morse
code as a Boy Scout. And talk about coincidence. The story
also reported that he spotted the fishermens S-O-S as he was
listening to a radio broadcast about the bronze whistle recovered
in 1993 from the doomed passenger liner Titanic. (Newsline #1128)
|
| |
|
RE: Another Approach to Ham Radio?
|
|
|
by N6HBJ on April 3, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
ANOTHER CW SUCCESS
AMSEA Marine safety update, volume 14, no. 3, Fall 1998
A GMDSS SUCCESS STORY
One of the limitations of using a VHF or SSB radio is that it can only be picked up by vessels or rescue resources in your area. VHF is relatively limited (15 to 20 miles). SSB is better at several hundred miles (but only if someone is tuned in to it). But what if there are no rescue resources near you, like off the horn of Africa?
The passenger vessel Archille Lauro with 2,000 passengers caught fire off Eriteria not long ago. A morse code SOS was sent off which was picked up by the Hawaiian King. They in turn alerted the MRCC in Stavanger Norway. Within 10 minutes, the MRCC sent an alert out to all vessels within a 150 mile radius. Within 2 hours there were 16 vessels on scene, and within six hours all 2,000 passengers were rescued. All of this occurred despite the fact that there were no dedicated professional rescue services in the area. GMDSS more effectively coordinated the rescue and shorten the time gap.
|
| |
|
RE: Another Approach to Ham Radio?
|
|
|
by KB0NLY on April 3, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
To N6HBJ:
Do you kiss your mother with that filthy mouth? Geez and we wonder why there is a problem with language on HF.
Will you guys grow up already. I can't wait until they remove the CW requirement from testing, because i will be driving around collecting all the old hams radios from the trash and garage sales. Why do i say that you may ask? Because i have heard time and time again from the older crowd that they will give up on the hobby after the bands become filled with no-coders. Just make sure your address is correct on QRZ so i can come buy and rescue your radios from the garbage guys.
Its no wonder why i have given up on getting HF priviledges, the crap you hear on those bands is absurd. If the FCC starts refarming the HF bands and the old timers have to get off the air then don't even bother coming on 50MHz and up, because i won't stand for your crap on the bands i have priviledges on.
I listen to HF on a regular basis, and there is everything from racial discussions that i wont repeat, to the old timers complaining about some new ham that had the money to buy his radios instead of build them.
FLOG THE DEAD HORSE SOME MORE, I KNOW YOU WILL!!
73 (to the decent hams),
Scott, KB0NLY
|
| |
|
RE: Another Approach to Ham Radio?
|
|
|
by N6HBJ on April 3, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Filthy?" What are you, a little choir boy? You haven't even heard filthy yet.
Oh you "wont stand for it" will you? Good Lord. What are you gonna do?
You've got my address. Come by and visit anytime.
|
| |
|
RE: Another Approach to Ham Radio?
|
|
|
by N6HBJ on April 3, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Don't take the above the wrong way. I'm simply implying that if you are indeed serious about looking through my garbage can, then I will seriously help you reach all the way to the bottom of that can.
I may be a bit harsh but I have little use for people who hide behind monikers and likewise crybabies.
I would rather stick my neck out and speak my true feelings and be hated, then be one of those timid individuals who know not of victory or defeat.
|
| |
|
RE: Another Approach to Ham Radio?
|
|
|
by KA4KOE on April 3, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Let us partake of the following scene.....
Our two protagonists meet on the moors amongst the thick fog that is just beginning to be cleared by the rays of the rising sun, peeking above the marsh like some evil red eye.
Their seconds implore the gentlemen to reconsider their course of action. Neither agrees. Each wants to see the red blood of the other.
The first villain is wearing the crest of his great family emblazoned with the seal of the ARRL, otherwise known as the fearsome Alliance of Raving Radioactive Lunatics (Mr. BA for "Boatanchor" let's call him). On the opposite side is the symbol of the Honorable House of Vibroplex. His weapon of choice is a Johnson Viking transmitter, straight key, and a Louisville Slugger Baseball bat, upon which the aforesaid items are affixed forming a fearsome, if clumsly looking hammer. In all, it is 98.3 pounds of deadly inertia just itching to be unleashed. The whole affair hums and crackles with high tension electricity. B+ KILLS BABY and CW FOREVER are the words his second utters like some insane mantra over and over again. The effect of the sonorious babble is somewhat disconcerting.
The second scoundrel is humbly attired in a simple t-shirt, which simply has upon it written the cryptic phrase "I love NY". He is slight lad of few years...the baby fuzz is still evident on his smooth cheek. Fear is in his eyes. He is carrying a small handheld transmitter, its sharp rod antenna sparkling in the glorious morning sunlight (let's refer to this chap as "Mr. HT"). He knows he must strike first, and be quick about it.
The two circle each other in an odd orbit reminscent of Epsilon Eridani B, which Captain James Tiberius Kirk of the Federation has visited many times....remind me fair listener to tell you the many tales of his debauchery, alas, that story shall wait for another time, but we digress.
Mssrs. BA and HT stalk each other. BA moves first, swinging his load in a great speedy arc aimed straight at the small urchin's head.....and MISSES. The lad parries the strike effectively in a move that would make Maestro Aldo Nadi proud, and counters with a straight thrust of his HT antenna dead home to the right ventricle of Mr. BA. BA struggles briefly, grimaces, and collapses to the ground in a great cacophany of shattering glass as the numerous vacuum tubes in his weapon disentigrate.
Anyway, after a break such as the one above, perhaps the kiddies need disciplining. You two are on restriction as of NOW. Mommy and Daddy warned you. Don't cry, or we'll give you something to cry about. Now go to your respective rooms.
PHILIP
|
| |
|
RE: Another Approach to Ham Radio?
|
|
|
by N6HBJ on April 3, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Thats too much reading. Did anyone actually decipher that?
|
| |
|
Another Approach to Ham Radio?
|
|
|
by RADIO123US on April 3, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KB0NLY, instead of putting down those
that have WORKED to get their license,
why don't you study the code and come
join us on HF. We could sure use some
more good operators down there. Maybe you
could teach us a few things, or do you want
to just sit around and whine and complain because
you are too lazy to study and take a simple test.
Look at what KD7KGX said earlier, he makes a very good
point.....
"The spirit of amateur radio is not embodied by anyone who refuses to learn a valuable skill. Nor is it found in someone who memorizes the answers to enough questions in the pool to pass the Extra exam yet can't erect a dipole and prune it for low SWR, can't adjust their HF rig to eliminate splatter during PSK ops, and doesn't understand all of the controls on their rig and how and when to use them. Instead, it lives in the person who is inspired to get into ham radio to learn more about the magic of radio, who studies for their tests and aces them, who endeavors to be a respected operator thru recognition of their skills instead of the class of license they hold, and who is something more than an appliance operator."
|
| |
|
The author's reply
|
|
|
by KB3CAX on April 3, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This is in reference to the page on which the author of the original comment replies to his detractors. Hopefully, I will be posted on it as well.
Sir:
While your original comments were, to me, quite humorous, I have found your response page to be in incredibly poor taste. Instead of thinking "Hm, it appears I have unwittingly insulted people; allow me to correct the situation," you apparently chose to address those whom you hurt with flippancy and ridicule. This is so amazingly puerile it's almost funny.
In regard to your opinion on the amateur service, you are certainly entitled to it. However, even if I were to give you the benefit of the doubt based on your original comment, it is apparent from your responses that you have totally missed the point of the amateur service. In short, you are like a man who claims that 3 + 3 = 7, and then proceeds to deprecate anyone who disagrees.
|
| |
|
RE:
|
|
|
by KB0NLY on April 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Why would i want to get on HF? It has been proven time and time again that there is to many pro-coders and hams that judge others based on there CW proficiency. Nope, think i will stay right where i am enjoying the challenge on 6m and 2m SSB, satellites, and maybe even EME, and before you say it CW is not used for EME like it used to be.
I enjoy the digital modes and talking, i don't want to decode as i go deciphering dits and dahs, what fun is that. I'm not saying that others who enjoy using CW are wrong, if that is what they enjoy then i'm glad they found something in the hobby to enjoy.
I found what i enjoy, i like the challenges of using VHF through SHF. Anyone can get on HF and call CQ and get a response with a minimum setup and investment, i want something that challenges me a bit more, but at the same time is enjoyable. I was horribly embarassed a couple weeks ago when i invited a non-ham friend to have a listen to one of my radios. Unfortunately as we tuned around in the HF bands we heard rather disturbing uses of language and racial slurs.
And to N6HBJ who said:
""Filthy?" What are you, a little choir boy? You haven't even heard filthy yet.""
No i'm not a choir boy, and i have been know to utter a few choice phrases during normal daily activities, but keep it off the radio and off Eham. Anyone can tune around on HF and hear it, and anyone can read these posts and see it. What ever happened to keeping it clean and making it a hobby for the entire family? So we may all be adults here, that doesn't mean the gloves are off. As i said i have been known to cuss and swear, that doesn't mean that i do it openly to be witnessed by others, possibly children.
""Oh you "wont stand for it" will you? Good Lord. What are you gonna do?""
""You've got my address. Come by and visit anytime.""
Why is that all the pro-code types have to turn every little comment into a threat. Also, you want to know what i am going to do? Try talking like that around me on 50MHz and up and i will DF you and file a report, that is if somebody else hasn't already beat me to it.
I would come by and visit, but you California residents are for the most part to anal retentive, self absorbed, and over defensive.
My apologies to any nice hams from California, along with the two local hams i know that are now living here in Minnesota. Boy they do tell stories about bad hams in California.
To Radio123US:
""instead of putting down those
that have WORKED to get their license,
why don't you study the code and come
join us on HF. We could sure use some
more good operators down there. Maybe you
could teach us a few things, or do you want
to just sit around and whine and complain because
you are too lazy to study and take a simple test.
Look at what KD7KGX said earlier, he makes a very good point.....""
When have i ever looked down upon, or put down, a ham that has studied and passed the CW exam?? Also, you think that i didn't work for my license?? So just because i happen to hold a no-code Tech license i didn't have to study at all to pass the test?? That is exactly the attitude that it causing the problems in the first place, hams that have passed the CW exam look down on us no-code techs and tell us we didn't have to work for our license. Since when if the FCC handing out licenses without testing, i know i had to take a test to get mine. But things may have changed in the last 9 years, maybe you can just pay for the tech license now like a GMRS license? GIVE ME A BREAK!!
I do agree however that HF needs MANY MANY MANY more "GOOD" operators. It has way to many "BAD" ones now.
Perhaps i could teach you a few things, i have built many antennas for both HF and VHF, as well as some UHF antennas that will be installed this summer when i find the time. Also, i have been working on antennas and transverters for AO-40, that has been enjoyable to learn about. I currently use a multi-band trap dipole for HF that i built and installed myself on a weekend, but i guess that doesn't count for the pro-coders to judge me worthy.
I'm to lazy to study and take a simple test, as a matter of fact i have passed the General written exam three times, and failed the CW exam six times. The last CSCE i had for the General written expired this winter, so i might brush up on the study material and take it again. I have not been able to successfully learn CW, my hearing problems have far complicated matters, and i am attempting to learn CW using a blinking light. But it is not one of my biggest concerns, i might get around to learning it good enough for testing, but i already receive enough enjoyment where i am.
73,
Scott, KB0NLY
AKA: The Computer Doctor
Looking for a manual for a piece of radio gear? Try my web site, if i don't have it listed request it and i can find it.
http://www.qsl.net/kb0nly
|
| |
|
RE:N6HBJ
|
|
|
by KB0NLY on April 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Here is a statement from N6HBJ himself, no wonder he acts like he does.
"I started in radio in 1978 at the age of 13 with CB"
Just another CB convert...
73,
Scott, KB0NLY
|
| |
|
sour grapes for KB0NLY
|
|
|
by N6HBJ on April 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Looks like KB0NLY failed the CW test 6 times. Now we know the root of his anger, insecurities and extreme defensiveness. Its called "Sour Grapes".
BTW, if you hate HF so much, why on earth did you take the test so many times?
Well at least you TRIED. You do have a medical problem but I think most no coders aren't suffering from hearing loss, but rather they are suffering from laziness.
Oooooooooh "NLY" is gonna DF me. Hey everyone "NLY" is gonna file a report on me if I ever talk to him like that on 50 mhz! Whats he gonna do next, tell my mommy? Hehe. I'm tellin the principal on you "NLY". You're such a meany. I hope you get detention.
KB0NLY said:
... you California residents are for the most part to anal retentive, self absorbed, and over defensive...
Hmmm. Lets analyze that:
1. over defensive=NLY (very long angry responding post)
2. self absorbed=NLY (needs to list all his accomplishments to validate his position)
3. anal retentive=NLY (already he threatens to report me and I haven't even DONE ANYTHING yet!)
NLY, please relax (no coffee today), deep slow breaths, repeat the mantra "I am OK" ten times and take two aspirin and have a piece of candy and you should feel better shortly.
Man you are SO easy to mess with.
|
| |
|
RE:N6HBJ
|
|
|
by N6HBJ on April 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Here is a statement from N6HBJ himself, no wonder he acts like he does.
"I started in radio in 1978 at the age of 13 with CB"
Just another CB convert...
73,
Scott, KB0NLY
Nice try loser. No cigar. 73 Mike
|
| |
|
RE:N6HBJ
|
|
|
by N6HBJ on April 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
On a serious note, I don't think anyone here really has a problem with no coders. It is just that we don't want the HF frequencies to be no code. We don't HF to sound like a 2 meter repeater.
|
| |
|
RE:N6HBJ
|
|
|
by N6HBJ on April 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I wonder what ever happened to ANONYMOUSBOB and his challenge to find one incident in the last 20 years where CW saved a life.
|
| |
|
RE:N6HBJ
|
|
|
by KB0NLY on April 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
You must not listen to HF much then at night, and the repeaters we have around here are friendly and there is always someone helpful to talk to.
I will have my own repeater up sometime this summer, and i can guarantee there will be a nice crowd of people using it like the other local repeaters.
Yeah so, i listed my accomplishments. What have you ever accomplished besides putting down other hams that earned there license fair and square. I notice your not a Extra class license, its a shame for you to be so anal already.
Scott, KB0NLY
|
| |
|
RE:N6HBJ
|
|
|
by KB0NLY on April 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Perhaps you need to learn more about identifying the troublesome ones and clean up the repeaters out there. That is what i meant by DF'ing someone and reporting them, its like that garbage repeater out in California that some local (ex-ca hams) were telling me about. I even listened to that repeater online for a while, what a waste of bandwidth.
You mentioned Echolink on QRZ, try connecting to W0GC-L, the Clear Lake SD repeater. We are usually on there in the evenings, and some of us are around the radio for the better part of the night. Always good useful conversations, and if anyone needs computer help thats where i am answering the questions.
Scott, KB0NLY
|
| |
|
RE: Rodney King
|
|
|
by N0MTY on April 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Looks like a rather vocal poster's needing to check out the difference between 'to' and 'too, also 'there' and 'their'.
How is it these things always deteriorate into merely a fight between the CW/no CW crowd anyway? Why is it the CW group is usually the most likely to resort to rudeness and insults? No offense intended, but statistically it's true. Why do they get so terribly defensive anyway? I guess I don't see the point, but then I don't get the Mac/PC fights either. The original poster wasn't trying to provoke anyone, at least it didn't strike me as provocative, but then I'm hard to provoke anyway. My posts weren't intended to be provocative or foment any disagreement, I firmly support the right of any ham to transmit in any mode he or she chooses, and good on them. Read my previous posts, if curious, none of it needs reposting. The bottom line is...
"Can't we all just get along?"
-Rodney King
|
| |
|
RE: Rodney King
|
|
|
by KB0NLY on April 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I'm guilty of the misuse of 'to' and 'too, and also 'there' and 'their'. And i have been known to make a mistake on the use of 'your' and 'you're'. I miss my spell checker and grammer checker when posting on here.
Anyway, you are right, it always seems to be the Pro-CW side that starts with the insults and attacks on intelligence and experience.
Oh well their way or my way, and i choose my way.
73,
Scott, KB0NLY
|
| |
|
RE: Rodney King
|
|
|
by KB0NLY on April 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Oh and on another note, the PC/MAC wars are just as bad sometimes. Take it from someone experienced in the field of PC repair, as well as a little Mac repair, you will always be reading about how one is better than the other. Personally i like the PC because of the greater availability of software, but then the Mac does have nice software for Video and Graphics rendering, and that is where the Mac excels.
Although there is a lot more of a respectful fight between users there, and i know some people who own both, that way they have the best of both worlds.
But anyway, that's off topic.
Let the FLOGGING OF THE DEAD HORSE CONTINUE, i love reading all the silly reasons from the Pro-CW crowd.
73,
Scott, KB0NLY
|
| |
|
RE: Another Approach to Ham Radio?
|
|
|
by ANONYMOUSBOB on April 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Let's see, pass cw tests, go to the cw portions of the bands on HF, and you get to talk to people like N6HBJ! Wow, that's really motivating... maybe he'll bash you on the air for not Superham like he is.
|
| |
|
RE: Another Approach to Ham Radio?
|
|
|
by KA4KOE on April 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
OK...THE POLICE ARE HERE. I told you younguns if you didn't behave I'd call them. Now, you're gonna spend the night in juvenile detention.
THIS ARTICLE NEEDS TO BE ENDED TO STOP THE AGONY
I am an American, of Austrian ancestry (9th generation). Not a drop of Greek blood in me.
|
| |
|
RE: Another Approach to Ham Radio?
|
|
|
by KA4KOE on April 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Don't mess with the guy...his profile pix shows he has "JUDO" written on his shirt. Have you registered with the local authorities as a lethal weapon?
|
| |
|
Another Approach to Ham Radio?
|
|
|
by KG4WPL on April 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Just wanted to throw in a comment on the code/no-code arguement. I know that it's a subject that has been beaten to death. I do think I have something that hasn't been brought up. (Probably has, I just haven't read it.) CW is a mode, just like all the other options we have, AM, FM, SSB, a few data choices. I have no interest in using data modes. It's not that I think they are lesser modes, I just come from a computer tech background and don't want to involve a PC (or Mac) in my ham hobby. I've heard some people talk about AM being a dead mode, it just doesn't seem to be debated as much as CW. Well, my point is, I had to answer questions on data modes, slow scan tv, AM, and EME setups for my license. I don't really plan on using these. So why was I tested on them? I believe that it is because my ham license gives me the right to use those modes. I should at least know enough to start trying to use them, since I've been granted the license that says I can. I don't ever hear people complain that the AM questions should be dropped off the tests because it's a useless out of date mode. I think if the license you are testing for allows you to use a mode or method, it should be at least be part of the question pool/test method. Anyway, I apologize for any frustration that I cause with my post, it's just a view that I haven't seen in the eternal debate of code/no-code. BTW, loved the parallel on aviation at the begining of the thread.
73
Mike
|
| |
|
RE: Another Approach to Ham Radio?
|
|
|
by N6HBJ on April 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Superham? I never once bragged about ANY of my ham accomplishments. Unless you consider just BEING a ham (unlike you) bragging?
BTW, I just gave 3 examples where CW did in fact save someone as you requested. What do you have to say about that ANONYMOUSBOB?
|
| |
|
RE:KB0NLY
|
|
|
by N6HBJ on April 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This has nothing to do with "identifying troublesome ones and cleaning up repeaters" as you state.
2 meters is swamped with people who never even LISTENED to a shortwave radio before. HF is a totaly different world. Maybe if they LEARNED CW first, they would have a chance to explore HF a little and learn a little BEFORE they had the ability to pick up an HF microphone.
Most hams consider 2 meters the CB of amateur radio. It has been this way for over 20 years. It has nothing to do with profanity. You will find that ANYWHERE on the bands if you look hard enough. It depends on what frequencies you seek out.
|
| |
|
RE: K3ESE
|
|
|
by N6HBJ on April 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
by K3ESE on April 4, 2003
so many posts...so few lives being lived...
Yeah, and now you're one of us.
|
| |
|
RE: KB0NLY
|
|
|
by N6HBJ on April 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KB0NLY said: "Let the FLOGGING OF THE DEAD HORSE CONTINUE, i love reading all the silly reasons from the Pro-CW crowd."
I guess saving a life such as in the above examples is a silly reason to know CW huh?
|
| |
|
Another Approach to Ham Radio?
|
|
|
by W9SZ on April 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
If everyone on Earth were interested in the same things, I imagine it would be a boring place. The wonderful thing about ham radio is that it's so diversified. Look at all the things you have available to you: HF ragchewing, HF DXing, HF contests, homebrewing and actually getting to use that equipment on the air without type-acceptance; many different modes such as AM (yes, it's still used!), SSB, CW, Baudot RTTY, PSK31, MFSK16, Packet, Pactor, GTOR, Clover, SSTV, Spread-Spectrum, etc; antenna design and experimentation; software-defined radio; VHF/UHF/microwave contesting, DXing and ragchewing; fast-scan TV; microwave experimentation and construction; I could go on and on but you get the idea.
If someone only specialized in a few of the items in the above list, I'm sure he wouldn't be bored.
For me, I've always been excited about hearing weak and difficult-to-copy signals from anywhere on the globe. That could be Bhutan on HF or Chicago on microwave. It's always been exciting to me to work that new country on HF or that new grid square on VHF/UHF/microwave. And I think it's tremendous fun to build a transverter and antenna for 10368 MHz, trot it all out to a hilltop and try to work someone several hundred miles away. It does take some doing!
Building a kW power supply and watching one of the capacitors explode all over the ceiling is certainly exciting - even adventure (glad it missed ME!) (back to the drawing board.) :-)
I've never been bored with ham radio. But that's me. Someone else might get very excited about collecting baseball cards. I haven't been too interested in that.
To each his own.
|
| |
|
Another Approach to Ham Radio?
|
|
|
by W4KIQ on April 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
i`m not a lic ham . so forgive the fake call sign. i think learning code can be helpful especially for people that spend time in the woods or on the water.AN EMERGENCY can come AT ANY TIME ! a flashlight may be the only thing of use or an air horn . i`ve got the radio the antennas , i listen to you guys on a daily basis .i`m tone deaf and can`t pick out the dits from the dots but i`m trying ! maybe i`ll get the lic yet . don`t want a no code , don`t want the freq ya get. i want to be able to have gen coverage privlages . my view , my dream . GREAT RESPECT FOR ALL OF YOU , YOU`VE WORKED HARD FOR YOUR PRIVALGES .
PETE
|
| |
|
Another Approach to Ham Radio?
|
|
|
by N0MTY on April 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KG4WPL, you missed my posts, where I suggested the same thing. Good to see someone agrees with me, good on you. <g>
That is, the progressive thinking is to create good tests for ALL modes, giving preference to none. A licensee must of course pass a test for at least one mode when initially applying, and at any time can pass the test for any other modes. If you're not gonna use it, you don't need the test for it. CW test can be reset to 13wpm, and the question pool for each mode should be a bit better measure of knowledge as well as common sense and good manners.
I enjoy the hobby and the privileges I have, so I passed my CW test, but then and now hadn't the least interest in using it, so why the test? Some sillyass tradition, or perhaps a filter? LOL! No sense in testing a person for something they aren't going to use. I agree with you, KG4WPL, and glad to see someone else is living in the present and walking into the future.
Ham radio needs to adapt and grow and evolve with the times, or do we let ancient traditions and idiotic notions of 'filters' kill the hobby? Once again, the people growing up now may well be tomorrow's legislators. If they're ignorant of what ham radio is and does, and the elitist oldfarts in the hobby keep trying to set unrealistic irrelevant obstacles to joining, we might have to learn to get by with less spectrum and privileges. Go back to the original poster, and see what I mean.
|
| |
|
Another Approach to Ham Radio?
|
|
|
by KG6PIR on April 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It has taken me a bout 1 full hour to read this board from the top down. About all this name calling and such some people are just stuck in there opinion and there is nothing one can do or say that will change it.
Now this to CW or not to CW is something I do not get for me I look forwarded to studding and passing the CW test so I can go to the top of the Sierra Mountains and set up a small self belt CW station and talk to people all over the world with little to money out of my pocket.
Yes I am currently one of those people on the 2 meter bad but so what I just got my license the begging of last month and bought my first radio the begging of this week. For me I still have no idea how fare or what I plan to do with this new hobby. But I do know my next step is learning CW and take the next test.
Little John
73
|
| |
|
Another Approach to Ham Radio?
|
|
|
by RADIO123US on April 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N0MTY, why don't you go listen on 27 mhz
and see what a band with no "filters" sounds
like. I guess you want the ham bands to sound
the same way.
|
| |
|
RE: Another Approach to Ham Radio?
|
|
|
by N0MTY on April 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
LOL! I do some traveling, and use 11m a lot on the road, as well as 2m and HF. I enjoy 11m at home sometimes too, and know quite a few interesting intelligent people that use 11m. I even have an FCC CB license. I've frequently found more interesting conversations on 11m compared to what's going on in the ham zone. I'm not the least ashamed to say I proudly use and enjoy 11 meters, and the occasional idiot just makes me laugh sometimes when I need one. I haven't heard any more idiots on 11m than I hear on HF ham bands. Actually, I have a lot more respect for the people on 11m than I do those arrogant narrowminded elitist clods that think ham radio needs "filters".
|
| |
|
RE: Another Approach to Ham Radio?
|
|
|
by N6HBJ on April 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I'm not against 2 meters. There are some really good machines and people out there. I listen there every night. But there are also a disproportionately high number of people there with "CB Mouth" and it irritates a lot of hams who have run off to other bands to avoid this. We don't want hf too easily accessed by these CB mouth types.
Cw seves a few good purposes. It encourages people with CW skills to purchase hf equipment so that they can try out those skills long before they are able to use phone on hf. This allows them the opportunity to LISTEN to hf phone before being able to actually transmit SSB. This LISTENING without talking will enable a person to LEARN THE GENERAL ACCEPTED PRACTICES OF HF.
The other reason is safety. CW can and has saved lives. Therefore I believe it is imperative to continue to keep this requirement for no other reason than this! If anyone disbelieves me, simply go back and read the 3 seperate examples of CW saves I have posted on this thread.
HF involves worldwide communications and not every operator in the world can always use SSB under poor conditions or even speak English. You can communicate with ANYONE effectively with cw even if you don't speak their language because cw is universaly understood. SOS, QTH, QSL. etc mean the same no matter what language the sender speaks. This is especially applicable to maritime stations.
Anyone can pick up a microphone and use SSB or FM his first day as a ham. PSK/RTTY etc is easily learned in one day. But cw is unique because it is is a special SKILL that takes some investment in time to learn. This is what seperates it from the rest of the modes.
Whether you choose to use it as one of your modes or not is unimportant. What IS important is being able to use it if need be. Once you learn it, you will always retain most of it!
|
| |
|
Another Approach to Ham Radio?
|
|
|
by RADIO123US on April 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N0MTY, so your proud of 11 meters ??? Now I
know why you want a no-code HF license...so
your good buddies can join you on the ham bands.
If you like the sound of 11 meters, then why don't
you just stay there.
|
| |
|
RE: Another Approach to Ham Radio?
|
|
|
by N0MTY on April 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
LOL that's 'you're', not 'your'. heh
Yeah, you're way too good for 11m, and I'm glad you recognize it and won't be gracing us there with your magnificent presence. I don't value your respect anyway.
Have a really nice day, OK? I always do!
Oh, and I'm done reading this thread, it's degenerated to the point I'm tired of it. So, abuse me all you like, it's not as if I'll see it.
This began as an interesting thread, but the CW/no CW nazis had to start their fight, and things invariably go downhill from there. I have better things to do, so I'm off to enjoy my hobby.
|
| |
|
RE: Another Approach to Ham Radio?
|
|
|
by N6HBJ on April 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Well its ABOUT TIME! Seeya sucka. (I know your still here)
|
| |
|
Another Approach to Ham Radio?
|
|
|
by RADIO123US on April 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I do find it quite interesting that those of
us that want to maintain high standards within
amateur radio are considered "arrogant narrowminded elitist" by that think that they deserve a license without having to put out any effort to EARN it.
I guess they don't understand that Amateur Radio
is a privilege, and not a right. Privileges have
to be EARNED. I believe we should be RAISING our standards and not lowering them. So if that makes
me an arrogant narrowminded elitist, then I guess
that's a complement.
|
| |
|
RE: Another Approach to Ham Radio?
|
|
|
by JESUSISLOVE on April 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
looks like n0mty and others have earned a license, and post using it. RADIO123US isn't a ham call, that clown is just another big mouth with no credentials. If fools like that represent the elite of ham radio, I'm no longer interested in getting a license, sure don't want to talk to that sort of redneck.
|
| |
|
Another Approach to Ham Radio?
|
|
|
by RADIO123US on April 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Let me get this straight...you don't want to be
a ham because some of us don't want the ham bands
to sound like 11 meters ? All I am saying is that
you won't improve ham radio by LOWERING the
standards. The fact that it takes some effort to
get a license is what makes the license worth
having.
|
| |
|
RE: Another Approach to Ham Radio?
|
|
|
by W3DCG on April 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I just love a good debate.
To each their own.
5wpm isn't so much a filter as much as a hope that one who doesn't know code may find it some day attractive.
There's ton's of stuff on an Extra exam I may never apply, but they are just another facet of the overall required hurdles one must overcome, for those bottom 25 on the classic bands. I'm not complaining about it, I'll get a round Tuit eventually.
This thread has been highly entertaining!
I guess there are other phone segments to be gained by obtaining the Extra, too... whatever they are.
Hmmmm, I'll bet those segments should well be several questions on the exam. Good. Even if I never use them.
I'll stil have to know them, at least for an hour.
|
| |
|
RE: JESUSILOVE
|
|
|
by N6HBJ on April 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Oh, I forgot. You said you DON'T HAVE ONE. What the heck are you doing here then?
|
| |
|
RE: Another Approach to Ham Radio?
|
|
|
by WA9SVD on April 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Mike (N6HBJ):
You have a right to your opinion. I have a right to mine; we obviously differ. I said nothing about getting rid of code etc. etc. etc.
All I said was that if operators are communicating in another language, CW can be just as foreign as the spoken word. YES, Q signals do help, and should be universally recognized. But if a station sends a string of text followed by "QSL?" how does that help? The latest ARRL Handbook I have has 45 Q codes, (as well as some only for use on ARRL nets)and they are related to procedural and operational details. They don't take the place of text.
If you copied a message in CW (and don't know German) that was worded " dein vater ist im krankhaus. kommen sie schnell, bitte. QSL?" what would you make of it? Is there a Q-code for "Your father is in the hospital. Please come quickly?"
And no need to try throwing insults. I was licensed since the year you were born.
|
| |
|
Another Approach to Ham Radio?
|
|
|
by AB7UW-MONTANA on April 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Frankly,being almost 37 years old and only operate cw for local and dx, alot of non hams my age ask me quite often why not just use the internet? My reply is this; it seems that anything that doesnt require a bit of study and persistence, IE:a ham ticket, tends to lump you into a group of radio users that do exactly that,use the radio, not enjoy and study the art and science of what radio is. whether that is ssb or cw-rtty or am. I just say to them Im very very proud to be a radio geek. I studied my &@#$#%#% off to pass my extra and my 20 wpm exams and I deserve all privliges given to me by the FCC. I try to convince them that it does require study, but what it gives back is imeasurable. It they are so inclined to dive further into the art of it all then Im behind them 100%, if they are not, I tell them to just enjoy the internet and the famliy radio service and to continue to treat them as the appliances that they are. I get really tired of laziness on the part of those people that want everything radio has to offer without effort or the love of the art thats given by hams to use and enjoy the science that compels us. BE PROUD THAT YOU ARE A RADIO GEEK! C-ya on the cw bands! 73. Vaughn helena Mt.
|
| |
|
RE: Another Approach to Ham Radio?
|
|
|
by N6HBJ on April 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
WA9SVD-I'm not talking about exchanging recipes via CW. Obviously you would need to speak the same language.
I'm talking about emergency communications which can very easily be done via the standard "Q" codes of CW. So yes, I do disagree with you. CW is a universal language. You being such an experienced ham should know that.
Yet your position seems to reflect that it is OK to do away with the code.
|
| |
|
RE: Another Approach to Ham Radio?
|
|
|
by N6HBJ on April 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
WA9SVD.
Let me clarify further. I'm talking about urgent emergency communications where there is an IMMEDIATE THREAT to life-not about personal family emergencies with great detail.
If you are a vessel stranded at sea, all the avaliable "Q" codes are enough to ask for help, give your location, and identify oneself. This would enable a ham to contact the proper authorities who would then be able to further pursue your call for help. You may not be able to be super specific at first due to a language barrier but AT LEAST HELP IS ON THE WAY. CW did its job.
If we drop the code, help MAY NEVER BE ON THE WAY. The least we can do is ask someone who wants to join this hobby to spend a few weeks out of his ENTIRE life to learn something that may indeed be helpful one day. For chrissakes-IS THAT TOO MUCH TO ASK?
|
| |
|
RE: Another Approach to Ham Radio?
|
|
|
by N6HBJ on April 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
WA9SVD said:
"If you copied a message in CW (and don't know German) that was worded " dein vater ist im krankhaus. kommen sie schnell, bitte. QSL?" what would you make of it? Is there a Q-code for "Your father is in the hospital. Please come quickly"
This is ridiculous. Why would I be talking to someone via CW about my father in the first place when I don't even speak their language?
I'm talking about a vessel on the water that is in immediate danger and is calling for help. Certainly a more likely situation then the above.
Is this actually your argument against requiring CW?
|
| |
|
RE: Another Approach to Ham Radio?
|
|
|
by KG4RUL on April 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N6HBJ writes:
"If we drop the code, help MAY NEVER BE ON THE WAY. The least we can do is ask someone who wants to join this hobby to spend a few weeks out of his ENTIRE life to learn something that may indeed be helpful one day. For chrissakes-IS THAT TOO MUCH TO ASK? "
YES! As you stated, It is a hobby.
|
| |
|
RE: Another Approach to Ham Radio?
|
|
|
by KB0NLY on April 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
To N6HBJ:
""If you are a vessel stranded at sea, all the avaliable "Q" codes are enough to ask for help, give your location, and identify oneself. This would enable a ham to contact the proper authorities who would then be able to further pursue your call for help. You may not be able to be super specific at first due to a language barrier but AT LEAST HELP IS ON THE WAY. CW did its job.""
I think you should do a little research, i have talked to more than one person that work on commercial ships, as well as a couple of people i know down in Florida, about the use of Ham Radio in a emergency at sea. Of all the ones i have spoken too they have told me that Ham Radio frequencies would be a last resort especially on a commercial vessel, and that even though it is available it doesn't usually come to that. As far as private sailing ships, Ham Radio serves a better purpose if it is needed, not everyone can afford a satellite phone like the commercial guys, but ask about how good the Coast Guard communications are. The government spends millions on ship to shore emergency communications, i don't think hams need to be answering every little emergency at sea unless of course they are trying to summon help using the ham bands when they should be using maritime frequencies to contact the USCG directly. Its like having a cellular phone to dial 911, but instead you try to use CB channel 9, what a joke that was, just someones way to try and save the CB band from being eliminated. Emergencies at sea happen almost daily according to the statistics i read through from the USCG, and there are only a few cases involving a ham.
So you were able to dig up a few articles about CW helping with an emergency at sea in the late 90s, 1997 and 1998 i believe. Nautical communications has grown in the last seven years, now we have satellite phones that work anywhere on the surface of the planet, sailors at sea even have internet access on commercial vessels and cruise ships, and even some private owners have the same amount of capability. I would think that CW is the last thing they are thinking about, as has been shown by the US government removing CW from active use in the military. Sure they may use it some for covert operations as someone mentioned, but does that mean we need to know how to?
We are now using satellite phones to communicate with reporters to provide 24 hour live coverage of the Iraqi war, and using satellite feeds of video with audio has been commonplace for a long time now. But yet some are stuck in past with dits and dahs, i find it totally hilarious listening to everyone defending CW as a filter, by the sound of the HF bands these days that filter has a darn big hole in it!! Obviously you must have a lot of lousy operators in California if 2m is as bad as you claim, maybe the clubs should consider actually teaching the new hams something instead of just licensing them. Here in Minnesota 6m and up is a place to be with family members of all ages, and the children stay safe from profanity and racial slurs. Hmm, maybe you guys out in California need to be teaching your kids better family values to begin with, that would solve a lot of problems.
Anyway, thats enough for me, i'm cancelling the subscription to the article after i send this post, so i won't be receiving it anymore. So bad mouth me all you want, i know that i'm a better person that you anyway, at least in a moral sense, and most likely as a ham too. You may have passed a CW test, but that just proves that CW doesn't act as a filter, you should be the poster boy for CW not working as a filter!!
Scott, KB0NLY
|
| |
|
RE: Another Approach to Ham Radio?
|
|
|
by N6HBJ on April 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KB0NLY
No one here is saying that cw is a first line use for emergencies. Obviously with the advent of satelite phones etc., emergency communications are usually done with much more advanced modes. Not everyone can afford advanced equipment, especially private sailors.
But, by your own words there are a few cases where ham is used. So lets keep it for those few cases. Those lives may not mean anything to YOU because YOUR not the one calling for help.
Yeah, CW is a last resort. No kidding. But it IS a resource that can work better than any other mode under adverse conditions. ie: poor band conditions, low power due to vessel stranded and running low, etc.
Like I said, maybe YOU don't give a damn about those "few cases" because it isn't you out there needing help. How selfish!
Now you can go run and hide (unsuscribe) as a way to avoid the truth. Pretty wimpy. I'll be sure to e mail you this answer so you can't duck the truth.
California rules!
|
| |
|
RE: Another Approach to Ham Radio?
|
|
|
by WA9SVD on April 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hi Mike,
I didn't say anything about eliminating the code, and that was not, and is not my point. (And certainly not eliminating the CW only portions of the bands; those need to be protected.)
I don't want to belabor the point, but yes, an SOS is internationally understood to mean a distress call, but a simple SOS, even with a QTH (lon/lat location if on sea) doesn't convey much information. What sort of distress? Why is someone calling an SOS? If you don't speak the language being used, how do you tell if a person on board has a ruptured appendix and needs immediate medical evacuation, or if the whole ship is in danger of sinking? And if so, what kind of ship? The response in each case would most likely be totally different. And there are no Q-codes to handle that.
I agree with you, that in the extreme, CW might be a last ditched effort. But it's not quite as "universal" as you think. Again, IMHO, and we obviously disagree.
|
| |
|
Another Approach to Ham Radio?
|
|
|
by DIDDLYSQUAT on April 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well congratulations everyone for proving the orginal comment writer correct. Looking at the webpage it seems to be tongue in cheek anyway, but the amount of pathetic arguing that has gone on here has more than proved the point. Big yawn, sad, sad, SAD! You guys are so hung up on arguing about CW - have you any real idea how laughable that is to anyone outside of the hobby?
A web page says hams can be duller than matt black paint in a coal mine, and you guys prove him right!
|
| |
|
Another Approach to Ham Radio?
|
|
|
by 9V1VV on April 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Good Day Guys,
Can't we try to lay this maritime CW issue to rest?
- All CW equipment was removed from vessels of all flags/nationalities except Indonesia after 1992, the year when the deadline for conversion to GMDSS came and went.
- Radio Operators who know CW are no longer a mandatory requirement.
- Even if, in the remote chance that Inmarsat C satellite comms and/or HF TOR/ DSC, which are part of the GMDSS package, were to fail, there is no equipment on board capable of emitting CW. Then EPIRBS/ SARTS and other locating devices would come into their own after the crew abandons ship.
- Even if there was CW equipment, there is nobody on shore monitoring the old CW marine emergency frequencies anymore.
As for the argument " what type of SOS is it?" This is covered in GMDSS in the menu structures of the available distress messages included in the modems, e.g., sinking, fire, abandoning ship. Lower priority messages (XXX - Pan Pan) such as man overboard, are also included. This equipment is operated by the navigators now, who attend a 2-week GOC (General Operators Course)and are fully competant to use it.
If there were no time to include the distress category, the callsign and position is automatically transmitted at the touch of a button, over Inmarsat C and/or HF DSC, to hundreds if not thousands of other vessels and Rescue Coordination centres. If there were no time to communicate the type or category of distress using GMDSS equipment, no CW operator would be able to do it either.
It is true that radio operators still remain at sea but only on Indian, Russian and other "3rd World" fleets. They are not required by law. Their role is not to operate the radio at all, but generally as a clerk for the Captain, performing customs duties and other paperwork.
I do know what I am talking about. I was a radio officer at sea until 1987, and participated in one rescue south of Taiwan in 1985, the stricken general cargo vessel "New Concord", where 20 souls were saved by our ship the "Eriskay" in phenominal seas just before the Concord listed heavily and sank. This was all done via VHF and coordination with the rescue centre was acheived by InMarsat A. I did use CW on 500 KHZ to clarify the situation with their R/O after the VHF call was received on the bridge by our navigators. But CW cannot claim to have saved their lives. It would have been a good story but it is simply not so.
As I write this I am on board the dive vessel "Rockwater 2" off Western Australia, working as electrical officer. I am using V-SAT broadband Internet. We also have GMDSS and a myriad of other comms devices, as have most other vessels.
Long Live CW - but not on ships!!!!
73
|
| |
|
RE: Another Approach to Ham Radio?
|
|
|
by VK2UW on April 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This CW is a great taking point even off the bands.
Why not make it a seperate issue in your licence as there is enough digital modes out there that certainly are more interesting that CW.
Break up the licence so as if you don't want CW then you don't use that part of the band, problem solved.
If want to use the Digital modes then have a seperate section in the licence to cover that.
The digital modes need a lot of attention as it would have to be the most ignorant mode in Amateur Radio {Ham} There are a lot that just start transmissions over conversations and nets when it suits them. This mode could certainly take a lot more input from the computer minded New Amateurs to the hobby.
Surely there is enough from the electronics side including the internet to have more input to the hobby than the debate on CW.
The older Amateurs need to learn that there is other modes that are a lot more interesting than CW, or they don't want to know.
Let the newer Amateurs teach them instead of putting a block on the new persons trying to get into the Hobby.
I think suggestions toward solving the problem is more to everyone's advantage.
|
| |
|
Another Approach to Ham Radio?
|
|
|
by RADIO123US on April 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
There would not be as much resistance to removing
the morse requirement if the written exams were
really meaningful. Since the question pool is
published, it is easy for anyone to just memorize
the answers to the questions without understanding
the material. This is what worries me most. Without
a meaningful written exam, we are opening the doors
to any CBer who can memorize a few questions. I live
in a large metro area and there are several CBers
who passed their no-code tech test and are now using
their 10 codes and CB lingo on the local 2 meter
repeaters !!! ....and yes, we have tried to elmer
them and bring the into the mainstream, but they have
refused to change and have told several of us that
they believe it's OK to use their CB lingo on 2 meters.
The morse requirement is all that is keeping these
CBers off of the HF ham bands. Until we can come up
with a better "filter", I vote for keeping the morse requirement.
|
| |
|
RE: DIDDLYSQUAT
|
|
|
by N6HBJ on April 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
If this is so boring to you, then what the heck are you doing here? Goodbye. Leave. Go away. Whatever. We don't need you either.
|
| |
|
RE: Another Approach to Ham Radio?
|
|
|
by N6HBJ on April 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
WA9SVD, well OK so it isn't perfect. But it is better than nothing. If we eliminate it, we wont even have the basics handy.
|
| |
|
RE: Another Approach to Ham Radio?
|
|
|
by JESUSISLOVE on April 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
No thanks. I had been thinking of getting licensed, and so decided to look around on the web to learn more about the hobby and the people in it. I never imagined so many infantile closed-minded hypocritical people would find similar interest in one hobby. Like a previous poster said, arrogant elitist clowns who clearly have no reason to claim either. The people who talk like CB on your repeater, do they in any other way bother you, or is it just the way they talk? They don't sound just like you? You mean they don't say 'hi hi' when they mean to laugh, maybe? I hear you guys do that on the scanner a lot. What a hoot! They probably real lives, more interesting lives than you, and have more interesting things to talk about. I listen to a lot of hams on HF too, sure sounds like a lot of racist rednecks and other trailer trash on there, but hey, they passed a CW test so they're Ok, right? Y'all desperately need to do something different, so some people with interesting things to talk about join your hobby, not the same oldfarts comparing medical procedures and complaining. You'd benefit from making it accessible, not setting up roadblocks. Look at what your filters have reduced your hobby to? I've decided that I'm not interested in getting into ham radio, not mrely because I think a CW test requirement is asinine and childish, knew it well as a Boy Scout, I could pass it easy, it's because I'm not interested in talking to such narrowminded people. You little boys will be glad to know I'm not gonna come back to this or any other ham radio site, y'all deserve each other. I've seen how you really are by reading what you write here, and listening to how boring you are on shortwave and scanner. I can't imagine wanting to talk to you. The guy who started this thread was right! bye!
|
| |
|
RE:JESUSILOVE
|
|
|
by N6HBJ on April 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
JESUSYOULOVE WHY ARE YOU STILL HERE THEN?
We heard you the first time!
Obviously there is an attraction to ham radio or you otherwise you wouldn't be on this site. You know ham radio sounds like. You've already listened on your scanner and hf reciever. If its THAT bad, you would have known how terrible we are gone long ago, WAY before you came here. Yet you still cling on to this site, claimimg how you are going to leave etc etc. But you keep coming back. Why?
LEAVE ALREADY would ya?! I'm gettin nauseated.
|
| |
|
RE:JESUSILOVE
|
|
|
by N6HBJ on April 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
P.S.
Welcome to LIFE. It exists everywhere. It isn't any different in any other field or microsociety, even church, so unless you are a hermit, you will not escape the humaness of us all.
|
| |
|
RE:JESUSILOVE
|
|
|
by N6HBJ on April 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Oh and one other thing JESUSILOVE,
calling people "old farts, clown, big mouth fools, and redneck" as you have, isn't exactly what I would call nice, Perhaps you should look in the mirror when you make those accusations. You're just as guilty as the rest of us, so perhaps you SHOULD get your license.
You would fit in well!
|
| |
|
RE:JESUSILOVE
|
|
|
by N6HBJ on April 7, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Oh and one other thing JESUSILOVE,
calling people "old farts, clown, big mouth fools, and redneck" as you have, isn't exactly what I would call nice, Perhaps you should look in the mirror when you make those accusations. You're just as guilty as the rest of us, so perhaps you SHOULD get your license.
You would fit in well!
|
| |
|
RE: Another Approach to Ham Radio?
|
|
|
by WA9SVD on April 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Mike,
I don't want to see the code go away just yet, and certainly not the CW only portions of the bands. And I greatly admire anyone who is truly proficient at Morse Code. I operate at a club station where we have some operators that are very good, including one operator who can do 35 WPM with one hand tied behind his back. (Maybe even both hands!)
And I do not think the 5 WPM is that difficult; if someone WANTS to pass the exam, they can do it in a half hour a day for less than a month. The only "objection" I have to the code-no code arguement is that I don't think it acts as a filter. I've met many many great no-code Techs, and unfortunately, more than a few really rotten "High Code Extra's." It ends up being a reflection of society in general, whether coded or not. At least that's my experience. So we should all try to get along. And I hope to meet you on the air someday.
73
Larry WA9SVD
|
| |
|
Another Approach to Ham Radio?
|
|
|
by RADIO123US on April 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Larry,
I will agree with you that just knowing morse code
doesn't make one a better ham operator, but it
DOES tell us a little about the level of discipline
and commitment one has towards the hobby. That is
where the CW requirement acts as a "filter". The
reason that the alot of the CB types are not
interested in getting their ham license has to do
with the fact that to learn morse code actually
takes a little effort on their part. Most of them
just want to pick up the mike and talk and could
care less about a license. So in a sense, CW does
act as a filter. Sure, we have some people who have
passed the CW test and are just as bad as the worst
CBer, but in my experience, this is the minority.
No "filter" is perfect, but right now, it's all we have, and until something is done about changing the written exams so that they are meaningful, I think the 5wpm requirement is appropriate.
|
| |
|
RE: Another Approach to Ham Radio?
|
|
|
by WA9SVD on April 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
To Radio123us (John Smith? LOL!)
(My sincerest apology if that really IS your name!)
This forum is REALLY in trouble now. We have two people that for the most part AGREE on something!
Although I do agree about changing the written test to be a better test of knowledge, rather than rote memorization, I don't think anyone is going to be able to memorize the Extra question pool as there are 800 questions in the pool. (I realized that two days before I upgraded: I had been taking the old Extra practice exams on line, and said I have this down pat. THEN I saw the new, combined question pool (former Advanced questions AND Extra combined.) I went through practice exams there several times, each time writing down the area (not the exact question)I needed to study. And then I studied to ARRL Handbook in those areas for two nights before I tested. I don't think anyone (well, hardly anyone;) can memorize that number of answers to pass the Extra without some knowledge. And there's almost no way to possibly guess your way through the exam. With 37 years in ham radio, I guess a lot of that RF actually sunk in, because I obviously passed. But it's hardly easy or just a matter of memorization, at least at that level. I think I'd like to see the exam go back to the old style, with sample questions available for study, but not the exact questions that will be on the exam. (By the way, using Ohm's law, if you take two zero ohm resistors and put them in parallel, what is the resistance? <grin>)
|
| |
|
RE: Another Approach to Ham Radio?
|
|
|
by WB5OAU on April 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Another Approach to Ham Radio? Reply
by ZL2FZ on March 31, 2003
" Well folks here we go again.......should we have to pass 5 words or not? Well down here in zl country, in my opinion if they dont drop it then...there wont be many hams left! "
....and if they do drop it, there won't be *any* hams left.
John K5MO
|
| |
|
Let him see the light !
|
|
|
by CT2GEM on April 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
First of all let me say that IŽve used all from Ham to 27 Mhz to 446.
We hams know that comparing Ham radio with CB or 446 is like comparing a Ferrari with a bycicle.
446 is no fun for us because we can do so mutch more with ham radio.
The author would know that if we was a ham too.
Anyway 446 has a place as a short range com system.
The fact remains that:
- We need to promote better our hobby/service
- we need testing because you have to prove something to get all the benefits and for free
- That doesnŽt mean that is wrong in many aspects
WeŽll just have to accept that riding a bike can still be fun for someone who havenŽt tried nothing better. Let him see the light!
CT2GEM (yeat another callsign)
|
| |
|
Another Approach to Ham Radio?
|
|
|
by DIDDLYSQUAT on April 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Notice how the original webpage writer has responded on his page!
Now, calm down and try and see it from his point of view. If some of you argue about how wonderful learning Morse is, no wonder the rest of the world thinks you're odd!
|
| |
|
Another Approach to Ham Radio?
|
|
|
by KC8WCW on April 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
For reasons unknown, I occasionally find myself trying to process why anyone in their right mind would even acknowledge this type of comedy, let alone respond to it. To some extent however, the "author" must be correct. Only someone who is stricken with boredom would even care to type a response.
Everyone who is registered on this site is currently licensed to run 1,500 watts of power. You can communicate via satellite, over repeaters, and in about any mode imaginable. I ask you, do you honestly give a rip about a guy who is trying to make a case for a half watt simplex radio that you can purchase at at K-Mart? Please! This is one of those types who sits in the safety and security of his little computer vestibule, trying to tick off as many people as possible. Consider the source, and act accordingly. This is truly a laugh, and doesn't even justify any further response.
KC8WCW
|
| |
|
Another Approach to Ham Radio?
|
|
|
by WA2JJH on April 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
iT IS WITH DEEP REGRETE THAT I MUST INFORM ALL THAT ED THE TAKING CW/ANTI CW HORSE IS DEAD.
|
| |
|
RE: Another Approach to Ham Radio?
|
|
|
by N6HBJ on April 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
DIDDLYSQUAT, I really don't think the rest of the world gives a hoot either way.
|
| |
|
Another Approach to Ham Radio?
|
|
|
by KC0FUI on April 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I do not often add my two cents to discussions on eHam, but I feel the need to make a few points:
1) CW can be and is a valuable emergency resource- it gets through interference better than other modes.
2) No-code Techs are not the problem. Poor operators (no matter what license class held) and poor operating practices are the problem- on 11 meters and elsewhere.
3) Among a group of reasonably well-educated people (obviously, most of us have ham licenses), there is no place nor need for ad hominem (personal) attacks in the course of debate. All of us (pro-code, anti-code, couldn't-care-less-about-code) ought to be able to discuss our differences in a more adult manner.
4) I, for one, am glad not every ham enjoys the same bands and modes- it gets crowded sometimes as is!
73 to all,
Jeremiah M. Bohn
KC0FUI
|
| |
|
RE: Let him see the light !
|
|
|
by KF6KDA on April 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
man, you all need to go get a job...
jeez louise....same 'ol stuff, different thread....
isn't this old as dirt already ?
Bottom line, hobby is dying, need to do something, PERIOD!!
if you guys devoted 10 % of the energy wasted here on getting new blood for the hobby, we prolly wouldn't even be having this debate...
muhahahahahahahaha!
|
| |
|
Another Approach to Ham Radio?
|
|
|
by RADIO123US on April 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
hmmmm..so the hobby is dying, you obviously
have not been on 20 meters lately. On most
nights the band is very crowded. It's the same
on 40 meters as well. I also see alot of digital
activity since PSK has become popular. So I really
don't see ham radio dying. I just see a few people
who don't want to be inconvenienced by having to study
for the CW exam. Well, then I guess they don't want
on the HF bands bad enough yet. CW is not my
favorite mode, but I wanted to get on HF more than I disliked having to study morse code. If you are too
lazy to study, then don't complain about the rules.
I will have to agree with what the previous poster said
about the CW requirement.
in my opinion if they dont drop it then...there wont be many hams left! "
....and if they do drop it, there won't be *any* hams left.
|
| |
|
Another Approach to Ham Radio?
|
|
|
by RADIO123US on April 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The real threat to our bands is not in the HF
portions of the bands..it's the VHF/UHF allocations
that the commercial interest want to have. Since
it doesn't require morse code to get a license
for VHF/UHF, why don't the people who are complaining
about the hobby dying try to encourage more hams to
get their tech license so that we can populate
those bands ??? I think it's because they really
want HF priviliges but they don't want to put in the
effort it requires to get them. So they complain
that the hobby is dying in hopes that the rules
will be changed. The VHF/UHF bands are what we
should be concerned about losing, and the CW requirement is not causing that problem.
|
| |
|
RE: Let him see the light !
|
|
|
by N6HBJ on April 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
KF6KDA, the hobby is NOT dying. Quite the contrary. Have you read the recent article in QST? Ham radio is at an all time HIGH in the U.S.!
|
| |
|
RE: Let him see the light !
|
|
|
by N6HBJ on April 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
KF6KDA, the hobby is NOT dying. Quite the contrary. Have you read the recent article in QST? Ham radio is at an all time HIGH in the U.S.!
|
| |
|
CW saves a life.
|
|
|
by AD6WL on April 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
TELEGRAPHY IN ACTION: Life saved with CW
http://www.net-magic.net/users/w4fok/snake.htm
|
| |
|
Another Approach to Ham Radio?
|
|
|
by PA9MG on April 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Here in The Netherlands we don't need to keep a log.
73,
Marc
PA9MG
|
| |
|
RE: Another Approach to Ham Radio?
|
|
|
by AGGIERAILROADER on April 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I am not a ham and I don't particularly have an interest in it. HOWEVER, I think it is a great hobby and one that teaches a lot of good skills--technical and most importantly, people relation skills. I also know that it may be the only means of communication one day in the event of terrorist strikes on our infrastructure. Email, telephone, cell service, and the postal service can all be blocked. But, you cannot easily keep hams from doing their thing. So, I say "keep it up, guys!" and don't worry about the naysayers.
|
| |
|
RE: WELL WELL, ISN'T THIS VERY INTERESTING!
|
|
|
by N6HBJ on April 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
From the ARRL newsletter, April 2003
* News story credits ham radio for aiding maritime rescue: According to a
recent New York Times news item attributed to Agence France-Presse,
unidentified ham radio operators picked up distress signals April 6 from a
114-foot missionary vessel that had experienced engine trouble during a
2000-mile journey from Kiritimati Island (also known as Christmas Island)
to Kiribati in Micronesia. The ship, with 64 passengers, reportedly had
run out of water and food and had begun drifting south of the equator. In
response to the distress call report, a nearby US Coast Guard icebreaker,
Polar Sea--which was returning from Antarctica to Arctic duty--was
dispatched and succeeded in finding the drifting vessel. Coast Guard
engineers reportedly repaired the engines and provided food and water for
the passengers and crew. One passenger was taken off the vessel for
medical treatment. The boat later proceeded under its own power to Tarawa.
What say ye naysayers now about how unlikely that ham radio would play a part in maritime rescue?
|
| |
|
RE: WELL WELL, ISN'T THIS VERY INTERESTING!
|
|
|
by KG4RUL on April 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
TO: N6HBJ
I don't see the abbreviation CW anywhere in your quoted article! NO ONE has ever said, in this thread, that Ham Radio could not save lives. What is being argued, by the 'Brass Pounder' crowd, is that CW is the ONLY way to save lives.
Dennis - KG4RUL
|
| |
|
Another Approach to Ham Radio?
|
|
|
by RADIO123US on April 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Regardless of whether CW saved the day or not, the
point is that ham radio has helped save lives.
When SSB will not work, CW is an option that can
be used to get the message across. Eliminate the
morse code requirement and you eliminate the option.
Also, by eliminating the morse code requirement you
create another problem...over crowding of the band
with inexperienced CB types that have no other interest
then keying their mikes with over-modulated audio
and roger beeps to "shoot skip"....that's a really
scary thought !!! Regardless of what you may think,
the morse code requirement is keeping MOST of the CBers
off of the ham bands. If nothing else, that is a
very good reason to keep the requirement.
|
| |
|
RE: WELL WELL, ISN'T THIS VERY INTERESTING!
|
|
|
by N6HBJ on April 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KG4RUL,
I already submitted 3 articles on this thread where cw saved someone.
The purpose of THIS post was to show the naysayers who think that it is doubtful that ham radio ever be used for maritime emergencies.
I can resubmit the other 3 if you would like.
|
| |
|
RE: KG4RUL, this ones for you.
|
|
|
by N6HBJ on April 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
AMSEA Marine safety update, volume 14, no. 3, Fall 1998
A GMDSS SUCCESS STORY
One of the limitations of using a VHF or SSB radio is that it can only be picked up by vessels or rescue resources in your area. VHF is relatively limited (15 to 20 miles). SSB is better at several hundred miles (but only if someone is tuned in to it). But what if there are no rescue resources near you, like off the horn of Africa?
The passenger vessel Archille Lauro with 2,000 passengers caught fire off Eriteria not long ago. A morse code SOS was sent off which was picked up by the Hawaiian King. They in turn alerted the MRCC in Stavanger Norway. Within 10 minutes, the MRCC sent an alert out to all vessels within a 150 mile radius. Within 2 hours there were 16 vessels on scene, and within six hours all 2,000 passengers were rescued. All of this occurred despite the fact that there were no dedicated professional rescue services in the area. GMDSS more effectively coordinated the rescue and shorten the time gap.
|
| |
|
RE: KG4RUL, ham radio IS a service.
|
|
|
by N6HBJ on April 14, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
That last post was in case you somehow "overlooked" those articles.
By the way, ham radio is not just a hobby. It IS a service also. A volunteer service yes, but still a service. Hams have been serving people in need all over the world for decades.
Very important is the fact that in order to help our "hobby" survive, laws have been enacted and proposed to protect ham radio (like regarding our frequency spectrum or erecting antennas) and what SAVES us is the fact that during emergencies, ham radio can be beneficial.
This is what is justifying our existance to the public more than anything else and allowing these protective laws to be established. Not many people care or know about our "hobby", but when it is brought up that ham radio can serve as an emergency station during disasters etc (especially with the recent threat of terrorism), then these people look at ham radio as beneficial to the community rather than just some "hobby" and this helps get votes in our favor which is the current circumstance.
It is much more than a hobby.
|
| |
|
RE: KG4RUL, ham radio IS a service.
|
|
|
by KG4RUL on April 14, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
OK, I am pierced to the heart and bleeding.
I guess this thread just proves what I, and a lot of other beginning hams have thought, Ham Radio is dying a slow and painful death brought on by the hide bound, old farts (I have hesitated to use this term up till now but, am now convinced it is justly deserved) who bellow like wounded Elephants. You are headed to the Elephant graveyard. Just follow the trail of dits and dahs to get there.
Go ahead and fire back at me for the next 24 hours because after that point, I will not look at this thread ever again.
I hope if I meet you above 50MHz, you will leave your HF attitudes behind. The TRUE gentlemen of Ham Radio are NOT on HF.
Dennis - KG4RUL
|
| |
|
RE: KG4RUL, ham radio IS a service.
|
|
|
by N6HBJ on April 14, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KG4RUL, we all know your story out here already from prior threads. You have something similar to the "small man's complex" except in your case it is the "old fat nerd without a girlfriend complex".
|
| |
|
RE: KG4RUL, ham radio IS a service.
|
|
|
by KG4RUL on April 14, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
To N6HBJ:
Ah Yes! A Californian! I take back all the things I was going to say about you. You can't help yourself.
Dennis - KG4RUL
P.S. - Happily married for 20+ years to the same Woman.
|
| |
|
Another Approach to Ham Radio?
|
|
|
by RADIO123US on April 14, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KG4RUL, instead of spending all your time
complaining about morse code requirements
and those of us who have taken the time to
study the code, why don't you spend this time
in studying so you can upgrade ? The rewards
are much greater than anything you could possibly
be getting by complaining.....
|
| |
|
Just a NOTE for "ANONYMOUSBOB"
|
|
|
by RADIOWEENIE on May 12, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Speaking to ANONYMOUSBOB: Mariners with upper level licenses are indeed required to know CW. It is CW by flashing light and it must be passed at 6 wpm. If you cannot do CW by flashing light at 6 wpm-- no upgrade for you! Do you think 13 wpm by sound is fast? Try it at 6 wpm by flashing light!
|
| |
|
RE: Another Approach to Ham Radio?
|
|
|
by WR8D on November 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
RE ANONYMOUSBOB: Hey mr nocode dumbass. Radio operators of ocean vessels have to pass a very hard commercial test. Part of that test is passing a very difficult "35 wpm code test". These guys keep the ships radios and radars playing and have to be able in an emergency to send and receive "code". Oh yes in this modern age with satalites and all that they are still required by uncle sam and the coast guard to know the code. Things happen and all this modern crap goes to hell in a hand basket and they "still" bang the code.
Sorry to bust ur dumbass bubble:
John WR8D
|
| |
|
Another Approach to Ham Radio?
|
|
|
by KC4QNY on July 4, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
amateur radio numbers were increasing up until the Arrl
and the FCC implemented the incentive licensing structure and dealt an unstoppable slow death to the hobby. Sometimes you can listen on twenty meters to negative comments about novices, techs, cbers, Alot of those "hams" cant even relate to the younger generation of potential amatures. The league and its lemmings only have themselves to blame. Its not the internet, its not computers. Kids are interested in the state of the art and when kids see a station, they simply dont relate and ask "why even bother"? when what they see is a museum. There are very much ways to present amatuer radio but in a way that will click with kids, have teenage operators demonstrate 2 meter
rigs that fit in their pockets like cell phones and have open minded elmers guide them to a tech license. The techs I know are programmers, run I.T. at small companies, youth directors at church, etc. You know,a tech license is much more in tune with todays potential hams than other tickets. Kids dont need to hear the gutter language on 80 and 20 meters, and these are usually the higher class holders, what an example these guys present, pray that ham radio evolves to a higher level with the TECHS.
|
| |
|
RE: KG4RUL, ham radio IS a service.
|
|
|
by KC4QNY on July 4, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hello....Thank god for people like you, youre preaching to the choir in my book, The true killers of this hobby are perverting the HF bands, yeah have potential hams listen to this garbage on 20 and 80 meters. The "old pharts with their boat anchors. And the ARRL lemmings..
God bless and 73! KEEP DOING WHAT YOURE DOING!!!
Tim KC4QNY
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Other Recent Articles
VK5RJ Still Gracing the Airwaves at Age 101:
rec.radio.amateur.moderated -- 5 Yrs. Old:
Tune-In To The World -- Amateur Radio Gets People Talking:
Student Sends MIT Letter to Space:
Amateur Radio Club Talks to Hams Worldwide on Centennial:
|
