'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says K8LQ
Brian E. Brachel (K8LQ)
on
April 23, 2003
View comments about this article!
As the ARRL is moving closer and closer to a NO CW requirement for Ham Radio, I wonder about the useless bandspace that is being occupied by the few (ARRL engineered) CW operators.
I try to have a good, solid Phone QSO in the crowded Phone bands and I begin to wonder about the inconsiderate use of bandspace. As a SSB operator, I'm deeply offended by the misuse of valuble bandspace by a very few CW operators whose very narrow signals don't require the tremendous amounts of bandspace required by my SSB signal.
After all Hollingsworth cited §97.307(a) of the Amateur Service rules that requires the signal of an amateur station not occupy "more bandwidth than necessary for the information rate and emission type being transmitted, in accordance with good amateur practice."
So is it good amateur practice for CW operators to occupy valuable bandspace to the exclusion of SSB operators? After all CW operators should occupy no more bandwidth than is necessary for their information to be transmitted.
Or did I read something wrong?
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
|
'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says K8LQ
|
|
|
by AB7RG on April 23, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I don't think that the ARRL is
going to go for a no-code HF
ticket, and it's hard to say if
the FCC will if the outcome of
WARC 2003 removes the CW
requirement for HF access.
Either way, with the expansion
of the digital modes I say that
the phone bands, crowded as
they are, should stay the same.
We need to protect the spectrum
that is allocated for CW IMHO,
as the CW sub-bands are crowded;
tune around and you'll hear that
it is just as crowded down there
as the phone portions of the
bands.
73 Clinton AB7RG
|
| |
|
'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says K8LQ
|
|
|
by KD7KGX on April 23, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This article was obviously written by someone who has no idea of what the term "bandwidth" means.
I'm sure that if CW went away due to lack of CW operators, the powers-that-be would waste no time in carving up the CW subbands. However, despite the fears of CW enthusiasts and to the dismay of the no-coders, CW usage continues to thrive among amateurs. QRP CW is one of the fastest-growing areas of operation among General-class and above hams, and CW lives on.
Now... here's a nightmare scenario for CW and SSB fans... what if the 'minimum usable bandwidth for effective communications' principle was carried to the extreme? Then, modes like PSK125 or Packet might be the only modes allowed on HF since the true communications throughput rate is as higher or higher than voice (given that the op can type that fast... which he can't... or that he has pre-typed his QSO) and much higher than CW, while bandwidth is less than 500 Hz. Or, perhaps a new digital phoneme mode will be created where a computer samples your voice, breaks up the sounds into one-syllable phonemes, and then sends a simple binary representation of that phoneme to the receiving computer, which reassembles the phonetic stream albiet with a computer voice... doable with today's technology AND providing a high comm rate with low bandwidth. Your interface would be a microphone, and every other ham would have that same digital voice.
That's right... you SSB-ers are too wide and you CW'ers are too slow! Both of you OFF THE AIR right now and make room for the new digital modes!
|
| |
|
'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says K8LQ
|
|
|
by I2VFB on April 23, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I understand the concern about scarcity of available bandwidth for SSB, but I'm afraid I don't share it. As someone already pointed out, CW is alive and well and does deserve the bandwidth allocation it currently has. Are there any reliable statistics showing how many OMs are operating on each given band in SSB and CW in any given moment ? If we knew that, we could make a fact-based decision about bandwidth allocation. I would refrain from using terms like "extremely inconsiderate" allocation before having hard evidence. Moreover, as propagation declines (the current solar cycle is nearing its end) there will be plenty of bandwidth for all in the next few years. I don't see the reason to rush to secure more SSB bandwidth (or even CW bandwidth) right now.
|
| |
|
'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says K8LQ
|
|
|
by WA4PTZ on April 23, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
While you're at it....there is another REG that few
pay any heed , and it say " the maximum amount of
power that can be used is the minimum necessary to
maintain communications." Now, if you want to
talk about bandwith, all those folks using amplifiers
are using too much bandwith as well as too much power.
As for the other aspects of Amateur Radio ?
Well, you be the judge.
73 - Tim
|
| |
|
'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says K8LQ
|
|
|
by W8OB on April 23, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
this post is a brillant display of excessive wasted bandwidth. This belongs on on the rec. radio newsgroups. Billy goat gruff watch out for the troll under this bridge. Since when does the ARRL call the shots?????
|
| |
|
'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says K8LQ
|
|
|
by WN3VAW on April 23, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Humor articles should be indicated as such.
They should also be at least a little funny.
|
| |
|
RE: 'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says
|
|
|
by KG4RUL on April 23, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Let's see, he is an Extra and doesn't understand the concept of bandwith vs band allocation. This is why we need to drop the CW requirement and EMPHASIZE technical competence!
Dennis - KG4RUL
|
| |
|
'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says K8LQ
|
|
|
by N8VQJ on April 23, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought CW was allowed on any band and any frequency(and in any mode really as you can always transmit CW through your phone mike). The band plans only exists to keep us sane (with exception of any FCC rules). There are enough open frequencies that you can move up a 1 KHz and not even hear the CW signal. CW isn't going away.
|
| |
|
'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says K8LQ
|
|
|
by KW4CQ on April 23, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Isn't about time we all took a serious look at how our valuable freqency spectum is REALLY be utilized? The 20m CW portion of the band has been nearly eaten up by the digital (RTTY, PSK, etc.) modes sqeezing the CW folks down between 14,050 and 14,025 (unless your an Extra). I say open 14,050 to 14,000 to all CW ops regardless of license class. The 40m band plan is a total disaster and needs to be fixed, and soon. I would wager to say that 90 percent of U.S. amateur operation is on SSB, at least on 20, 17 and 15 meters. Why not allocate bandwidth on the basis of actual usage rather than on the ancient band plan we have now? Is it time for a change?
|
| |
|
'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says K8LQ
|
|
|
by K1MKF on April 23, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
While I disagree with your premise I do think it ironic that CW has a protected subband but CW can legally operate in the phone portion. I've always been told that CW is more robust and that CW can "get through" even over SSB or AM phone QRM. It would seem that phone needs a protected subband. CW will continue to be protected by FCC, ARRL and diehard fans. That's fine but I think in the long run it won't matter much. Those that want to operate CW will and those that don't won't.
Mark
|
| |
|
'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says K8LQ
|
|
|
by KX2S on April 23, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Brian
You need to get a life. This sure sounds like a joke to me. No normal person would post such an article.
|
| |
|
'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says K8LQ
|
|
|
by RW3GU on April 23, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K8NQ wrote:
"As the ARRL is moving closer and closer to a NO CW requirement for Ham Radio, ..."
Do you really mean that ARRL sets CW requirements for Ham Radio in the world, or they are able to reallocate band plans?
...
It is very interesting to look from the outside. I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings - I didn't mean to.
|
| |
|
RE: 'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says
|
|
|
by N0UY on April 23, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Brian, while I totaly disagree with the substance of your article, I support your right to express your opinion. I hope it was not posted just as a response to Riley's recent actions. If so, relaying your opinions directly to him would seem logical and maybe you have already done that. I think the majority of hams enjoy several modes of this hobby including CW, SSB, and PSK31 for example. There are those that get totaly focused on only one aspect of the hobby because they enjoy it so much, and after a while it seems like the rest of us are just getting in their way. I for one will continue to enjoy all of the spectrum currently allocated to my license class abiding by the present band plans with attention to being a good and courteous operator. If change is inevitable, I will adapt as required or find something else to satisfy me.
Ray N0UY
|
| |
|
RE: 'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says
|
|
|
by KA4KOE on April 23, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Haul this man to the town square. Get a noose, boys!
We're a gonna have us a good ole fashion NECKTIE party!!
Hey bubba, I found a rope!!!
YEEEEEE HAWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!
LONG LIVE CW!!! DOWN WITH VOICE!!!!
Philip
The CW MACHINE
KA4KOE
:0
|
| |
|
RE: 'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says
|
|
|
by KA4KOE on April 23, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KGX:
I ain't too slow with my bug, and I intend to stay right where I am.
Yes, I know how to use it. Well.
|
| |
|
'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says K8LQ
|
|
|
by N1MG on April 23, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Brian,
You must be kidding. CW is the premier mode of operation for any real hams, in my book. It is the classic way of demonstrating operating skill. Anyone can buy a rig with a mic and talk into it.
And the ARRL has nothing to do with my thoughts about CW.
Mark
|
| |
|
RE: 'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says
|
|
|
by AA4PB on April 23, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
There are two ways to look at the bandwidth issue. One could take the view that it is the SSB operators that are being inconsiderate by taking up 3Khz bandwidth when a 50Hz wide CW signal could get the message through. The SSB signal takes up about as much space as 60 CW signals.
The other issue is that the "CW bands" are now for the most part the "digital bands". This spectrum now supports a variety of digital modes in addition to CW so the need for this spectrum is increasing rather than decreasing, regardless of the status of CW.
|
| |
|
RE: 'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says
|
|
|
by AA4PB on April 23, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
By the way, what is an "ARRL engineered" CW operator?
|
| |
|
'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says K8LQ
|
|
|
by NT9E on April 23, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Geez...lighten up. This article is obviously a tongue in cheek reply to those cretins who use "WIFI" audio.
|
| |
|
'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says K8LQ
|
|
|
by KY6R on April 23, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Another eHam "chain puller" article.
|
| |
|
assorted comments
|
|
|
by KT8K on April 23, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Bandwidth" and "band plan" are obviously two separate things, so I find the initial premise confusing.
(Is it worth noting that phone operators regularly step on each other and rarely seem aware of sstv, am, and qrp designated frequencies in the phone subbands?)
FWIW, there are plenty of times when I can't find a clear space to call CQ on 40 CW. I never hear CW in the phone bands and *very* rarely in the digital subband, but ... maybe CW ops should start using more of what is legally theirs???
|
| |
|
'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says K8LQ
|
|
|
by KG6AMW on April 23, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Its time to turn the radio off, disconnect the coffee maker and go outside and play.
KG6AMW
|
| |
|
RE: 'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says
|
|
|
by CURMUDGEON on April 23, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
There is a saying that " It is better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt." I think this was one of those times.
|
| |
|
RE: 'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says
|
|
|
by KA4KOE on April 23, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
My playtime is on the radio!! Had a QSO last night and the fist made that Vibroplex Original sing at 40 WPM. Loved it. CW is a temperamental thing. Some days you don't have it, but last night I was in the "groove" man.
Just yet another article designed to inflame the code-no code argument. Look at the past 6 months and count for me the number of articles in this vein.
Philip
|
| |
|
'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says K8LQ
|
|
|
by N2XE on April 23, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Seems like you are confusing "bandspace" with bandwidth. On any given night I operate, I hear gazillions of CW stations and maybe 5 SSB stations on any given band.
Perhaps you need a better antenna system or, maybe, a receiver that isn't deaf.
Your article is instructive and helps explain why so many ops like to tune-up on the CW "bandspace".
Why not give QRP CW a try and discover the joy of working weak signals. There's something special and noble about working a S2 signal for a two hour rag-chew. You don't need S9+60dB to communicate. And when your QSO is brought to an abrupt end by some lid tuning up on top of you because "that weak signal must be far away and couldn't possibly care" then you will truly know the meaning of "Extremely Inconsiderate".
|
| |
|
'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says K8LQ
|
|
|
by AA9KK on April 23, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KY6R (Rich): Amen on the "chain pulling."
KG6AMW (Merrill): Tag! You're it!
|
| |
|
'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says K8LQ
|
|
|
by W6LAX on April 23, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
When I tune through the CW bands during peak operating times they seem packed. In fact, around the CW-QRP sub-sections it is often hard to find a free spot. During a popular contest the CW bands are mayhem. Most of us frequently have our narrow filters on so that we can hear through all the QRM.
QRM isn't just an SSB issue, it is a reality in every mode; just try RTTY when a DXpedition or a RTTY contest is on. QRM can be annoying, but what a delight to hear all the activity on the bands.
|
| |
|
'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says K8LQ
|
|
|
by N4KIT on April 23, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>So is it good amateur practice for CW operators to >occupy valuable bandspace to the exclusion of SSB >operators? After all CW operators should occupy no >more bandwidth than is necessary for their >information to be transmitted.
CW operators (or any other digital mode) DO NOT occupy more "valuable bandwidth" than necessary. Unless I missed the introduction of "Enhanced CW" HI HI.
The allocation charts set out a portion of the lower end of each band for DIGITAL modes (not CW). And there are a large number of Ops using digital mode in those segments, very efficiently. Just last night, I was working PSK31 in the 20m band, and there where no less than 25 copiable signals in my passband! When there are 25 QSOs occuring in same space as 1 ONE SSB siganl, how can this possibly be an inefficient or inconsiderate use of spectrum?
|
| |
|
'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says K8LQ
|
|
|
by KA8SYX on April 23, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hi, folks, I don't normally respond or post replies to these sorts of op-ed pieces, but do have an opinion on the code-no code issue.
I was originally licenced in 1983, just out of high school. The local club in St. Marys, WV (my hometown, I suppose) offered a class and two good pals from high school and I took the class. Frank, KA8SYV, still holds that call and was for the longest time a confirmed QRP CW man, digging up the really weak, really remote DX. CW never came easily for me, not like it did for Frank. The technical, theory side was always my forte, I even used it to my benefit in the US Navy, initially as an electronics technician. Anyhow, because of my difficulty with CW, I languished for years as a novice, becoming a tech+ in 1992 while on leave from the Nav. I am now an extra (some might say an extra *light*.) Had it not been for the restructuring and reduction of the requirement to 5wpm, I'd still be a tech+ with a perpetual extra written exam CSCE hanging out of my back pocket, but choking on the code. Since earning my restructured General in Sep 2000 and my Extra last spring, I have learned so much more about the hobby, even getting my feet wet on satellite QRVs. However, for the time being, I am almost exclusively a phone operator. I don't current own a PC or laptop with which to operate any of the digital modes (which I find fascinating, BTW.)
That said, CW should never go away, IMHO. A previous respondent said that CW is one of the things that makes us unique. It's true, anyone can talk into a microphone, but CW sets one apart. And it is also true that CW occupies so much less bandwidth. CW is such an elegant language, especially when it's HSCW, it would be a sad day if the code requirement ever went away. And this comes from someone for whom CW has been an absolute bane!
Lastly, the HiFi phone operators have rights, too. QRO ops have rights as well. However, the rights of each of these individuals to operate in the legal (I won't discuss the ethical dimension, since the law is a constant in comparison to ethics and worldviews) way of his or her choice extend up to and end at the point at which exceeding them infringes on the rights of another. That means that to two ops ragchewing with QRO phone two kHz from the 80M phone DX window (about whom I've read recently) really should have thought better about a spot for their conversation.
I had better stop before I really get on a soapbox. I really enjoy ham radio, I would have to say it's my passion. Thanks for reading. Responses invited, by all means.
V/r, & 73
Ray KA8SYX
Big Pine Key, FL
|
| |
|
'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says K8LQ
|
|
|
by WA0ZZG on April 23, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Sometimes an issue is so complex the best solution
is to do nothing at all.
To the CW ops that enjoy it at 30-40WPM, thank you
for dropping back to my 15WPM. I'm just beginning
to copy in my head. I'll get there some day.
AR
|
| |
|
'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says K8LQ
|
|
|
by JA2WWE on April 23, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Yeah., maybe they can clear up all that unused 80 meter spectrum from about 3.550MHz to 3.750MHz so that all that crowded red neck trash talk above the band can have more room to spew their stuff!-
|
| |
|
'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says K8LQ
|
|
|
by N8UZE on April 23, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Actually there is some statistical data available. The membership of the ARRL, although not inclusive of all hams, does reflect fairly well the ratio of the various classes of operators. Recently, they had a survey on CW usage. The results were as follows (these are rounded for convenience, see the ARRL site for actual results).
1/3 - Never worked CW
1/3 - Worked CW 75% to 100% of their on air time
1/3 - Worked CW sometimes (i.e. less than 75%)
Going through all the numbers, gives about half the total usage being CW. This corresponds fairly well with what I actually hear on the bands. There is just as much CW activity as voice activity.
Another bit of information from the ARRL site that indicates CW usage is probably increasing is the contest data. Based on log submittals, participation in CW contests has increased 20% over the last year or two. Participation in voice contests has been relatively static (no growth).
|
| |
|
I Aggree !
|
|
|
by WB9GKZ on April 23, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Yes, for years I have wondered the same thing: with the decline of CW-use on our bands....why hasn't the ARRL petitioned for shrinking the CW Subbands and expand the Phone subbands?
It's crazy that the phone-users on 75M are so crowded together while the CW subband is free, clear and wide open on most evenings. Does it make any sense that we still have the Novice CW subbands in existance when that class of license no longer exists? IMHO the 75M CW subband could be changed to 100KHz and easily accomodate all the CW enthusiasts.
What we have now just does not make sense as CW operation continues to decline.
Is the the current policy "Extremely Inconsiderate"?
I think it is.
Pat WB9GKZ
|
| |
|
'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says K8LQ
|
|
|
by AE0Q on April 23, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
A no-code Extra without a clue, trying to stir things up.
|
| |
|
'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says K8LQ
|
|
|
by KU4QD on April 23, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The only thing "extremely inconsiderate" is the author of the article, who clearly wants more SSB band allocation at the expense of other hams. When I operate CW, the ARRL didn't engineer me to do it. I recently picked up a Mizuho P-21DX and it rekindled my interest in CW on 15 meters. I don't think I had done any CW on that band in a while, and suddenly I WANTED to do some. I've been so tickled I have the matching 40m rig, the P-7DX, on the way.
The CW portion of the band doesn't just accommodate C, either. It also is home to all the popular digital modes, from PSK31 to old fashioned RTTY. The fact is that on most of the bands a very large chunk of teh CW/digital allocation is very busy. Listen to 40m at night if you don't believe me. For that matter, add 80m at night, 20m or 17m anytime, etc...
Dedicated space for narrow band communication is still needed. CW and digital are the mainstays of the QRP community. Kilowatt SSBers would render QRP communications just about impossible. In the CW portion of the band, where the modes used occuply very little bandwidth (a term the author does not comprehend) it is easy for a QRPer to squeeze in now. Try 20m or 40m SSB QRP. It's well nigh impossible a lot of the time because of crowding. The thing is, the CW bands are crowded too, but the nature of CW, a very narrow bandwidth mode, still allows for effective communications. Don't think QRP is popular? The FT-817 is Yaesu's second best selling radio, with tens of thousands of the little rigs in use now.
I realize that CW has been deemphasized as a requrement for a license. I'm not getting into that debate. That doesn't change the fact that many, many hams still enjoy CW and CHOOSE to use it. Others enjoy digital modes. These modes need protected space from wide bandwidth communication like SSB and AM.
I understand that the author doesn't like CW. That means, to him, he has a right to say that the CW allocations should be eliminated. Sure, we have free speech and he can say whatever he wants. He can argue any totally selfish viewpoint he wishes. Tell me, who is inconsiderate here? IMHO, all modes of operation enjoyed by hams should be allowed room on the bands.
What's next? Would the author like to eliminate weak signal, CW, and satellite segments of the VHF bands so we can squeeze in a few more repeaters? Good grief!
|
| |
|
RE: 'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says
|
|
|
by GORGO on April 23, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
The 20,40and 75-80 meter bands should be like 10,12,17 and 160. The voice part of the band should be open to any hf license class. That would create some MUCH needed elbow room.
|
| |
|
RE: 'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says
|
|
|
by KE4MOB on April 23, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Let's just throw out all the bandplans. Any license class, any content (even offensive) any transmission type, anywhere in the band. Should be easy to enforce, because there will be no rules, therefore no violations.
Eventually, this is where we are headed with all this bickering. Sad.
Steve, KE4MOB
|
| |
|
RE: 'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says
|
|
|
by AD6WL on April 23, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>After all Hollingsworth cited §97.307(a) of the Amateur Service rules that requires the signal of an amateur station not occupy "more bandwidth than necessary for the information rate and emission type being transmitted, in accordance with good amateur practice."<<
The original poster has made a good point. Since SSB takes between 2-8Kc of space, they are not operating with good amateur practice. Therefore, SSB space should be further limited. The CW portion of the bands also include the digital modes and beacons, not just CW. Perhaps you may want to try a SSB beacon!
This is the problem with the NO-CODE crowd who insist that "We don't want to eliminate CW." The first step is to eliminate the CW requirment for a HF license and then to demand more SSB space since the SSB space is so crowded with the HiFi, and wide SSB ops.
|
| |
|
RE: I Aggree !
|
|
|
by WA4MJF on April 23, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Pat, the Novice and Advanced still do
exist. The FCC just doesn't issue any new
licenses of those classes.
Holders of those tickets may, however, continue
to renew.
73 de Ronnie
|
| |
|
RE: 'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says
|
|
|
by WA4MJF on April 23, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
GORGO. Those of us who have earned
the additional spectrum, deserve to
keep it.
Those who want more should earn the right to
use it.
73 de Ronnie
|
| |
|
'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says K8LQ
|
|
|
by KD5TZH on April 23, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Umm... It seems that only a couple of people have figured out that this is just sarcasm directed at the recent Riley Hollingsworth vs. HI-FI SSB situation. Sure, it could have been funnier, but I doubt K8LQ was serious.
|
| |
|
RE: 'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says
|
|
|
by K9PO on April 23, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says K8LQ Reply
by RW3GU on April 23, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
K8NQ wrote:
"As the ARRL is moving closer and closer to a NO CW requirement for Ham Radio, ..."
Do you really mean that ARRL sets CW requirements for Ham Radio in the world, or they are able to reallocate band plans?
...
It is very interesting to look from the outside. I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings - I didn't mean to.
I find it interesting that the ARRL voted against the IARU request to remove CW as an HF requirement yet the ARRL is blamed for trying to get rid of CW. Gee does someone not understanfd the issue, is trying to muck rake, or just does not have a clue?
|
| |
|
'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says K8LQ
|
|
|
by W7MD on April 23, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Looks like a "waste" of a good 1X2 call.
DE
W7MD
|
| |
|
'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says K8LQ
|
|
|
by KG4OOA on April 23, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Three Points:
1. Let's try a one day test. Since CW is allowed anywhere in the band, for one day how about all CW ops QSY into the side band portion of the band. See how it sounds? I think they'll want the CW operators to go back to their little corner of the world.
2. Do we need testing changes? You bet we do. Keep the CW and get some real technical questions put in the examination. Can you say Colpitts? Now it is, "Let's get a box at Radio Shack plug it in and talk into it.:
3. Do they even know what bandwidth means in relation to the subject? From what has been written I don't think they do. By the way, it is the width of a single signal not the size of a subband.
|
| |
|
RE: 'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says
|
|
|
by KG4PZZ on April 23, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KG4OOA, if you want harder tests, submit harder test questions. Anybody can submit a question for consideration to the wonderful people that make our amateur exams. Don't just sit back and whine, take some action.
Fred
KG4PZZ
|
| |
|
RE: 'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says
|
|
|
by WB2WIK on April 23, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I assume this article was a joke, and it did make me chuckle a bit.
|
| |
|
RE: 'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says
|
|
|
by RobertKoernerExAE7G on April 23, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Lately, I've been wondering if SSB ops shouldn't be on ECHOLink, the internet, or on cell phones--a perfect example of minimum space necessary for communications! ;-))
FM and AM should be reserved for VHF/UHF where there isn’t any crowding. After all, we need to occupy more band with there to protect it from commercial interests. If we take up two to three times more space, that is the equivalent of getting 2-3 times as many hams (and without 2-3 times as many people complaining about not being able to learn 5WPM)!
In fact, if we do that, we can get by with less than half the hams we have now. We could increase the CW speed requirements for HF tickets.
This would free up band space needed for the ARRL Engineered CW and digital ops on HF, where the REAL hams play!
Bob
|
| |
|
RE: 'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says
|
|
|
by KD1S on April 23, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KG4RUL - at 5WPM I wouldn't say that code is a large barrier anymore. I know by the time I did my 13WPM sitting through the 5WPM was painfully slow.
I haven't been on HF in a couple years because I need to get on my p-i-t-a roof and put up a decent antenna. I'm renting a bucket truck this time because the roof is some 50' off the groung and a bucket would make things much easier.
Do I understand RF, I'd say I have an intermediate knowledge of it. Digital logic, I'd say intermediate to advanced knowledge of that.
Do I enjoy CW - yes I do. I find it much easier to zero beat a CW signal than I do SSB, and I find that I can pick out much weaker stations on CW than I can on SSB.
As amateurs I think we really need to revisit the power issue. I love when you get the jerks pumping 1500W on the HF bands. Instead, crank that puppy down and see who can hear you.
But your comments about bandwidth vs. technical competence is just a red herring. All you need to do is take the element 1A and the remaining theory elements and you too can be an extra.
I'm one of those extras who had to do 20WPM code to get my ticket so I'm automatically granted the right to bitch about people like you.
|
| |
|
'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says K8LQ
|
|
|
by AD5X on April 23, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I operate CW on 40 meters every morning before work (5-6 AM Central). The 40m CW part of the band is pretty much wall-to-wall CW signals from 7-7.06. And there is a fair amount of digital stuff mixed in as well.
Phil - AD5X
|
| |
|
'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says K8LQ
|
|
|
by WA7NCL on April 23, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I don't see what is meant by all this "crowded band" talk. There is much less activity on all ssb and cw frequencies than 30 years ago. It was virtually impossible to squeeze on the 20 ssb or cw band 30 years ago. Now with all the lack of new hams on HF it seems like we are all gonna die of loneliness.
The exception from what I see is that the digital frequencies are crowded. They need more room.
If K8LQ wants a solid QSO, why not try 2M FM or internet chat room?
|
| |
|
'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says K8LQ
|
|
|
by KD7EFQ on April 23, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Don't worry all honorable SSB'ers, The Crotchety old
mossback curmudgeon CW addicts are slowly dying off.
We may yet get more bandspace for SSB by the time we
are crotchety old mossbacks ourselves. 73's
|
| |
|
'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says K8LQ
|
|
|
by K0RGR on April 23, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Yes, I assumed it was a joke when I read it.
I think it may be past time for a comprehensive review of our subbands, and redeployment of the Novice/Tech subbands, which really seem to be mostly wasted spectrum.
20 meters really seems to be the big problem - it is often crowded on both ends, but there seems to be a lack of activity in the middle of the band. Interference between CW and digital users cuts both ways. Maybe it is time for an exclusive digital-only subband from 14075-14125 or 14100-14150.
I think that the current Novice/Tech bands are mostly wasted space. Novices/Techs should be granted all Amateur CW priveleges - at a reduced power level- and these subbands abolished - thus passing the 5 WPM test gets you access to all bands, with more incentive to upgrade from Tech and to General.
I'd like to see the 10 meter bandplan revised to allow more space for FM simplex - we do not need more repeaters - less would be nice - but simplex FM below 29 Mhz. would be a nice thing. Maybe 28.8 to 29.0, with 29.0 to 29.1 for the AMers. This might also be a use for a severely under-utilized 12 meters. We also need space on these bands for new digital voice modes.
I think CW and digital modes could be adequately handled between 3500 and 3650 on 80 meters, though I do not see the need for more SSB space at this time. Again, digital voice is probably going to move into this spectrum somewhere soon.
40 meters is a disaster that needs to be fixed. More hams live in houses that can support a 66-foot dipole but not a 132 foot one, so 40 meters is a natural nighttime band, but the foreign broadcasts make it very hard to use. Hopefully, WARC will fix this soon.
Meanwhile, why don't digital users go to 30 meters when 20 shuts down? 30 is a perfect place for PSK31. The reduced power limit on 30 should mean nothing to the PSKer - we never run that much power, anyway. I've been trying to get people to do digital stuff on 30 meters since the early days of computer-driven RTTY, and it is just unbelievable that the crowds haven't found this band yet.
After dark, propagation on 30 meters is often much better than on 20. I used to work Europe on CW and RTTY from California with 100 W and a dipole practically every evening, when 20 was dead.
Better overall use of our WARC bands could reduce the pressure on 20 and 40 meters significantly. Please use 30 for digital work at night, and encourage everone else to do so, too.
|
| |
|
'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says K8LQ
|
|
|
by HAMDUDE on April 23, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
This post cracks me up! Heres a so called Extra that doesnt know the difference between bandwidth and bandspace! A fine example of what happens when you dumb down the requirements of testing for a ticket! Lets face facts guys, the ARRL lobbyists got their way and petitioned the FCC to dumb down the tests in the interest of getting more people on the air. While this isnt all that bad, it did open the gates to people who dont bother to LEARN about ham radio before taking the test by simply memorizing the answers! When the FCC took it upon themselves to ease up on the requirements, why didnt anyone bother to think of the consequenses? Putting alot more operators in the same space is bound to cause trouble no? I dont agree with carving up the CW portions for the sake of phone operators, simply because they have just as much right to a clean band as phone ops do! Many hams still enjoy CW, and just because I dont care for it, doesnt mean I should be entitled to more bandspace then they are! Regardless of how much or how little room we percieve them to need. What happened to the 60 mtr. band? Once again the powers that be dropped the ball and left us hanging. Just opening that new band would ease crowding by a considerable margin on the phone bands. And what about 40 mtrs.? Why must we share a band with 250kw broadcasters at night and be totally run off the band? 40 at night is a wonderful band, it goes very long and could be alot of fun to operate at night...if it wasnt destroyed by 60 over broadcast QRM. Although it is possible to squeeze into spots and work 40 at night, it takes a ton of patience to try to filter out all the BC crap. Why cant our government petition WARC to possibly move our 40 mtr. amateur band up or down out of the way of these super power broadcasters and give us hams a usable band at night? One of the main reasons 75 mtrs. is so jammed at night is because its the ONLY band besides 160 thats usable close in. The trouble with 160 is, not many hams have the real estate to string up 250 ft of wire, so they are stuck on 75 at night if they wish to talk to their bud in the next state. 20 is much too long at night for working into 1-2 states away.(this is where 60 may help) So, everybody jams up on 75 and you have a mess. The bandplan is out dated, and needs to be redone. Why is it that a 5 wpm Extra can work the bottom of the CW bands, and a 13 WPM General or Advanced cant? This is silly! Why keep Novice sub bands when their is no more Novice tickets? At least not any new issues of them anyway. Why not just allow a novice CW in any part of the cw band except for the lowest(extra) portion? The present structure of the bands is a hodge podge from the past licensing structures that needs some changes. NOT butchering of the CW bands strictly for the benefit of phone ops! I am a phone operator, and regularly active on 75 mtrs. at night. I dont begrudge anyone who likes CW even though its not my cup of tea. Yes, I had to do 13 wpm to get my ticket, and no I dont resent anyone who got it at 5. I dont make the rules, I merely try to follow them the best I can. But this bickering about chopping up CW bands is ridiculous! Ham radio is supposed to be diverse in nature, allowing hams to pursue the interests they have on relativly clear bands most of the time. If someone is into SSTV, so be it, if they enjoy CW, if they like digital leave them alone! That goes for all of us, who cares if Joe Blow likes CW and you dont? Let him enjoy his part of the hobby, and you enjoy yours! This isnt about whos rights outweigh the others, because we ALL are hams. WE, meaning ALL of us hams should work together with the FCC and ARRL to try to solve this problem instead of bickering and bitching over who should lose their bandspace. Just because I enjoy ragchewing at night on 75, that doesnt mean my rights outweigh some CW operators right to use his gear and enjoy it does it? Admittedly the present allocations seem to lean toward favoring CW ops over phone, but I still dont see why hams are so divided on this issue. We as phone ops do have a problem with crowding due to the structure of the bandplan. But theres still plenty of room to operate if one uses his head and just has patience. Things like ridiculous contests destroying the entire amateur spectrum with drivel and signal reports over and over dont help any! But, just because I dont like them, doesnt mean others dont have the right to participate in them. Lets write the FCC and petition them for restructuring of the bandplan and get more room by design, rather then by punishing other operators. Just my 2 cents......
|
| |
|
RE: 'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says
|
|
|
by KA1MUY on April 23, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Yikes!
After reading some of this thread, you would think you folks hate each other! What's all the fuss? I just clicked on this article out of curiousity, but after reading some of these posts, I'm going back on the radio. It's more fun. I wouldn't count on any changes in "band plans" anytime soon, and besides...you can't really do much about it. What you can do... is be a little considerate and use the common sense I hope most of you still possess.
|
| |
|
'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says K8LQ
|
|
|
by K0WA on April 23, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This is sad...so sad. He needs to get an Elmer and learn about Ham Radio.
CW Rocks! Also, I can operate it anywhere in the bands. NANA - NANA - BOO - BOO
Inconsiderate CW ops.....HA! What a laugh. So Sad.
Lee
|
| |
|
RE: 'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says
|
|
|
by W3DCG on April 23, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Anyway...
the CW bands are crowded when everyone is home from work. Rather than take away from real hams playground, (only joking), better griping to the FCC and ARRL to keep on moving toward that 5Mhz carrot once dangled for a while. Was that a tease or what?
I can almost understand phone people wanting to steal some CW/digital only space, on 40m. Egad, when the broadcasters start up, there really is no 40 phone.
Here's an idea to do phone and make it fun-
learn CW well, QRS to 18wpm, have an 18wpm qso while visiting with someone eye ball to eyeball phone QSO. Then you're doing phone, and real ham radio too. ;)
Or digital. That's what appeals about digital, I can type a bit faster than I can copy, so- you can have a digital QSO and play Jeopardy! or watch the news plus chat with the wife simultaneously. I've got to get that computer moved to the radio desk.
Or ye kin jest dew see-double-U.
RADIO STUDS DO CW.
|
| |
|
RE: 'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says
|
|
|
by W8MW on April 23, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K8LQ: We knew the day was coming when Phone Operators would start some ridiculous argument like this. You seem to be saying CW sub bands are under utilized? Just reading the posts here proves you wrong.
Plus we've got more facts on our side: The latest HF survey shows 99.7% of amateurs operate CW, Data and RTTY while only 0.3% are on SSB, AM and SSTV. So the phone bands should be shrinked. It's only logical that sub bands be allocated on the basis of actual operating practices and mode popularity.
I'm in complete agreement with the earlier post that says phone modes consume excessive bandwidth. Efficient use of radio spectrum is about quantity and not quality. More radio traffic per kHz is the goal of forward thinking radio amateurs. And please don't quote any of that stuff about "quality modulation". It's already been proven that analog radio signals can convey human voice information in less than 2 kHz of bandwidth. Anthing more than that is extremely inconsiderate despite the "good sound" or "radio technique" argument.
Two-way radio communication is a utility for the conveyance of information. The qualitative values of radio signals are a thing of the past, and waste too much spectrum. We are not interested in good sound, only in extracting the information. CW operators were once again at the leading edge of technology by informally doing away with the "T" part of RST. T, which used to refer to the tone of the other operator's signal is a subjective evaluation of sound and is no longer required. The last T8 signal report was issued in 1978. Good riddance.
I wouldn't be surprised if this author also operates a linear amplifier. Too many phone ops are at the trailing edge of good amateur practice with their egotistical desire for strong signals that don't give QRP guys a fair chance and once again consume too much bandwidth. Weak signal work is noble. Strong signals hog up valuable spectrum.
I for one am ashamed to be in the same hobby with Phone operators. You people need to clean up your act and get on board with today's narrow thinking.
|
| |
|
'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says K8LQ
|
|
|
by KG6AMW on April 23, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Some screws were screwed in so tight the heads busted off.
KG6AMW
|
| |
|
'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says K8LQ
|
|
|
by AA8X on April 23, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
What, you need more frequency for the extremely wide HiFi SSB mode!
|
| |
|
RE: 'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says
|
|
|
by EI4HQ on April 23, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Wow!
I've been reading articles on eHam for quite some time and don't think I've seen such a 'spirited' exchange of views in quite some time... who says we don't 'care' about our hobby :o)
Well I'm a cw head - love it and cw won't be dead as long as a) I'm around and b) there is one other ham in the world who'll qso with me :o)
With modern rigs, DSP, fancy filters etc. etc. etc. I for one don't particularly care where data, phone, cw or whatever 'are'. If they overlap then so be it. I've never yet failed to find a gap and generate qsos.
For me the issue is excessive power. I've no problem with high-power when its the difference between making a contact and not. However, I do get upset when I hear someone pumping out 1kw to chat to Fred down the road, when 20mw and a piece of wet string is sufficient.
I know we're well into 2003 but can I suggest a New Years Resolution:
Once a qso is established, take an extra over or two to back off on the rf pump until you've found a comfortable but lesser level of power... it takes so little time and would be a much more efficient use of the limited bandwidth we have...lets face it: those amps are rarely quite as spectrally clean as we like to think they are... ;o)
Regards to all
Cormac, EI4HQ
Cork, Ireland
|
| |
|
'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says K8LQ
|
|
|
by K4DGW on April 23, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Actually, if you look "closely" at the band plan, you will notice that CW is allowed on "ALL" the spectrum. To put it another way, you can get on the air, in any portion of any of the bands, that you are allowed to operate on, and have CW QSOs.
So, maybe SSB needs to find a way to change the amount of spectrum, they are taking up. I mean, the CW portion has already accomedated SSTV, PSK, RTTY, and the other data modes.
Dave
K4DGW
|
| |
|
'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says K8LQ
|
|
|
by K7LA on April 23, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Better put on the asbestos suit for the flames on this topic!
|
| |
|
RE: 'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says
|
|
|
by W5HTW on April 23, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This one belongs on QRZ. And April is nearly over, so you're running three weeks late. Or awfully early for next April 1st
Ed
|
| |
|
RE: 'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says
|
|
|
by NG1J on April 23, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I can't help but notice that K8LQ posts what he thinks is a legitimate opinion, yet has done very little to defend/support his position against the myriad of (excellent) rebuttals.
|
| |
|
'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says K8LQ
|
|
|
by N5XM on April 23, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I may have been "forced" to learn CW, but I ended up loving it, and will take a CW QSO every time over a phone contact. I'm not even gonna criticize this fellow. Is this the kind of thread that is suppossed to inspire controversy?
|
| |
|
'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says K8LQ
|
|
|
by N9SX on April 23, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Jeez! There sure are a lot of humor impaired folks on eHam.
|
| |
|
RE: 'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says
|
|
|
by N6AJR on April 23, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Up there about 20 posts back some one talks aqbout going into radio shack and buying a box ( radio) and working phone.. Didn't you know Rat shack doesn't sell radios any more, just cell phones and toys..
I am and old ham in one respect, I got my initial license in 1978 from the fcc office in San Francisco, a tech, with the 5 wpm code test and a 70 question written test, as I never was a novice, and after a couple years I gave up trying to speed up the code in my pea brain and did other things and got out of radio but kept the license current.
In 2000 in feb I stopped in to HRO oakland and bought a vx5r and started enjoying radio again, then found I could be grandfathered in as a general which I did and a week and a day later I passed the Extra test. It was always the code holding me back.... and I had 8 years of classified electronics in the airforce so the test was easy..I just could't do any faster than 8 wpm on the code.. ( something about not being able to learn new languages.. same thing) Oh what am I and old fart or and extra light?? who cares I am a HAM.. thats all..
WE take the test the fcc designates us to take at the time we are taking the test. We don't choose, the fcc does. It ain't the fault of a new ham he didn't have to walk up hill both ways 5 miles in the driving snow to take his test.
WE TAKE THE TEST THE FCC DESIGNATE US TO TAKE WHEN WE TAKE IT. No more, no less its their choice.. so quit putting the blame on the new ham.. it ain't his fault..
Now about CW.... Please send any where you want on any band. I will try my best not to interfer with your signal, please try not to interfer with mine. That goes for all folks and all modes... thats it folks.. be nice to each other and quit complaining.. it dont do no good.
73 and good dx tom N6AJR
|
| |
|
RE: 'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says
|
|
|
by W7UIV on April 23, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I'm going out on a limb to guess you are speaking most specifically of 20 meters (?) which was already crowded back in the 1950s and as bad as it is now in the 1960s. Then a few years later we got some extra space to use - on 17 meters, but I never hear it being too crowded. So there is more to talk about then modes and bandwidth of a single signal. There is also spectrum use to consider. And I'll give an example where spectrum use came to the rescue (at least for a while).
In the early 1980s repeater craze, everyone wanted a two meter frequency pair. Yet 440 was wide open. "Aw that's no good excepting for links", was the attitude. The use was so little that the coordination groups each had only one person handling 440. It was just a sort of side issue that really didn't need too much attention. Just pick your own frequency and let the local coordinator know about it. But finally a few got converted and once it was found to be a good band the requests for pairs took off. And once people got using it, it wasn't uncommon to hear them say they'd never go back to that rat-race on 2 meters.
So, why not give 17 meters a try before suggesting to shove anyone off the end of some other band(s)?
And speaking of taking up as little space as is needed, what about taking a second look at some operating practices that might be taking up too much space? Specifically I'm thinking of the dual-frequency DX operators taking up a whole 10khz or so.
First, there's the frequency the DX station is using to call CQ, and if anyone who can't hear him gets on anywhere near it he's told by someone he's got to get off there. He's a lid. Second there's a second frequency being used, where he listens. (he needs a repeater pair maybe?) But it's not just one frequency. There's a broad band pileup of callers in the general area of where he indicates he's listening "Up 10". They are not just up ten kHz all on the same exact frequency. They are all around it up to 5 kHz either side. So the "lid" can't go anywhere near there either. He has to look around at what spectrum is left and try to share it with the rest of the "lids" who had to go elsewhere to give space to this important multi-frequency broadband user DX operation. It gets worse if there are two or three of these operations each taking up a 10 kHz slice of the band for their activity.
Solution? Take space away from the CW portion? Of course it goes on down there too.
But rather than take space away from CW why not take it away from the broad band DX operations first? There will always be wolf packs a mile wide. But if the dx stations have to call and listen on their own frequency, that's one frequency not in use. Besides, it should help to make things more interesting for those who say they are into it for the challenge.
|
| |
|
'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says K8LQ
|
|
|
by NY7Q on April 23, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
man,,, are you ever a misinformed NO CODE EXTRA. GET A LIFE. CW TODAY, CW TOMORROW, CW FOREVER. OH,,,BY THE WAY,,,DO YOU KNOW WHAT A RESISTOR IS, DO YOU KNOW OHMS LAW????
|
| |
|
RE: 'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says
|
|
|
by KD1S on April 23, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
EI4HQ has it right. While I couldn't be called a complete code head (I've got the digital thing too.) I do enjoy it enough to be sad to see it starting to decline in the view of some.
Notch filters are great for CW work. And you and I agree about excessive power being used.
|
| |
|
'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says K8LQ
|
|
|
by NY7Q on April 23, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
YEAH, HE CLAIMS TO BE A TECH FOR A LASER COMPANY. BUT CANT DO THE CODE.....OH WELL, MODEL TRAINS IS A GOOD HOBBY....
|
| |
|
'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says K8LQ
|
|
|
by WA5U on April 23, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
ANOTHER MISS INFORMED NO CODE EXTRA VANITY. LISTEN TO THE CW PORTION ON ANY BAND TO FIND OUT HOW MANY NO CODE HAMS USE IT, NONE ONLY REAL HAMS OF YESTERDAY STILL FIND PLEASURE AND PRIDE IN WORKING CW. HAVE YOU SEEN OR HEARD THE PHRASE IF IT DID NOT HAVE CW THEN IT WOULD BE CB MAYBE YOU NEED TO GET YOURSELF A 11 METER RIG AND A GOOD MIKE. ALS0 LOOK AT THE SPECTRUM CHART YOU COULD WORK CW IN THE SO CALLED SSB PORTIONS IF YOU COULD COPY IT
|
| |
|
'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says K8LQ
|
|
|
by N7PTM on April 23, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
CW is pretty popular still, but I understand the basic thrust of his point.
What I've always wondered is since CW ops have all of the 30m band, why can't SSB ops have all of 17m?
|
| |
|
'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says K8LQ
|
|
|
by N0PYH on April 23, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Websters New World Dictionary: fa-ce-tious, witty, joking.
|
| |
|
RE: 'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says
|
|
|
by N8UZE on April 23, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
There is yet another reason for having a designated CW band. That reason is to prevent interference to the SSB communications. For example, I can set by DSP filter to a width as narrow as 50hz. As I dial up and down a band, I would never be able to hear the SSB people. So I may answer some one calling CQ on CW and then end up interfering with an SSB communication. So it is to the benefit of the SSB crew to have a dedicated CW subband as the vast majority of CW operators will stay within that subband. Although it is perfectly legal to operate CW on any amateur frequency, very few people do so outside the CW subband. I've only heard it on a very limited basis such as two people being in an SSB QSO and switching to CW when conditions deteriorate.
|
| |
|
RE: 'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says
|
|
|
by KG4OKV on April 23, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The sad thing about this thread IS the fact that most of the replies have been a knee jerk reaction (pro& con) without even understanding that the origional post was in jest. Somehow almost every thread dissolves into a code/ no code diatride. It's fairly pathetic and I have to wonder about the future of the HOBBY, or maybe hams have always been this petty.
KG4OKV
|
| |
|
'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says K8LQ
|
|
|
by W6EZ on April 23, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
It is true, there is getting to be less and less space for QSOs in the HF spectrum. I would purpose that an answer for this “availability problem” would be to allow only narrow band psk type data transmissions along with CW as the ONLY types of transmission allowed on all frequencies below 30 mHz. This way we could ensure that only narrow bandwidth transmissions, occupying the smallest possible space, could take place on our crowded HF bands. Space for everyone! Yeah, I like it.
|
| |
|
RE: 'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says
|
|
|
by KA4KOE on April 23, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Proposed Sample Questions for Extra Exam in lieu of Code Requirement-
1. See attached voltage divider biased common emitter NPN transistor (silicon) amplifier circuit. Given the beta, Vcc, and resistor values, calculate the following:
a. Vb, Vc, Ve, Vce
b. Ib, Ic, Ie
c. Circuit gain and phase relationship between vi and vo.
d. Given the interelectrode capacitances indicated, at which critical frequency will the voltage gain of this circuit be unity?
2. For this same circuit, calcuate Av without emitter bypassing via capacitor.
3. Calculate the phasor impedance of the sample feedline shown below, for the input voltage given. The feedline length is x, distributed capacitance of the feedline is xc. We are assuming that the line is 1.3 wavelengths long.
4. Note the indicated log periodic. Calculate 2:1 SWR bandwidth Bw and gain in Dbi for the frequency range shown.
5. For the complex circuit shown below with values of L, C, and R, indicate all nodes. Using Laplace transforms, calculate the equivalent circuit at 2 time constants
6. Draw a block diagram for a complete SSB-Sc transmitter utilizing the third method for sideband generation. For extra credit, generate diagrams for both phasing and filter methods.
7. Derive the formulas defining both frequency and angle modulation.
8. Upgrade the service drop to your house for the parameters shown, assuming you already have a 100a 120/240v, 1 phase, three wire service (at 80 amperes maximum demand load (total), and you plan on adding an illegal 10 kw amplifier @ 240v, assuming 50% efficiency. Question: How red will your service conductors glow (prior to tripping of the mains) if you do not upgrade the AWG sizing prior to calling CQ on 20m for 15 minutes, assuming a duty cycle of 35%.
9. Why do you want to be an extra class ham. Thesis shall be no less than 1000 words. Misspellings, sentence fragments, and comma splices will count against you.
10. Billy is working on a homemade amplifier. His power supply B+ is approximately 3000 volts, no load. If Billy is barefoot, standing on wet concrete, and assuming a "good grip" to the plate of the final tubes, and also said Billy has an effective resistance to ground of only 10 ohms, how long long will it take Billy to be cooked into a pool of bubbling lard? Billy is 5'8", 175 lbs, and runs regularly.
Good luck. Note, license testing fee of $500 is nonrefundable.
OK, I'm only kidding......
:)
PAN
|
| |
|
'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says K8LQ
|
|
|
by KY6R on April 23, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It would be really funny if this article were discussed as a heated discussion in a bar.
I would buy AA9KK, KG6AMW, K7LA, WB2WIK and N0PYH a beer or two, and we would be rolling with laughter!
Actually, when you read many of these articles on eHam, imagine that you are in a bar - like the set of Cheers. Many of the characters (especially the Cliford Clavens) would be there and it would be very entertaining.
I almost lost it with KG6AMW's "busted screw" anomalie. Verrrry funny.
|
| |
|
RE: 'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says
|
|
|
by NI0Z on April 23, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
AE0Q: Moron - he was an Advanced before upgrading to Extra. So, if you don't have nything to add to the actual discussion, why don't you just shut up??
Yours truly, NI0Z, Extra 'lite'.
|
| |
|
RE: 'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says
|
|
|
by KD7VKB on April 23, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well I joined Amateur Radio for the technical challenge and look forward to being able to operate on AS MANY MODES AS POSSIBLE. It's fun and each mode has it's own beauty to it. I hope they don't EVER drop the cw requirement. CW, MFSK16, SSB...I want to be able to do it all brother!!!
73, Doug, KD7VKB
|
| |
|
RE: 'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says
|
|
|
by W3DCG on April 23, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
HEY HEY NOW, WE ALL NEED PHONE, OK...
Wireless phone.
Let's not go overboard and say we don't need wireless phone.
Mine's green, has a keypad with back-lighting, and beeps when it needs a nap.
I could enjoy phone.
I will enjoy phone. It's just that, the keys are plugged in, and the microphone is... was... I remember seeing it when I opened the box. Definitely the rig came with a real nice factory hand-mic. I remember it looked brand new.
Anyway, I'd like to do some SSB some day. So much information can be imparted in a short period of time with phone. I can talk 3 times faster than I can type, and that's speaking S L O W L Y.
I've tuned in up there, and I have been amazed at the splatter, the KW with beams when readablility would still be Q5 100% at 1/10th the power. I've heard nasty over-processing.
Man those old Swans sure put out some great audio. Better than Collins. But watt for watt, Collins got through better, so I've heard. Anyone care to state why?
Only 20 years ago, whether it was phone or CW, everyone on the air seemed to really care more if they were using more bandwidth than necessary.
Don't give the bottom 25 to Generals. If that happens I have no incentive what so ever to upgrade, and I'd like to have my reward for studying more than memorizing. Used to be a nice incentive was a 1x2 or 2x1. But now- 2x2 are all that remain in 4-land. No different than a 1x3.
Fascinating just how fast they disappeared in the high population districts for some reason.
Trace it all back to the abolishment of 20 wpm CW requirement for Extra.
20 years ago, every Extra was acutely aware of bandwidth and how much they were using. Every Extra achieved 20 wpm whether they used it or not. This kept many many Advanced where they were. Not so much to gain phone wise going from Advanced to Extra. Lots to gain in CW. 100 Golden Khz, 25 per classic band. DX HAVEN.
The CW bands ARE CROWDED on 40m! At least for Generals! Broadcasting starts just below 7.100 Mc, Canadians do phone around 7.045 it seems, which is fine, they are generally a considerate lot as a whole- Canadians that is, hams or not.
So Broadcasting wipes out all most all of 7.100 and beyond. This makes a General's actual CW space 7.026.5 roughly, up to about 7.060. That's under 40 Kc.
Did I miss something?
ACTUALLY THE REASON YOU SELDOM hear CW ABOVE 7.060 AND BELOW WHEREVER THE BROADCAST STATIONS ARE, IS BECAUSE CW OPERATORS ARE BY AND LARGE VERY CONSIDERATE, AND DON'T WANT TO BE STEPPING ON THE DIGITAL SIGNALS THAT DENSELY PACK 40-50 Khz OF implied/understood DIGITAL SPECTRUM, especially the super low bandwidth PSK31 signals that you can sometimes barely hear, but that provide good copy. SURE CW OPS CAN LEGALLY GO THERE. YOU CAN LEGALLY RUN A KW ON 7.040, TOO, BUT YOU'D BETTER BE QSOing the other side of the world, otherwise actually you're not legal, unless your antenna is SEVERELY compromised. In that case you'd just be wasting energy, heating up some coax or something, modulating toasters, gas tubes, and neighbors electronics with poor sheilding and or less than ideal connections.
SSB is cool. SSB is a wider bandwidth mode, and that is why, there has always been phone segments, and why CW or narrower modes had and have complete lattitude.
So before one decides to have some AM + AMP fun, think about the gripes we have about 40 meters and having virtually no where to go.
Imagine encountering the impedance of a fully laden semi-truck on your drive to Hana, or along the Pacific Coast Highway. WIDE LOAD, and no passing lane. The pungent sweet aroma of diesel exhaust, gently stifling the aroma of ginger, honeysuckle, and ocean spray.
This goes for CW too. Force yourself to run only 1W for 1 week of operating time. After that week you will completely understand what the 5W apartment bound people live with. Then, you might actually back off from 100 to 50 or even 20 W, depending on conditions and the other points of contact. Do this for one week and realize, that on CW, if conditions are so poor that 100W barely works, chances are the amp won't make that much of a difference unless the pileup is huge, and/or you're entering the High Power category in a contest. Granted on S9 noise level nights the amp makes a difference, but so often even on CW I'll hear a 500 to KW signal, the band is OPEN- PLUS IT'S QUIET, and that is when everyone can enjoy it, but for those who are simply in the HABIT of running their amplifiers that they forgot their senses, occupying enough space to fit in 1.5 or 2 other QSOs if they'd just be happy with 10 over S9 instead of obliterating everything nearby with a 60db over nine signal. Heck if the noise level is averaging s3, what is wrong with s7?
I vent this on behalf of QRPers primarily. And those who may be running receivers other than those in K2s, MPs, 850s, Orions, (all with filters) and such.
|
| |
|
Read again, K8LQ
|
|
|
by OK1FOU on April 24, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Yes, K8LQ, you did read something wrong! The part of FCC rules you quote refers to modulation and NOT to band allocation.
BTW, there are also other hams than in the U.S. who I doubt would be happy to lose CW band for no-coders from other parts of the world.
I would be much more concerned by 20 KHz SSB. 20 KHz is 20 per cent of 40m allocation in region 1. The only way to make any valuable QSO on 40m outside the kW local chatters occupying most of the band is to go down under 7035 and use CW or, better, PSK31. Of course, one has to cope with intermodulation from BC and local kilowatters.
73 Jindra
|
| |
|
Literacy..
|
|
|
by OK1FOU on April 24, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
§97.307(a) of the Amateur Service rules that requires the
*** signal *** of an amateur station not occupy "more bandwidth than necessary for the information rate and emission type being transmitted, in accordance with good amateur practice."
I cannot see a word about "inconsiderate allocation", can you?
73
|
| |
|
'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says K8LQ
|
|
|
by WB5PLJ on April 24, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
After all Hollingsworth cited §97.307(a) of the Amateur Service rules that requires the signal of an amateur station not occupy "more bandwidth than necessary for the information rate and emission type being transmitted, in accordance with good amateur practice."
---
Um, this is not about sub band allocations this is about a transmitted signal width. It refers to the signal being generated by one station or multiple stations. For instance transmitting an SSB signal at 3.5k wide is not necessary when 2.4 will do. Don't worry I personally am not a Hi-Fi SSB basher. But I thought that I would point out that this dose not have to do with sub band allocations. The title of the section is "Emission standards" and all parts have to do with the type and nature of signal that you are producing from your station. Again not where in the amateur band it is used.
|
| |
|
'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says K8LQ
|
|
|
by KX2S on April 24, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
K8LQ Please obtain a 12ga orange extension cord(100ft). Go into the bathroom. Fill up the tub with water. Plug your extension cord into a working ac outlet. Get into the filled tub. Make sure you have your plugged in extension cord with you. This should solve your CW problem.
|
| |
|
RE: 'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says
|
|
|
by N3VY on April 24, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
KW4XCQ is, in my opinion, right on the money. CW frequencies (gentlemens agreement?) are being squeezed more and more by other modes. In my limited experience, I find MANY cw ops world wide, not fewer,and non-US ops pay no attention to US allocations or "gentlemens agreements" - they couldn't care less! CW is the reason I got a license. Get rid of CW and you can easily get rid of me. BTW, I was first licensed at age 74, and it's the only hobby I have left. Save it! 73 Don N3VY, FISTS #8852.
|
| |
|
RE: 'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says
|
|
|
by K1CJS on April 24, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
What a waste of the eHam server space!
|
| |
|
'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says K8LQ
|
|
|
by KS1A on April 24, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Why always with the ARRL bashing? It always reminds me of old movies where the hicks hate and blame the "revenue-ers" for everything. I guess in this case it's the ARRL. We NEED someone watching out for us in Washington. The dues are dirt cheap. Dirt cheap. Give me a break with the ARRL bashing.
|
| |
|
RE: 'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says
|
|
|
by K0WMW on April 24, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I love CW and believe the CW band space allocations should remain as is. I also love working fone. I just love amateur radio and all of the people I meet on the bands and different modes of operation. Sorry if I sound too warm and fuzzy folks but we have a wonderful opportunity with ham radio because it has something for everyone. One of the greatest accomplishments in my life is that I studied for and became and Amateur Radio Operator. I say that not to brag but with a tremendous sense of pride. I am honored to be among all of you fine hams in this world. Amateur radio has enriched my life more than I can convey in words. I still get a great thrill when I turn on my rig and work or try and work a station. IMHO, it's a thrill, it's challenging, and just plain enjoyable...and...I get to help other people, especially if we are needed to operate during emergency conditions. We are privileged to be able to be part of a great public service. A few years ago, I had a very (how's this for a politically correct word) "spirited" discussion with a fellow ham who told me all code, code tests, and CW portions of the bands be abolished. It was his contention that CW served a purpose in it's day but that technology has advanced to the point that CW is not longer needed because it's not an effective method of communication. I strongly disagree for a number of reasons. One of them being, I can hear a CW signal when I cannot hear fone signals. Plus, I love the challenge and ability it takes to operate CW. I just love it and I ask that it please not be taken away. Just my 2 cents for whatever it may or may not be worth.
I am proud to be ham radio operator.
Regards to all of my friends/colleagues.
Tom
K0WMW
|
| |
|
'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says K8LQ
|
|
|
by KR4WM on April 24, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I would like to propose that articles such as this (which are obviously
tongue-in-cheek) should be preceeded by some identifier. This, so that
all the folks with pocket-protectors, slide rules, and pants pulled up
above their stomachs will get a life and stop posting serious comments
about them! Geez- where can a guy go to have any FUN around here!!!
Amateur radio seems to have become a way of life for many (me included),
but it's just a hobby!
As far as the "wide band SSB" stuff goes- the guys have carved out a
niche frequency that they all seem to use. Don't you think we can all slide
over just a bit and make room so that they can enjoy "their form" of the
hobby? Life is too short for such trivialities as argueing about stuff like
this. Move on up the band where you don't hear them, and you won't
have to worry about them! Less stress on you, you'll live longer! Now if
they're occupying 15+ KHz of space- they may have a problem and I'm sure
they'd like to hear from you IN A CONSTRUCTIVE, POLITE, MANNER!
Perhaps the problem is on YOUR end (check your noise blanker- turn
it off if you don't need it....).
Someone very wise once said: "I may not agree with your opinion but I will
defend with my life your right to have one". I think it was Benjamin Franklin....?
(I'm sure I mis-quoted his exact words....but this was the gist of it. Please don't
e-mail me the "correct" information- IT DOESN'T MATTER!)
Who are you or I to question this guy, even if he were serious? Stop reading
so much into the posts here! RELAX, LIGHTEN UP, GET A LIFE! Anyone
with half a brain can tell this guy is just having some fun....
Sign me- ENJOY IT ***ALL*** (CW, SSB, SSBWide, AM, FM, DIGITAL)
IN SUNNY MYRTLE BEACH, SC -Web Williams
|
| |
|
'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says K8LQ
|
|
|
by THREEDOUBLEDEUCE on April 24, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
This is yet another prime example of the reason you can't get new hams into this hobby! Listen to the nonsense drivel this guy is complaining about! This is the type of whining liberal mentality we have been growing in this country for a few decades now. I hope after seeing this no one asks why we can't get active SWL's to go get a license!! Good GRIEF!!! How embarrassing!!
|
| |
|
'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says K8LQ
|
|
|
by K3DWW on April 24, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Any old-time CW op will tell you that one of the advantages of CW and (some) other digital modes are their ability to work thru QRM. Since CW is better in that regard, I see no reason CW/other op's NEED special bands to protect them from SSB and other modes. If anything the reverse should be true.
OTOH protecting QRP and "weak signal" modes makes sense.
So, if I were in charge, I'd merge the CW/voice bands but create special 5-watt-only and say 20-watt-only bands. Whadda y'all think?
73, K3DWW
|
| |
|
RE: 'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says
|
|
|
by EI5FK on April 24, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hey u guys, Brian is having us all on, im sure he is, next thing we will have somebody posting a reguest here to give an amnesty to all CB'rs and allow them on HF, or didnt we just have that with the "dropping of CW" without amateur consent...
|
| |
|
Another E-ham train wreck
|
|
|
by AC0X on April 24, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Here come the cars speeding around the curve, too fast
SMASH BANG BOOM!
All the wreckage! The carnage!
And all of us standing around watching and staring
Here's an idea for an E-ham Survey: Is E-Ham becoming like a train wreck? Do the actual services it provides seem to be less and less, and instead do people come see it just to see the damage it's caused?
|
| |
|
'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says K8LQ
|
|
|
by K6LDX on April 24, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I'm going to assume that this posting is a spoof.
|
| |
|
RE: CW Bandspace need pose no problem.
|
|
|
by RADIOWEENIE on April 24, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
1. What percentage of the low bands are allocated for CW?
2. What percentage of the bandwidth of a SSB signal is occupied by a CW signal?
3. What percentage of the Hams are primarily CW or data (telegraph) operators?
4. If questions 1-3 are answered, then the problem of band allocations is solved.
5. Good Luck folks and 73,
--Radioweenie
|
| |
|
RE: 'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says
|
|
|
by K8LQ on April 24, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KG4RUL:Let's see, he is an Extra and doesn't understand the concept of bandwith vs band allocation. This is why we need to drop the CW requirement and EMPHASIZE technical competence!
De K8LQ: It's BandWIDTH not Bandwith.
K6LDX:I'm going to assume that this posting is a spoof.
De K8LQ: You know what happens when you assume!
AC0X:Here come the cars speeding around the curve, too fast SMASH BANG BOOM! All the wreckage! The carnage!
And all of us standing around watching and staring
De K8LQ: It hurts too and those I love are crying!
NO CALL SIGN: Listen to the nonsense drivel this guy is complaining about!
De K8LQ: Get a license then you can sound like my wife!
KA4KOE: Billy is working on a homemade amplifier. His power supply B+ is approximately 3000 volts, no load. If Billy is barefoot, standing on wet concrete, and assuming a "good grip" to the plate of the final tubes, and also said Billy has an effective resistance to ground of only 10 ohms, how long long will it take Billy to be cooked into a pool of bubbling lard? Billy is 5'8", 175 lbs, and runs regularly.
De K8LQ: Yep... should do a fine job, I certainly hope that Billy had enough sense to design a plate breaker into that homemade amp.. otherwise... poor Billy!
KG6AMW: Some screws were screwed in so tight the heads busted off.
De K8LQ: Sad...really
AA8X: What, you need more frequency for the extremely wide HiFi SSB mode!
De K8LQ: Thank you for the support OM!
W7MD: Looks like a "waste" of a good 1X2 call.
De K8LQ: Please don't berate yourself. Ham Radio is deserving of even you.
KT8K: "Bandwidth" and "band plan" are obviously two separate things, so I find the initial premise confusing.
De K8LQ: It is pretty obvious and thank you for pointing it out.
KX2S: Brian...You need to get a life. This sure sounds like a joke to me. No normal person would post such an article. K8LQ Please obtain a 12ga orange extension cord(100ft). Go into the bathroom. Fill up the tub with water. Plug your extension cord into a working ac outlet. Get into the filled tub. Make sure you have your plugged in extension cord with you. This should solve your CW problem.
De K8LQ: I have no life, I don't like humor and who told you I was normal? And with my very basic knowledge of electricity...I think you want me to kill myself!
K1CJS: What a waste of the eHam server space!
De K8LQ: Yes a very INCONSIDERATE use of server space!
And Finally W8MW!!!!!! You ignorant ... ._.. .._ _!!
..The latest HF survey shows 99.7% of amateurs operate CW, Data and RTTY while only 0.3% are on SSB, AM and SSTV.
De K8LQ: Please take your survey to Baghdad Bob he could use your ideas for the new regime.
..We are not interested in good sound, only in extracting the information.
De K8LQ: Let me remove the ground shield on my D104 mic cable and lets get back into good old time radio fun...YAAAHOO!
..Weak signal work is noble.
De K8LQ: Fine...for nobility as you put it and Joy as another amateur put it and fun as another put it...why don't we put a 40db attenuator in our cable TV line and enjoy those weak signals!
..You people need to clean up your act and get on board with today's narrow thinking.
De K8LQ: This is the only true thing you said in your post.
APOLOGETICS..>
Yes...this was my attempt to bring an injustice to your attention. This is the injustice done by the FCC to the group on 14.178. My true feelings..
1. I for one do not want CW to go away. This is a protection circuit for the hobby. The ARRL must not cave on this one.
2. CW Bandspace in the 75 meter band should be re-evaluated. 250Kc is a wide road for CW exclusivity in my opinion. BTW my Phone signal is 3.1Kc wide and I don't run 150 watts into a sweep tube amplifier...okay?
Now...for 14.178. John, NU9N and those like him have rekindled the Amateur spirit in many. He has, through his experimentation, Elmered many into operating quality ham stations. Both from a sound standpoint and a spectral purity one as well. For Riley to say that the hobby was not meant for "broadcast quality sound" was basically to say that we should be happy with what we got and quit trying to improve. This is the kiss of death to what made the hobby great...experimentation!! Look at NU9N's spectrum...6kc! Thats not even close to the 10kc min and 20kc max of the standard HAM AM carrier including that offending heterodyne!
I think those in the ARRL..."the Pioneering ARRL" should go to bat for NU9N and that group. I don't hang with these fellows but I do support what they do.
I'm a broadcast engineer and I do experiment on the ham bands as well as in the profession. I'm a HAM because I love radio. Experimentation creates the future! I suggest that if you love radio...you need to be vocal about this issue. We are coming dangerously close to loosing more than just Semi-wideband A3J...think about it!
And W8MW...if you weren't a good friend I'd punch you right in the nose.
3's to all
Brian K8LQ
|
| |
|
'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says K8LQ
|
|
|
by W9MDX on April 24, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
If anybody can listen to the lower half of all of our HF spectrum allocation and say that it is being properly utilized, THAT would be a joke! Why this is such an emotional issue? I think the CW allocation should be preserved as it is now. It's the phone allocation that needs adjustment.
ALL other countries, yes ALL, simply state the band edge limits for the ham bands and state that amateur operations be contained within those limits. That seems reasonable to me.
If any of this is funny, it has to be that the FCC is calling a 6khz SSB signal "inconsiderate" while it says nothing about a full 250 khz on 75 meters (3500khz to 3750khz)remaining underutilized because of sub band restrictions! This while admitting that CW is less important than it used to be by dropping HF code licensing requirements to 5 WPM. Further humor is contained in the elimination of the Novice class license but not the Novice sub bands.
Larry W9MDX (Ham since 1958 Extra since 1972)
|
| |
|
RE: 'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says
|
|
|
by WA4MJF on April 24, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
RADIOWEENIE was askin' a trick
question. The FCC allocates
100% of ham frequencies to CW.
There are frequencies that are exclusive
CW, but CW may be used on any
amateur frequency.
73 de Ronnie
|
| |
|
RE: 'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says
|
|
|
by WA4MJF on April 24, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Larry, 3500-3750 Khz is in the
80 Meter Band, not 75 Meters.
Although the frequencies of the 80 and 75 meter
band are continuous, because of the low
frequency the wavelength gets shorter
as you progress from 3.5 MHZ to 4 MHz.
73 de Ronnie
|
| |
|
RE: 'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says
|
|
|
by WA4MJF on April 24, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Also, Larry, although no new Novice
nor Advanced tickets are issued.
Those who hold those tickets may
continue to renew them. Therefore,
the allocations for Novices and Advanceds
were kept for them to use.
73 de Ronnie
|
| |
|
RE: 'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says
|
|
|
by KA4KOE on April 24, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K8LQ: Thanks for the summary of the insanity. I believe Riley shot from the hip on the HIFI SSB issue, missed, and hit an old lady walking her ugly poodle across the street.
Billy's remains are now in a large Crisco can. FYI, he will be recycled by giving him to the neighborhood Wendy's for their fryer.
More Exam questions:
1. There is a dc circuit in which 4.3 amps of current are flowing. How many electrons pass by you in 21.2 microseconds?
2. What color is Riley's underwear? Briefs or Boxers?
3. What is a roger beep?
4. What CB channel corresponds with 27.405 Mhz?
5. Why is it unwise to critize Bubba's signal? FYI, Bubba is 340 lbs of psychotic fury, and just recently got his techician's license "under duress".
Philip
|
| |
|
RE: 'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says
|
|
|
by K1CJS on April 24, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K8LQ-- I did not intend to have the comment taken too seriously, as I thought the article was not intended to be taken too seriously. Please pardon me for stepping on your toes, but there are far too many of these 'ragchewers' complaining in almost every post, and that was mainly what I was referring to as the 'wasted space'.
KR4WM-- I believe you are correct about Franklin, and another famous quote was "Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins."--(Will Rogers, I believe) which is how I answer everybody who is arguing about inconsiderate operators. Why can't we just use the bands as allocated and give a little? I ask the question some others are asking--"Why can't we all just get along? After all we're all hams."
|
| |
|
RE: 'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says
|
|
|
by W5HTW on April 24, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Now that we've all had our fun - and it *was* fun - I suspect phone bands will expand in the very near future, perhaps in a few months. The thread is that the WRC2003 will remove the testing requirement for Morse, and the FCC will soon follow. This clears the path for Technicians to be upgraded to General and given HF voice privileges. Possibly Novices will be joining the fray too. This could - and I emphasize the word "could" - result in a considerable increase in demand for HF voice frequencies. Clearly those who are currently Technicians are so, for the most part, due to the code block, but if given the chance to operate 20 meters DX they will most readily do so.
I mention this because it is my belief this will occur, and that will result in expanded phone privileges for Generals and up (and possibly putting the Techs in the General category.) There is precedent for this, as we all know. 75 meters WAS 3.8-4.0 MHZ, but has been expanded downward to 3.750. Forty meters WAS 7.200 to 7.300, but was expanded to 7.150 as the bottom end. Twenty meters, fifteen meters and ten meters have all also enjoyed expanded phone bands.
It's probably about to happen again. It would not surprise me to see phone operation (for all classes) expanded down to 3.675, 7.100, 14.100, 21.100 and 28.150. It is simply supply and demand. Of course, if the FCC does not do away with the Morse requirement, then perhaps not. Or perhaps a smaller expansion. But I think we know how this cow is going to eat the cabbage. (You young folks have never heard that expression!)
And it is true, as stated elsewhere, that most CW operation is in the bottom 50 KHZ of any of the standard ham bands, though some operation slips above that.
I believe the expansion of phone bands will take place, and it has little to do with "wideband sideband." It may be possible, though, that in the future, IF the grandfathering of Techs into Generals actually takes place, we hams could find ourselves becoming "channelized," or something similar, at the hands of the FCC. At some point we could all face either severe restrictions, as rules, or severe interference.
But that's a sort of doomsday concept. To avoid it, and to live in the ham community that could be just ahead of us, we may have to voluntarily restrict our bandwidth demands.
My personal feeling is that I encourage experimentation, but not at the cost of others' pleasure in operating. I really see no real problem with the wideband sideband being mostly dedicated to a single frequency on each band. But if it proliferates, it is a major problem for everyone, both pro and con. I have enough sense to avoid 14.178 since that kind of operating doesn't interest me. Same is true of the DX sections; I'm not much into DX. That means generally I have no problem with the hi-fi guys/gals, at the moment. Of course, it isn't new technology, as it has been used by SW broadcasters for 50 years. And if it all does start to bother me, I retreat to the bottom 30 KHZ of the CW band and it isn't a problem at all.
Still, as Hollingsworth implies, if it *does* become a problem, it will have to be handled. And that "handling" will affect all hams, not just the hi-fi folks. I hope it doesn't get to that point.
73
Ed
|
| |
|
RE: 'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says
|
|
|
by N8FVJ on April 24, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well, I believe the future is going to have the CW space filled with 'digital' modes unless newcomers just do not come into the hobby.
If the voice band is adjusted now, then it may have to be re-adjusted in the future. People do not respond well when something is taken away- new age politics here.
The better solution is more SSB frequency space by expanding the frequency of the band itself and/or new bands such as the upcoming 5-mHz band. I noticed 15 meters was hardly used in the past 5 years, so this must be a 75/40/20 meter SSB issue.
|
| |
|
'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says K8LQ
|
|
|
by W8OKN on April 24, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I believe I am going to start operating my CW QSOs around the upper portion of 75 meters. I will review the rules again, but I think that's acceptable. We CW ops are running out of room.
|
| |
|
'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says K8LQ
|
|
|
by W2NAF on April 25, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Ok, I just wanted to through my support for CW in, too.
First, I have always had a great respect for CW and CW operators. CW has never come easily to me, and I still continue to struggle to become proficient at it. It pains me to hear people bash CW for any reason, for it truly is a wonderful skill and art.
People should not view CW as an outdated mode, but rather one of the most valuable aspects of our radio heritage.
And CW will not die... I'm 19 years old and, along with friends, continue to work to keep the tradition alive.
73 de Nathaniel
|
| |
|
'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says K8LQ
|
|
|
by KC4EOE on April 25, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
After reading all the above comments, who do you guys think gets the door prize for being the biggest fish to bite the hook?
|
| |
|
'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says K8LQ
|
|
|
by W1SMC on April 25, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Sounds like you got very frustrated and spoke your thoughts without really thinking. I feel your pain to a certain degree but ..... imho ..... if there is any mode deserving of tighter restrictions and reduced allocation it's SSB. I got into Amateur Radio to learn more about radio (duh!) and electronics. And I concluded very early on what one of the other posters pointed out.
And that is ....
Any moron can buy a radio & antenna, plug it in, tune to an open freq. and spew forth worthless BS on a microphone. However, other modes like CW and ALL of the other digital modes require the operator have some level of intelligence.
If I wanna do voice communications, I'll talk on my cell, landline or my HT.
CW RULES & SEMPER FI!!!!!!
|
| |
|
RE: 'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says
|
|
|
by RobertKoernerExAE7G on April 25, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Look at NU9N's spectrum...6kc! That’s not even close to the 10kc min and 20kc max of the standard HAM AM carrier including that offending heterodyne!"
Now that's what I'm talking about!
Who cares about bandwidth rules?
Even better, they could run stereo FM.
We should all take up 6kc for SSB.
We need more "broadcast engineer types" and experimenters to figure out how to take up twice as much space with FM (stereo broadcast!), AM (REAL HI-FI AUDIO!, better than broadcast quality if you take up twice as much space), RTTY, Hi-def, digital SSTV, PSK, CW, etc.
Just imagine--stereo CW! Dits, right ear, dahs, left ear! We could use a two string guitar to send CW, complete with "wicked-AWESWUM" special effects. Jammin CW, the wave of the future.
An even better concept—stereo AM contests!
This would effectively double or triple the amount of space we take up, creating the effect of 2-3 times as many hams. With only "twice as many hams" we wouldn’t have to worry about recruiting new hams to keep commercial interests away from ham spectrum.
Bob
|
| |
|
RE: 'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says
|
|
|
by W3DCG on April 25, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
CW ROCKS AND ROLLS!
SEMPER FI!
CW then, CW now, CW ForEVER!
"...cw IS Amateur Radio." (the screen-saver on WA2RUE's monitor)
The heritage spin is reason enough to keep what miniscule code requirement remains.
KNOW CODE.
The Jedi Will Never Die.
|
| |
|
RE: 'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says
|
|
|
by W3DCG on April 25, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Guitar string electric stereo CW, left dit, right dah, I love it.
Throw in the whammy bar for some real fun! :)
|
| |
|
'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says K8LQ
|
|
|
by K4IQT on April 25, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Jeez!
I thought the anti-CW forces made similar noises trying to get Morse removed or reduced from the exams years ago. Now that they've got halfway there they want to finish it off and convert the whole ham HF spectrum to a wideband chat room.
And what the H*LL is an "ARRL engineered" CW op? This is not an ARRL-controlled issue; it is instead a matter of preference. This is an argument comparable to someone in the office bitching about space on the coffee maker being taken up by the decaf pot and he drinks only "leaded".
Develop a little patience - live with your wideband kilowatt pileups on 20 and the noise on 75, and don't blame your inability to work clear-channel on those of us who choose to use CW or other narrow-band modes. If you study your ham radio history, you'll find that big chunks of HF spectrum have ALREADY been reallocated and given over to the SSB crowd.
Now go play with your microphone.
|
| |
|
'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says K8LQ
|
|
|
by G0GDU on April 25, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I wonder which of the so called phone bands you refer to! Is this a US only phenomenon?
Looking at my copies of the band plans each frequency band has a small CW only allocation with rest being mainly multimode (not phone only). For example 14MHz has a 70kHz CW only allocation, 29KHz for Digimodes & CW. 2kHz for Beacons, 11kHz for Digimodes, Phone & CW and 238kHz for Phone and CW. When I want to use CW I would look somewhere between 14 and 14.070 MHz, where it's usually quite crowded with CW traffic elsewhere I would find little or no CW traffic.
Perhaps Brian should take a listen at the CW only part of the bands and he would perhaps then appreciate that it is not only US ops who congregate there. From my experience there are more than a handful of US CW ops out there and there are equally many others in other countries.
Brian's post seems to take the line that a number of US ops seem to suggest and that is the world starts and ends with the US and the ARRL. I wonder what proportion of US hams are members the ARRL and what proportion make up the world amateur population?
The ARRL certainly don't control everything to do with with amateur radio - don't forget the equivalent organisations that represent the other half of the worlds population of amateurs.
Instead of complaining about CW ops who use far less bandwidth than SSB ops perhaps Brian ought to be complaining about AM and FM ops who use an even larger bandwidth than SSB or would he advocate more space is allocated to these modes after all FM is far less likely to cause interference than SSB.
|
| |
|
RE: 'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says
|
|
|
by W8OKN on April 25, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I believe CW ops will take over the world because of our intelligence. 99% of the rest of the world will not be able to communicate with us. Go CW!
|
| |
|
RE: 'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says
|
|
|
by N2MG on April 25, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
If §97.307(a) of the Amateur Service rules require the *** signal *** of an amateur station not occupy "more bandwidth than necessary for the information rate and emission type being transmitted, in accordance with good amateur practice."
then it's clear to me that 90% of the signals on the HF phone bands break the rules. This is because, IMO, the "information rate" contained in most phone conversations is zero (or less).
;-)
Mike N2MG
|
| |
|
RE: 'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says
|
|
|
by W9SN on April 26, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It is obvious the K8LQ has never tuned his rig durring a SS CW contest....just try to find some space durring a popular contest. Some contesters only show up durring a contest....take that away from them and their BandWidth (as you say).
CW is the main thing that separates us from CB'ers.
You need to get another hobby or life pal. What a super selfish topic to broadcast!
|
| |
|
'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says K8LQ
|
|
|
by N4KG on April 26, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Standard CW filters pass a 500 Hz bandwidth while standard SSB filters pass 2400 to 2800 Hz bandwidth.
This means that in the same bandwidth that one SSB QSO occupies, it is possible for 5 CW QSO's to transpire simultaneiously. WHO is being "inconsiderate" in their use of spectrum?
Pardon this analogy, but K8LQ's argument makes about as much sense as a severely OBESE 400 lb. person claiming that everyone under 200 lbs is "inconsiderate" in their use of space and should give HIM more because he NEEDS it.
Listen to any popular CW contest and you will find LOTS of participants enjoying the CW subbands to their full extreme. During the CQ WW CW DX Contest 10M is full of CW stations from 28000 to 28200. Notice that the SSB portion of popular DX contests occupies 28300 to 29000 or more. Clearly, CW is a more EFFICIENT use of the available spectrum allowing more people to communicate in the available bandwidth.
Long Live CW...CW is FUNdamental !
|
| |
|
'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says K8LQ
|
|
|
by N4KG on April 26, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Standard CW filters pass a 500 Hz bandwidth while standard SSB filters pass 2400 to 2800 Hz bandwidth.
This means that in the same bandwidth that one SSB QSO occupies, it is possible for 5 CW QSO's to transpire simultaneiously. WHO is being "inconsiderate" in their use of spectrum?
Pardon this analogy, but K8LQ's argument makes about as much sense as a severely OBESE 400 lb. person claiming that everyone under 200 lbs is "inconsiderate" in their use of space and should give HIM more because he NEEDS it.
Listen to any popular CW contest and you will find LOTS of participants enjoying the CW subbands to their full extreme. During the CQ WW CW DX Contest 10M is full of CW stations from 28000 to 28200. Notice that the SSB portion of popular DX contests occupies 28300 to 29000 or more. Clearly, CW is a more EFFICIENT use of the available spectrum allowing more people to communicate in the available bandwidth.
Long Live CW...CW is FUNdamental !
|
| |
|
RE: 'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says
|
|
|
by W8MW on April 26, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
NK4G: Read the CW key clicks article by W8JI. He points out the footprint for CW signals from many rigs is much wider than 500 Hz. Are the bands full of "Enhanced CW" that consumes excessive bandwidth? Is that "Extremely Inconsiderate"?
|
| |
|
RE: 'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says
|
|
|
by K8LQ on April 26, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W8OKN: I believe CW ops will take over the world because of our intelligence.
De K8LQ: Hmmmm.. 40wpm CW speed vs 200wpm Voice...
Intelligence...don't go there. Someone with a microphone would take over the world faster.
|
| |
|
RE: 'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says
|
|
|
by CURMUDGEON on April 26, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
W8MW- perhaps some, by no means all. Otherwise, balony.
|
| |
|
RE: 'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says
|
|
|
by W1NCH on April 26, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
The United States is the only (?) nation to impose subbands upon the ham community. Remove the subbands.
|
| |
|
RE: 'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says
|
|
|
by CURMUDGEON on April 26, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Don't remove the subbands. They've served us well for many decades. Removes the idiots populating amateur radio today. They're blossoming like weeds in the garden in July.
|
| |
|
OK .. Then where are you guys???
|
|
|
by W9MDX on April 26, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I have been listening to 80 meters this evening and last evening (3500 khz to 3750 khz). I spent a couple of hours at it. 250 khz and 6 CW QSO's and one teletype QSO at 10:00 PM EDT Saturday 4-10-2003.
On the other hand the phone band is totally filled from 3750 khz to 4 mhz. Hmmmm
If you read this article and all of the responses you would get the idea that most, well a lot, well half, no maybe a few of all amateurs work CW and need half of the alloted HF spectrum space reserved for them. I don't get it!
Would somebody please point out to me where the heck all of this CW activity is supposed to be at? Why don't I hear all of this activity that you guys are reporting?
Larry W9MDX
larry@w9mdx.com
|
| |
|
RE: OK .. Then where are you guys???
|
|
|
by RobertKoernerExAE7G on April 26, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Me thinks ya missed the point. Admittedly, the point is hard to distill from all the BS though.
The article is whining that some/one SSB op(s), experimenting with “Hi-Fi, broadcast quality” with signals taking up 6Kcs, has/have been told they exceed bandwidth for SSB—ie, you are breaking the rules.
The author asserts that since these people are experimenting, the rules for bandwidth shouldn’t apply to them.
It doesn’t have anything to do with CW.
Bob
|
| |
|
'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says K8LQ
|
|
|
by KE2IV on April 26, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I am confused here.
The call sign of this poster suggests he holds an AE class license. That should mean that he understands the DIFFERENCE between bandwidth and frequency allocation!
In fact, I think that's covered on the Novice exam.
What is the real gripe here?
If it is that we need a re-allocation of the sub-bands to provide additional allocation for SSB - I agree!
I'm an Extra and I've been a ham for 40 years. To me the primary purpose of CW is to tune your antenna! And I would, as a Life Member of the League, love it if the ARRL really did do the final turn-about and endorse no-code (far cry from Incentive Licensing - heh you OT's).
But all that has absolutely nothing to do with BANDWIDTH.
CW is among (perhaps PSK competes?) the narrowest bandwidth modes available. That's a matter of the laws of physics - not opinion (except if you're in KS or you're DUBYA and don't believe in that science stuff!).
So the question remains - why is this Post even on here? The author clearly doesn't understand the difference between mode bandwidth (defined by the laws of physics) and frequency/mode allocation (a matter for the FCC in cojunction with international protocols)? He only seems to have a need to call into question how he could ever have honestly passed the AE Exam.
Goodness, what a waste of everyone's time Post is!
|
| |
|
RE: OK .. Then where are you guys???
|
|
|
by KE2IV on April 27, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Larry W9MDX,
You are absolutely correct that CW is an arcane art practiced by very few on the air and supported by very many on these "cranky old white male" websites.
CW is a comforting myth for increasing decrepit OT's who have reconciled the cognitive dissonace so as to be able to accept the current technology of 21st Century web-based communication while still emotionally clinging to an obsolete mode that was originally developed to communicate between railroad stations in the 19th Century!
But what can you do? Nostalgia runs deep. Particularly as aging "Boomers" desparately try to hold back the ravages of time by clinging to the ham radio equivelent of their childhood teddy bears.
And, I am a "Boomer" and an ham of 40 years with an Extra. So I can say that and the heck with all you CW freaks - - so there!
Way back, when I was a little Novice, I wanted my General so bad just so I could get on Phone (it was mainly AM then) everywhere. I got it and never looked back! The heck with CW. Why bother? If conditions are so bad I can't get out on phone - I just go do something else!
|
| |
|
RE: 'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says
|
|
|
by K3NG on April 27, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Curmudgeon, I halfway agree with your viewpoint (regarding preservation of CW subbands), but you're still a spineless cowardly clown that hides behind an anonymous pseudonym. Have you ever made a post that is more than one line or one simple unsupported thought ? I can't find one post from you that has contributed didly squat.
eHam moderators - is there any need to continue anonymous postings ? You have a significant amount of postings from people who are willing to identify themselves and stand up and be counted, and actually contribute something worthwhile to the discussion at hand. Moderators at other community-based discussions learned long ago that anonymous posters are no longer of any value after you have reached a critical mass of identifiable meaningful contributors posting in discussions.
Forgive my verboseness, but anonymous posters are the bane of this site and the Internet in general.
K3NG
|
| |
|
'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says K8LQ
|
|
|
by WA2JJH on April 27, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
To solve this bandwidth problem, Here is a visual basic
program to see if you are inconsiderate.
10 start program
20PRINT" What mode do operate the most"
30 INPUT M
40 PRINT"YOU ARE INCONSIDERATE!:
50 PRINT"Go to a mirror near you at look at your self."
60 GOTO 10
70 END
|
| |
|
RE: 'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says
|
|
|
by RobertKoernerExAE7G on April 27, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
The author’s sole point: experimenters do NOT have to follow rules; they should be allowed to take up as much spectrum as they want to.
|
| |
|
REPLY!!
|
|
|
by W9MDX on April 27, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Point of original article:
Brian K8LQ's original article was a takeoff on Riley Hollingworths statement that you should not use more bandwidth than is necessary for the mode being used. Riley claims the those who use EBSSB are being inconsiderate. Brian's point is well taken that since clearly one half of the HF spectrum is reserved for CW ... isn't that similar to Rileys point on his latest "Advisory Notices".
Sean W8OKN -- My antenna works fine .. as does your imagination if you are implying that there is CW activity on Saturday night at 10:00 PM. There wasn't! My statement is fact. My question was sarcastic.
Robert AE7G -- Missed point ?? Robert go back and reread the original article. It is right on point! Brian's original post is saracasm at it's best and references the reservation of half of the HF spectrum for CW and digital modes. It is a response to Riley Hollingworths Advisory notices regarding using more bandwidth than is necessary for a specific mode. Since CW is quite narrow, yet has nearly half of all HF spectrum space reserved for it (and digital modes)the question is appropriate and an excellent response to the latest Advisory notices.
George KE2IV -- George, I too have been a ham for 40 years, actually 42. Took my extra exam before FCC also 30 years ago. Please reread original post. It has everything to do with bandwidth and CW.
Tony K3NG -- This guy has an extra. His picture on QRZ, that he posted himself, suggests that he is quite young and his remarks shows that he has more experience with computers than ham radio. Tony, because you have an extra, doesn't put you on a level with others who have extras. Your way of discussing an issue is to call names and make juvenile remarks about other's opinions. When it comes to moderators, your sort of post is inflammatory and should be eliminated because it has no value. Tony, if you wish to make a point, make it without using vernacular such as "crumudgeon" and "spineless cowardly .. ". Everyone is entitled to an opinion and each opinion has validity, even if you don't agree with it. Name calling was left behind in grade school. You are now playing with adults that are obviously much more mature than yourself. Either grow up and add to the discussion in a mature manner or simply keep quiet. As long as you act in a childlike manner your post will be taken with childlike value.
Michael WA2JJH -- Visual basic code .. come on .. your comment means what .. that you can call someone inconsiderate in some sort of techie way? What does your comment add to this post? Was this supposed to be funny?
Guys .. I agree with Brian K8LQ. This post is really important and deals with a very controversial topic. I am surprised at the responses. Riley Hollingsworth has sent out another batch of advisory notices that he should not have. They are similar to the ones he issued regarding the use of 146.52 for general use rather than as a calling frequency. These notices show a complete and utter ignorance of amateur rules and practices and should never have been sent. Riley is apparently a nice guy but just doesn't get it. I fear he should probably be in a position to retract these notices just like he did the last ones and until he bones up on the rules should probably cease issuing Advisory notices.
Nobody is saying that CW is bad or needs to be done away with. The post is simply about the FCC Advisory Notices and how it compares to CW getting the almost exclusive use of half of the HF spectrum, which is wrong and is adversly affecting amateur radio. Why should the FCC be worried about a SSB signal taking up 6 khz when all of this space is reserved for CW and CW is being used very little. If we need to question "being considerate", jumping on the EBSSB guys is not where it's at!
Larry W9MDX
larry@w9mdx.com
|
| |
|
CW, the original
|
|
|
by W8OKN on April 27, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"You are absolutely correct that CW is an arcane art practiced by very few on the air and supported by very many on these "cranky old white male" websites."
I trust that you were joking. I am not quite 41 and I've been a ham since I was 16. I run CW about 80% of the time and I am not cranky. I simply wish to lighten things up on this post. My favorite comment so far is the "nice day to go fishing". These new SSB guys are not experimentors. We already have known for years that a good mic and a great mixer will produce great audio. Experimentation is taking place in digital, for everyone's information, and CW is the original digital. And... everything about that cannot be debated! So lighten up. Face the truth, CW is superior. Always has been, always will be.
|
| |
|
We need CW and SSB sub-bands.
|
|
|
by RADIOWEENIE on April 27, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
The CW sub-band allocation should not be discarded. Have you ever used a scanning receiver? If so, you surely want to scan for EITHER telegraph signals OR for SSB signals but NOT BOTH! One very practical example: You are driving cross country in a car. Would you want to scan for telegraph and SSB signals alike on the low bands? I myself am not good enough at CW to copy in my head "on the fly", so to speak. And VERY few people are that good. I would lose my concentration on the road and be at greater risk for a wreck. When the transceiver stops on telegraph signals it can be quite annoying. Ditto stopping on SSB signals when you might want to do telegraph. Would it not be more practical and pleasant to determine a "decent" and fair allocation which would accomodate the needs of telegraphers and telephoners alike-- so that neither sub-band be crowded nor have more bandwidth than needed for its respective modes??
|
| |
|
RE: REPLY!!
|
|
|
by K3NG on April 27, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Larry W9MDX, (please call me Goody or Anthony) I normally don't resort to name calling, but this guy did one of his typical one line insults to me in another forum article (see the 'Reality Check' article). Since this guy has no identifying information, I went searching for other posts and found him here and posted in a time of anger what you see above. My apologies for the name calling.
I can assure you I normally don't do this, and in my local area I contribute to the amateur radio community. I've been president of a local club for nearly two years now and I've participated in local events assisting other folks building stuff. So, rest assured I'm not a do-nothing ham that surfs forums posting inflamatory remarks. I normally discuss the topic at hand and hopefully add some something of value. The post above obviously did not.
My comments to the moderators are warranted and I stand behind them. Perhaps they are off topic but certainly not inflammatory.
I haven't commented on the K8LQ article becuase this is an obvious trap to fire people up. Kudos to the author for writing such a well crafted article. :-)
Since I'm taking up bandwidth, though, here's my opinion. The CW subbands should remain as they are. CW will always have a place in amateur radio, even if the CW licensing requirement is dropped. I support the CW requirement 100% but I feel it will be dropped one way or another in the future. If the CW subbands were dropped, anarchy would result. There tends to be a "cross-mode ignorance" that tends to occur where operators of one mode transmit on top of another mode, either consciously or unconsciously. You see this happen often in the QRP parts of the CW subband where digital signals fire up directly on top of ongoing QSOs.
The author cites 47CFR97.307. IANAL, but I don't think this really applies to the allocation of the subband, but rather the emmision of a station itself. This would be more applicable to a CW signal with no shaping resulting in key clicks, or a wide SSB signal.
Should the CW subband be shrunk ? That's like asking how many licks can you get from a tootsie pop (remember the owl on the commercial ? ). Could you perhaps take measurements of the number of stations using the band at given times and somehow apply something like an Erlang B or C table to determine the "capacity" and make a decision as to whether it should be reduced ?
K3NG
Goody
P.S. Larry - BTW (by the way) my picture on QRZ was taken about 14 years ago and was the only decent electronic pic I had on hand at the time. Notice the unit on the desk is a terminal and not a computer. I was working on a Nortel DMS 250 Supernode cellular switch at the time :-) I've aged considerablably in those years and I'm now an IT manager with some gray hair, a beard and some emerging wrinkles. 73
|
| |
|
RE: REPLY!!
|
|
|
by K3NG on April 27, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Another note -- "Curmudgeon" isn't me calling anyone names -- I'm merely responding to someone called "Curmudgeon" with no callsign. I was not responding to KE2IV. Perhaps, W9MDX, you though I was busting on KE2IV, but I'm not. I don't agree with his viewpoint, but his post is well stated. The non-threaded nature of this forum often makes it confusing to figure out who is talking to who. Anyway, sorry for taking up "bandwidth"... 73 Goody
|
| |
|
'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says K8LQ
|
|
|
by N3VY on April 27, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
At age 74, I became FCC licensed for amateur radio because of a life-long interest in Morse Code, and hisory. I studied hard, spent a substantial (for a retiree) sum for radio equipment, joined and supported the local radio club and FISTS, and have practiced and operated CW every day since becoming licensed. Therefore, I have contributed a little to the "hobby", knowing that I won't be missed by the masses when I'm gone.
CW is an acquired skill, and a specialized interest, as is the interest in other more technical aspects and different modes of communication. I love CW, but I'm certainly not prejudiced against the interests of others. To each his own. Let's live and let live. Maybe some day we'll be as free-wheeling as the other-than-US operators? 73 de Don N3VY
|
| |
|
RE: 'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says
|
|
|
by W8MW on April 27, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W9MDX: Larry, like you I often monitor the 80 meter band and find the same dismal waste of spectrum you described. On a typical night I might hear one frequency in use for every 50 kHz of spectrum. That's five QSOs in 250 kHz. Sometimes I can tune 100 kHz of the CW/Data/RTTY sub band and hear zero activity while stations are jammed up tight on the SSB portion which gets overloaded all the time. This is an upside/down situation.
The attitude that says don't ever change a thing about the band/mode allocations is driven by emotion, not an objective appraisal of actual operating activity. It's probably impossible to have a perfect band plan, but some attempt ought to be made to better utilize the available spectrum. Contestors who only come out to play several days a year might not perceive a problem. But those of us who regularly operate here
know things aren't right.
Accusing W9MDX of not having an effective receiving antenna and therefore not being able to hear all that rip roarin' CW activity on 80 meters is classic denial. In the USA, 3500-3750 kHz has been a waste of RF real estate for decades. So yeah, K8LQ you're right. It's extremely inconsiderate.
|
| |
|
RE: 'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says
|
|
|
by CURMUDGEON on April 27, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Just who is it that you consider inconsiderate? CW ops? Perhaps the FCC? Do you think patterns of behavior might have changed? Perhaps you're right, perhaps there is no longer a necessity for as much cw space on 80 meters. Why don't you petition the FCC to open up more space to phone? Now theres a real bandwidth efficient mode. Just what we need on 75/80, more hot air!
|
| |
|
"CW' Bandspace" RED HERRING
|
|
|
by RobertKoernerExAE7G on April 27, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Exactly! This is about advisory notices. People running SSB signals occupying DSB width are getting notices.
One has to read the author’s response to understand his article.
He asserts, experimenters are free to occupy as much spectrum as they like. The reason why experimenters can do this is simply experimenters don’t have to follow rules (two classes of hams, experimenters and non-experimenters).
If you accept his logic, why stop at 6kc SSB? What experimenter will be the first to start experimenting with “Hi-Fi” DSB stereo-32Kcs should be enough for that, or maybe twice the space “Hi-Fi” AM, 36-40Kcs anyone?
Who will be the first experimenter to have “Hi-Fi” spread spectrum?
How about “Hi-Fi” digital voice in the CW/digital only spectrum?
Wanna run FM on 20 meters? AM on 30 meters? Just go ahead, you’re experimenting!
Wanna experiment with 75/80 meter DX at noon where you live? Its OK to run 10-50KW—you’re an EXPERIMENTER!
Phone spectrum vrs CW/digital spectrum is a red herring (or maybe here, a read herring?). The experimenters choose to occupy excessive spectrum, in spite of the rules, just like one would choose to run phone in a CW spectrum, or AM in the SSB spectrum; just like “CBers” choose to use ham bands (they know they shouldn’t be in the ham bands).
If you don’t like the break down of CW vrs Phone areas of ham bands, send a petition to the FCC to change them.
Bob
|
| |
|
RE: "CW' Bandspace" RED HERRING
|
|
|
by AD6WL on April 27, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
How many times have we read post from hams that want the CW testing requirement for HF privileges dropped? They always say they don't want to eliminate CW just the testing requirement. Well, the requirement has NOT been dropped but they are taking the next step anyway and asking for more spectrum for SSB! They will not be happy until all CW is eliminated. All because it's too hard to learn CW at a mere 5wpm.
There is plenty more phone spectrum on echolink. Perhaps you can try HiFi computer connections with echolink. No CW required, just an internet connection and a mic.
|
| |
|
RE: "CW' Bandspace" RED HERRING
|
|
|
by W9MDX on April 27, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Bob,
Your response is totally without background or insight into the division of the bands. It is without any technical or historical merit whatsoever.
You are right when you make the point that it is about FCC "Advisory Notices" and their incorrectness. It wasn't that long ago that an Advisory Notice was withdrawn by the person who issued it because it had no merit! This one apparently is not much different. It is painfully obvious that you do not understand the issues involved.
First, it has nothing to do with experimenters. Although the foundation of ham radio includes experimentation, this is nothing more than an extension of "turf wars". The Advisory notices were issued as a result of a large number of complaints made to the office of Riley Hollingsworth. This is very interesting because ...! Those who would seek to protect "their turf" would slide a QSO in very close to an "enhanced SSB" QSO and when the first comment was uttered about interference, someone would come up with contact information for Riley to lodge such complaints. This isn't much different than a salt block to a deer hunt!
In all of your wisdom, why don't you look up the FCC rule regarding bandwidth and mode. Hmmm, there isn't any? Right! There is no such definition regarding bandwidth and this is one of the most ignorant Advisories ever issued. It is a chuck and run, hoping that the warring parties will try to settle the dispute themselves and end the dispute before some other action must be taken to keep the parties civil.
The first action would have to be a rulemaking effort by the FCC to define what bandwidth is and how it is measured. Considering the horrible job that was done regarding the measurement of power for an AM station, I suspect that we all would be licking stamps for our collection if that should happen.
Experimenters are the foundation of this hobby, unlike CB. Back in the days when the current band plan was developed and put into place, it was very simple. You had Phone (AM) and CW. SSB hadn't made an entrance in a meaningful way. Since you had little choice but to build your rig, CW was a favorite because it was cheap and easy. It was also an effective communications mode. There were, however, commercial rigs that included phone (AM). If you could afford one, or were technically able, your goal was many times simply getting on phone. Those were the boundaries and the bands were split 50-50 because of activity.
Than along came technology and the Japanese. Experimenters (Art Collins among them) took this crazy new idea and experimented it to death. There were vast AM-SSB wars then over turf as the communication ability of SSB became evident and it's use became popular. Back in those days it was the wealthy hams that could afford Collins equipment or any of the expensive alternatives ... UNTIL ... the Japanese and their technology brought to market the Kenwoods, the Icoms, and the Yaesu's that we see today. CW is not superior any longer as a communications mode. It is clearly beaten by digital techniques and CW is dying as a result of technology and the mere difficulty of learning it. It is an art but it is no longer a prime requirement to get a license and talk on the radio. It is no longer a mode in use by ships at sea or other commercial interests. BUT we as amateurs still have half of our HF spectrum space allocated to it and thus basically inactive. What a waste!
The experimenters brought in the PSK31's the teletypes and the slow scans (hooked to the PC's of course) and all of this started to explode and the old bandplans didn't fit anymore. There was always the questions like "where do we put this and where do we tolerate that". Even the ARRL has not been able to work with the FCC and develop plans and rules that keep up with technology! The red tape that is involved in any FCC move is gigantic and is further hampered by those, who like you, are frought with misinformation and emotion "My heavens it was good for my Dad so let's not screw with it".
Bull, I say! It's time someone called an ace and ace! The FCC needs to have it's heels trimmed. It needs to get with the program and the technology and come up with ways and budget to make good rules and enforce them or get the hell out of the business and quit looking so darn stupid. We are the only country in the world that is encumbered by these stupid sub bands and the result is exactly what you or anyone with a brain can easily see for yourself. Go ahead and cry but first look at the lower half of the 75-80 meter ham band .. any day or night, any time .. and see the clear results. Last night at 10:00PM EDT there were six (countem 6) CW QSO's in the entire CW portion of the band. There were Canadian phone QSO's but only SIX CW contacts for a full 250 khz of reserved band space! The top of the band was crowded, as usual, and turf fighting was evident everywhere as phone ops were looking fo a place to talk.
That is BANALITY in it's highest form and anyone who can support that is an idiot!
So yes, when Brian says that it is inconsiderate of the FCC to comment on a 6 khz EBSSB signal and send this dumb Advisory Notice to a ham that hasn't even been on the air for six months ... I will go one step further .. It is LUNACY! Somebody up there ain't smokin ripe sh*&
I would say from your personal information that you made a choice to move from CB to Ham Radio. Now dig into the nuts and bolts and the history and find out what you have gotten yourself into before you make a post like you last one.
I'm mad as hell about this. This has always been my hobby, in fact, for the last 44 years. I've only been an Extra for 30 years and have never touched a CB rig but do vaguely remember when it came into being. I held an FCC First Class Radiotelephone license at the age if 15 and saw first hand what the FCC was able to do to the broadcasting industry with their stupidity. If Riley can't do any better than Advisory notices reprimanding those who operate simplex on 146.52 and chastising those who dare to operate an enhanced SSB sation then he should give up because he doesn't understand the rules or the service to which they are applied. And any of you that support this crap, I put in the same category!
Larry W9MDX
larry@w9mdx.com
and if you want to hide behind anonymity and don't have the guts to identify yourself, please don't bother me!
|
| |
|
Band Divisions, a RED HERRING
|
|
|
by RobertKoernerExAE7G on April 27, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I’ve re-read the article. I’ve re-read his response.
NADA. ZIP. Nothing about a “turf war”, or intentional QRM.
“Yes...this was my attempt to bring an injustice to your attention. This is the injustice done by the FCC to the group on 14.178”. “Look at NU9N's spectrum...6kc!”
The FCC’s injustice is sending advisory letters to people (a person) with 6Kc SSB signal(s). NADA. ZIP about him not being on the air!
Why is this an injustice? Because they are experimenters!
“This (sending an advisory notice) is the kiss of death to what made the hobby great...experimentation!!” (experimenters should be allowed to take up as much space as they want to). Anyone for spark gap experimentation?
Right. Ham radio is going to die because there aren’t enough people experimenting, or at least because there aren’t enough people doing the experiments he likes.
If 6Kc SSB signals are OK, how about 8Kcs? How about “Hi-Fi” DSB at 12-18Ks?
I’m interested in hearing from people with “nuts and bolts” knowledge about ham radio, how wide a SSB signal too wide?
Relevance to CW, nothing.
Later in his response, he says he doesn’t like the CW phone allocations (on 80/75). So what?
If one doesn’t like the allocations, send a petition to the FCC to change them.
If the phone/cw allocation on 80/75 is related to SSB signal width on 20 SSB, please enlighten us. If more space is allocated for phone on 75, do the SSB signals on 20 get lager or smaller?
Bob
|
| |
|
RE: "CW' Bandspace" RED HERRING
|
|
|
by VE3IVM on April 27, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>W9MDX wrote:
>...We are the only country in the world that is encumbered by these stupid sub bands...
Sorry, I am not sure I got it right. Nobody but the US has band plans? Is this what you are saying?
Thks.
|
| |
|
RE: "CW' Bandspace" RED HERRING
|
|
|
by N8UZE on April 27, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
To VE3IVM:
In the US there are both band plans and regulated division into sub-bands. For example, it is prohibited by regulation to use voice between 7.000Mhz and 7.150Mhz. Within this subband, is the band plan, a voluntary agreement, which indicates the preferred frequencies for RTTY, PSK31, and so on. Then from 7.150 to 7.300, we are allowed voice and other modes. Within the voice portion, the voluntary band plan indicates the preferred frequency for slow scan TV, etc. Although CW and data modes are legal in the voice subband, they are rarely heard here.
So the basic divisions are set by regulation of the FCC and the band plans are layered on top of that and are more detailed than the divisions set by regulation.
|
| |
|
'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says K8LQ
|
|
|
by KX2J on April 27, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
are you -. ..- - ... you have a lot to learn, or go back to 2 meters.
|
| |
|
'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says K8LQ
|
|
|
by WA2RUG on April 28, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I agree with the KX2S remedy. Years ago I used to opine that "they're going to be giving away extra tickets in crackerjack boxes someday". I see that day has come. "What hath God wrought?" 73 from a "real extra".
|
| |
|
'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says K8LQ
|
|
|
by W8OB on April 28, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
G3VGR yes very good day for fishing. Trout season opened here the other day and the action is hot. It makes more sense than getting suckered into this BS discussion here. By the way The couple of you guys that just have to get so worked up over this PLEASE DON'T E-MAIL ME DIRECTLY WITH YOUR VIEWS!!!!!. As quoted from a old movie " Frankly my dears I don't give a damn". Give me a break with this crap about all the open space in the cw subbands and the phone bands packed. In case most of you have not realized it but we have been getting some pretty good solar storms the last 1.5 weeks and the whole damn band is empty. Been several times now that the CW subband is full and lots of space between 3800-3900 khz for conversations. Yes sir the post before this one sez it all.
|
| |
|
RE: 'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says
|
|
|
by W8OKN on April 28, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I was up in NW Montana last month fishing for Perch. What a view! I'll be going back this Fall.
|
| |
|
RE: 'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says
|
|
|
by W8OKN on April 28, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I was up in NW Montana last month fishing for Perch. What a view! I'll be going back this Fall.
|
| |
|
'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says K8LQ
|
|
|
by W8OB on April 28, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I Wish we still had the perch fishing here, but since the powers that be planted the great lakes with lunker brown trout and salmon the pretty much used the perch and smelt for feed. At least still have the brookies and rainbows on the inland streams or else I would go crazy.
|
| |
|
RE: 'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says
|
|
|
by KA8VIT on April 28, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Not learning and/or using the code is what is inconsiderate.
Just like that last guy who told me it was illegal to operate CW in the phone band!
73,
Bill KA8VIT
|
| |
|
RE: 'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says
|
|
|
by K8LQ on April 29, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
AE7G:One has to read the author’s response to understand his article.
He asserts, experimenters are free to occupy as much spectrum as they like.
De K8LQ: Bob, Your reading between lines that don't exist. Because of your personal bias...whatever that is...your distorting the point. I never implied that experimenters should break the law!
1. Part 97 does not specify a bandwidth rule. All it says is that amateur station not occupy "more bandwidth than necessary for the information rate and emission type being transmitted, in accordance with good amateur practice. The "emission type" could be akin to DSB AM or CW or SSB or the new HIFI enhanced side band. 6kc may indeed be an excellent bandwidth for Enhanced A3J. Maybe 8 or 10kc would be ok too. I suppose that if we added the letters "good amateur practice" together and divide by 10 maybe that would be a good number for a bandwidth spec?
What is unjust Bob is that the FED has abitrarily decided that Enhanced SSB at 6kc is unacceptable, though A3J has may FCC approved bandwidth modes in the communications industry.
DSB AM Ham transmissions run from 5-10kc either side of carrier center up to 20kc! and know one complains about this and the FCC has not cracked down on the HiFi AM'ers. If anyone operates 40 and 75 they know that these guys set up nets anywhere they want...again where's the outrage.
Bob, Ham radio is about experimentation...and it always will be, unless you an appliance operator.
Bob, you not one of those appliance operators...are you? Bob, you have used a soldering gun before haven't you. If you have Bob, then even you too are a tinkerer/experimenter aren't you Bob....now don't be dishonest.
AE7G:Wanna experiment with 75/80 meter DX at noon where you live? Its OK to run 10-50KW—you’re an EXPERIMENTER!
De K8LQ: Bob, you can't do this...even if your an EXPERIMENTER there is a RULELAW that says 1500PEP is the max or aren't you aware of this.
AE7G: Wanna run FM on 20 meters?
De K8LQ: again Bob...this is illegal..even for an experimenter...you can only do this 10m and above.
Bob, A police Officer cannot enforce the Law without a Law. Thats what we have here...There is no limit on bandwidth, it is only defined by the emission type in accord with good amateur practice. This is not a limit, as W8MW and W9MDX have so elequently pointed out.
Further, I support CW as a license requirement...I've said this, it's a necessity. But, I must laugh at all the posts that says CW lives on...or CW forever. I can't believe all you guys are in denial!
It's a dying mode and it's dying quick. And I must agree with the other posts. If there are so many CW ops...there not in my receiver, I'm not hearing them either.
And don't give me the same line of Crap you gave the other posts about the quality of my antenna system and receiver. That's not even a good intellectual argument. If thats the only excuse you have for me not hearing the most elite and copyable communication mode on the planet, thats poor rhetoric...it should be heard on the worst antenna system if it's that good!
73 Brian K8LQ
|
| |
|
'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says K8LQ
|
|
|
by WB2EOO on April 29, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Very offended??? Hmmmm, you seem to forget that the CW portions of the band also share spectrum with the digital modes, international phone operations and is often much more crowded than the phone section. Of course, knowing that would require more than a cursory glance into the CW section. As far as ARRL engineered, I'm sure many CW and SSB op's would disagree. Frankly, many of the phone perks you enjoy are due to the effort of the ARRL and other similiar international organizations. Be happy that we're not giving up spectrum and try to enjoy all of the modes. It's Amateur radio, with a lot to offer everyone...
|
| |
|
RE: 'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says
|
|
|
by N0TONE on April 29, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The FCC sub-bands are not decided on one factor alone. K8LQ seems to think that it is - bandwidth per signal required.
The US ham population can easily overwhelm DX countries because of the sheer quantity of signals we generate. The sub-bands give foreign countries some protection against us!
Also, there are times when I can hear signals on the CW sub-bands but not in the phone part of the bands.
The one exception to this is 80 meters. I have never understood why, but in the evening, while the SSB portion is chock-full of mostly bad-sounding signals, the CW portion is empty. I can almost always hear a CW signal in the bottom 50kHz. It will be a very weak DX signal, and most hams can not hear it because they have not invested the time to erect a good low-noise 80 meter receive antenna. As a side note: a Good 80 meter DX receive antenna is nearly the opposite of a good transmit antenna. Low and horizontal gets the good DX reception, not high.
However, on 40 and 20, I can find CW sigs day or night, often when I hear no SSB. On 40 at night, the foreign BC stations drive the SSB ops off the band, probably to 75 meters. On 20 meters at night, sigs are weak enough that SSB often doesn't get through.
Also, if you hear lots of SSB signals and no CW signals, particularly on 20, it's often because SSB ops far more frequently use amps, and CW ops far more frequently run QRP. So you have to adjust your ears (not your station) so they're calibrated for signals closer to the noise.
But the one factor which seems to be completely overlooked that justifies why the CW sub-bands are exclusive of SSB is thus: One SSB signal can wipe out a LOT of CW signals. And, the SSB operator, who has his 2.7kHz RX filter dialed in, can easily miss several CW signals that are so weak you need a 250Hz filter to hear them.
So why is it OK for CW to be used in the SSB bands? First of all, cross-mode operation is enjoyed by many hams, so it needs to be allowed somewhere. Also, if a CW signal appears to interfere with an SSB signal, you just turn on your RX notch filter and the CW sig is gone - you can't do that if you want to hear the CW signal and "notch" the SSB signal.
The enhanced SSB operation is a great experiment. If you read Riley's letter carefully, you'll see that the biggest issue isn't the width of the signals - it's the choice of using them on one of the most crowded bands when it's open for DXing. Why can't this experimentation be carried out on a frequency where there's less likelihood of interference?
AM
|
| |
|
RE: 'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says
|
|
|
by N8UZE on April 29, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I find it very strange that K8LQ cannot hear the CW signals. Any time I turn on the radio, I find plenty of CW signals on the bands appropriate to the time of day. At night there's plenty of DX on 40 CW that I hear quite well. In the daytime 20 meter CW is hopping. While these two bands sound the busiest (at least from my location with my setup), there's plenty of activity on the other bands too. The only antennas that I have are a ground mounted vertical and a random wire.
It is also strange that people keep saying that CW is dying. This flies in the face of the evidence. The CW bands sound busier than ever. The ARRL reports a 20% increase in participation in the CW contests in the last year. CW equipment continues to sell quite well.
|
| |
|
RE: 'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says
|
|
|
by N8UZE on April 29, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says K8LQ Reply
by N8VQJ on April 23, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought CW was allowed on any band and any frequency(and in any mode really as you can always transmit CW through your phone mike). The band plans only exists to keep us sane (with exception of any FCC rules). There are enough open frequencies that you can move up a 1 KHz and not even hear the CW signal. CW isn't going away
------------------------------------------------------
Feeding a tone into the microphone on SSB,AM, or FM to operate CW is referred to as Modulated CW and is only allowed in the VHF and higher frequencies.
If you want to use your mike to send CW on HF, you need to set your radio to CW and use the mike PTT as a switch. In other words your microphone then behaves like a straight key. On most rigs, you must have all keys unplugged from the key jacks to use your mike PTT button as a key.
|
| |
|
RE: 'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says
|
|
|
by KE4RWS on April 29, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I think the perch issue is a better discussion. Let's talk about that instead of this useless crap . . .
|
| |
|
RE: 'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says
|
|
|
by N8VQJ on April 29, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Do you care to specify the section of Part 97 pertaining to Modulated CW not being allowed on HF? As far as I know, ANYTHING is allowed with exception of bad language, Music or communications where the parties have a pecuniary interest. I did a good search of the ARRL web page and the Web in general and was unable to find anything saying Modulated CW was not allowed on HF (SSB, AM or FM or otherwise.). The only thing I did find was restrictions based on locations and bands (say near the VLA or Arecibo) and other areas (NORAD). Also, if this is the case, then most 10 m repeaters would be breaking the law with their CW Id's (although I have to admit I have not heard a 10 m repeater yet). If your going to say somethign is illegal, then please specify the section of Part 97. Now, Modulated CW may only show UP on the ARRL Band plan, but those are jsut gentlemans agreements and not a hard and fast law. Same thing goes wit CW portions of the bands. It's just a generally accpeted practice that CW is from this freq to that freq and so on.
|
| |
|
RE: 'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says
|
|
|
by WA4MJF on April 29, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N8VQJ,
Read 97.305 (c) and you SHALL see that
MCW is not authorized below 50.1 MHZ.
It is allowed from 50.1-54.0 MHz,
144.1-148 MHz, 222-225 MHZ and
all wavelengths below 70 cm.
Ten Meter Repeater use voice Iders.
73 de Ronnie
|
| |
|
'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says K8LQ
|
|
|
by KE2IV on April 29, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well, one thing is for certain - CW ops are a VOCAL group. Much heat - not sure about light though.
Well if you think this hsd been a battle - wait for digital phone! Anyone remember the SSB vs. AM wars back in the 50's and 60's? Get ready for a reprise!
Personally, I think CW is a nice, quaint old mode. Kind of nostalgic - like those mock rotary telephones you see advertised in certain catalogs.
Oops - I've done it. Now I'll get flamed by all those CW'ers who will tell me how they can communicate with a straight razor and a lead pencil from a foxhole :-)
Say - anyone out there want to buy my old J-38?
|
| |
|
'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says K8LQ
|
|
|
by N0TONE on April 30, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Two points about MCW.
First, if you feed a pure sine wave into the microphone input of an SSB transmitter that is adjusted correctly, you don't get MCW. You get "pure" CW - A1 emission. That's because SSB doesn't have a carrier, and strips one sideband. HOWEVER, most rigs won't quite get it right - they'll have a vestigial carrier about 40dB down.
Do the same thing with an AM or FM rig, though and you do have MCW.
Second, FCC rule 97.305 specifies what emission modes are allowed on which frequencies - and MCW is, in fact, allowed only above 50.1MHz. FCC rule 97.3(c)(5) specifies that MCW used purely for station identification when it's otherwise a phone transmission will be considered a phone transmission - and therefore 10 meter repeaters which ID with MCW are legal.
AM
|
| |
|
RE: 'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says
|
|
|
by W8OKN on April 30, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I went Perch fishin in northern Wisconsin last year with my brother-in-law. It was right off of US-2. All I'll say is, it was awesome and the name of the lake is, "Mystery Lake No. 7".
|
| |
|
RE: 'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says
|
|
|
by K3WA on April 30, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Maybe K8LQ's post has stirred up enough QRN for now. Let's save the internet bandwidth and finish this thread on 40 meters - CW of course.
|
| |
|
'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says K8LQ
|
|
|
by W8OB on April 30, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Hey I will have to check that lake out. I am going to be in Mercer, Wi for the 4th of July week and plan on trying out a little perch fishing and maybe a bit of fly casting as well. If you get up in the U.P. of Mich check out the creek by Thompson lots of rainbows in that one but use either spinners or canned corn for bait
|
| |
|
RE: Internet Bandspace usage 'Extremely Inconsider
|
|
|
by K8LQ on April 30, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hey W8OKN....why not Whitefish, I think thats good too!
...It was a heck of a run...wasn't though?
73 Brian K8LQ
|
| |
|
RE: Internet Bandspace usage 'Extremely Inconsider
|
|
|
by W8OKN on April 30, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Whitefish?? That's where I went fishing in Montana. We also went as far north as Eureka. No kidding!
|
| |
|
RE: 'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says
|
|
|
by KC9DTA on April 30, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
i think they should atleast leave the cw test
requirement in for an "extra" i was able to pass a 5 wpm novice test at age 12 so
lets keep it in "i could never get an old extra " and im a new /old ham ex wn9bby
who hopes to have his extra soon
alot of very sharp people could not pass the old 20 wpm send receive extra test
and 13 wpm was a hard deal
i have to write down what i receive so i could never of hacked anything above 13 wpm
and the arrl knew that alot of guys couldnt
and introduced the advanced class in the 60s
for the non "code ear" types
i know a guy with a phd in engineering
who had an advanced until the extra code requirement was removed he felt it wasnt wort his time to boost his code speed up for the small privilage increases "the extra was a code mans licence when i was a boy"
|
| |
|
'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says K8LQ
|
|
|
by WA2JJH on May 1, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
life with reilly. Sending notices to hams that use there real call signs. Shooting fish in a barrel!
Most of the 14.178 guys are not using anywhere near 6 khz. They roll off the bass, and start attenuating at 2.9khz.
There pollution is no worse than a ham using a Crapy Audio DSP speech proc.
They went high profile with an ultra informative web page. Some of the improvements work great at 2.4 roll off.
Since we are talking about fishing. Red herrings and the like. I must give the NYC fishing report.
Coney Island white fish are plenty. Trojan trouts are in good supply too
Syringe fish are an endangered species. The Budwieser
can fish are plenty at ORCHARD BEACH in the BRONX.
Cancerette fish can be had with a Lobster trap.
Please note that floaters (dead bodies) are not edible, this year! It is not the canible issue at all!
Floaters absorbed LD-50 doses of PCB's and output of waste treatment sites.
I would love to see the FCC go after drug dealers and gypsie cabs that run up to 500 watts 24-30mhz.
I guess REILLY is not up to snuff on the SIG 230, Baretta 92-F, and the S&W 9mm. These are the tools required for FCC enforcement on said RF problems.
I guess if the dealers and gypsie cabbies would just all fall in line, and put up a web page, reilly CAN DO HIS JOB.
HE CAN SQUEEZE THIS IN WHILE HE GETS HAMS TO BICKER LONG ENOUGH, SO HE CAN GET TOP DOLLER FOR HAM SPECTRUM!
THINK ABOUT IT.
|
| |
|
'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says K8LQ
|
|
|
by KY9P on May 1, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Wow! That's the best April Fools article I've seen in a long time....it really had me going for awhile!
|
| |
|
'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says K8LQ
|
|
|
by N0XMW on May 1, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
On the contrary, most phone operations take too much bandwidth. Having said that I still do not see much congestion in the "Advanced" portion of the 40, 20, and particulary 15 meter bands. Add to that the "Extra" portions and you see the justification for incentive licensing. CW by it's nature requires less power and bandwith to accomplish a QSO, if the phone band is too crowded, which again is unproven to this writer, just switch to CW where there's lot's of room (For PSK-31, RTTY, Packet, Packet +, etc, etc, and yes a bona fide CW QSO).
Listen to 40 at night to all the foreign phone operations from 7045 up, there's precious little space for additional phone there. In the "Advanced" and "Extra" portions it seems pretty open to me.
CW is a great way to communicate, I have exchanged family stories with DX ops, a favorite was with a fellow in Guiana on a semi regular basis that would exchange recipes with me for BAR-B-QUE all on 20 CW.
But that takes a degree of work to get your skill level up. I've been talking since I was a year old (or so my Mom said) but only on CW since a Novice 46 years ago.
Maybe you just don't want to spend the effort to be proficient in CW, like most of the anti-code crowd.
Untie your shorts, and relax, it's only a hobby.
73!
Ed K0KL
|
| |
|
RE: 'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says
|
|
|
by KA4KOE on May 1, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KY6R, I'm hurt. I don't get a beer OM?
PAN
|
| |
|
RE: 'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says
|
|
|
by K3ESE on May 1, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
COME OUT INTO THE SUN (by Robert Francis)
Come out into the sun and bathe your eyes
In undiluted light. On the old brass
Of winter-tarnished grass,
Under these few bronze leaves of oak
Suspended, and a blue ghost of chimney smoke
Sit and grow wise
And empty as a simpleton.
The meadow mouse twitching her nose in prayer
Sniffs at a sunbeam like celestial cheese.
Come out, come out into the sun
And bask your knees
And be an acolyte of the illumined air.
The weathercock who yesterday was cold
Today sings hallelujah hymns in gold.
Soon the small snake will slip her skin
And the gray moth in an old ritual
Unseal her silk cocoon.
Come shed, shed now, your winter-varnished shell
In the deep diathermy of high noon.
The sun, the sun, come out into the sun,
Into the sun, come out, come in.
Happy May, fellow hobbyists!!!
|
| |
|
RE: 'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says
|
|
|
by W3DCG on May 1, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Indeed dear OM! My Maypole is up, on my roof, complete with guys and radials,
Her resonance is light,
and airy,
a lovely null,
at
7.033,
73.
Blessed Be to All.
|
| |
|
'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says K8LQ
|
|
|
by N6TZ on May 1, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Why are the SSB operators always complaining about needing space. In the last few years I have noticed the bands becoming more and MORE empty. Today, I tuned around the bands during my lunch hour and nearly nobody was on. It looks like a lot of room for all the way it is. Face it, the hobby is dying as us 50, 60, 70, 80 year olds are going to the "happy antenna farm".
Hal,
Long Live CW
N6TZ@arrl.net
|
| |
|
'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says K8LQ
|
|
|
by N6TZ on May 1, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Why are the SSB operators always complaining about needing space. In the last few years I have noticed the bands becoming more and MORE empty. Today, I tuned around the bands during my lunch hour and nearly nobody was on. It looks like a lot of room for all the way it is. Face it, the hobby is dying as us 50, 60, 70, 80 year olds are going to the "happy antenna farm".
Hal,
Long Live CW
N6TZ@arrl.net
|
| |
|
'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says K8LQ
|
|
|
by K4OJ on May 2, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
You wrote this just to get a bunch of people upset, admit it - you could not possibly be this naive, right?
Lemme guess, you are also convinced that the US should not have gone into Iraq and that Saddam was an ok guy.
I wish the band allocations were inversely what you suggest. I am sick and tired of getting on the CW bands and hearing them getting eaten up by the digital mode guys. Someone in their infinite wisdom decided that since it takes effort to learn CW that they would be the easiest ones to steal frequency space from since obviously they will be dwindling because you cannot have CW as part of an entitlement program - it requires the operator actually put something back in by learning the code!
Now, if you cannot secure a frequency below about 050 any more you are doomed as from there up there is not going to be a hole, and the digital stuff - which I assume to be hams but its kinda hard to copy in my head - constantly is creeping lower and lower!
The CW enthusiasts already have been given the shaft and now you want them to say thank you sir may I have another - nope, not me!
The extremely inconsiderate one in my opinion is you who have made many of us upset by your foolish logic which shows absolutely no concern for the already prosecuted CW enthusiast.
Admit it - you missed April 1st and are trying to squeeze this in April at least, right?
|
| |
|
RE: 'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says
|
|
|
by ANTI3840 on May 2, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Is CW dead Art Bell thinks so!
On the frequency 3.840 Art Bell (W6OBB) said that cw was dead and the bands needed to be reallocated. It doesn't sound like Mr. Bell has listened to much CW on the weekends or during the day. He claims to be trying to help ham radio but turns around and says that he has a right because he took his ham test from the fcc and not a VE , i guess that everyone that took the test from a VE should not have a voice in the matter. I agree that some of the bands could be reallocated (some). But his comments about old farts operating cw taking up ssb needed space i can do without. It would not bother me , the comments he made , but he has a big audience listen to him on 3.840 , hams and swls alike. His comments could have a real negative impact on cw ops in the ham community. I saw a post where one ham emailed him and his reply to his statements about him listening to cw was:
"I do and there are damn few cw ops on 75 and most other bands as well. If your upset with my comments then come on freq and speak!"
I don't think cw is dead and I hope everyone defends the right for cw! Once again i agree with some of the comments but not running down other hams to achieve his goal.
|
| |
|
RE: 'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says
|
|
|
by WA4MJF on May 2, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Never heard of Art Bell, but he sounds like
an idiot, maybe from the land of fruits, nuts and
flakes (6 land). Of course, there is little CW operation
on 75 meters, because hams are gnerally courteous
and don't operate on phone bands. Nothing
in the rules and regs prohibit operation on
75 meters, as CW is allowed on every ham frequency.
However, since 75 Meters is a phone band, the CW ops
confine their operations to 80 Meters as
a general rule.
This allows Bell to make these statements, which
are correct, but mean nothing. Is he a Democrat
maybe or does that depend on what is means? :-)
73 de Ronnie
|
| |
|
'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says K8LQ
|
|
|
by AA4A on May 2, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I think his own statement, "tremendous amount of bandspace" taken by his SSB signal says it all. One might also note that several other modes also share that "cw" bandspace.
|
| |
|
'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says K8LQ
|
|
|
by W7TI on May 3, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Much of the inequity of sub-band allocation happens because it almost never changes. Usage can go up, down or stay the same but no re-allocation based on actual usage is ever made. I would suggest that the FCC review usage on a regular basis and re-allocate as needed. Since the total bandwidth is fixed, sub-bands should reflect actual usage. Doing it any other way is bound to produce overuse in one segment and underuse in another.
Bill, W7TI
|
| |
|
RE: 'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says
|
|
|
by W3DCG on May 3, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Art Bell? Broadcast phone guy.
After being on the phone a lot all day at work, plus typing, my want for either mode (that would be phone and digital) has completely waned, and what I NEED, is a mode change- as in, Morse code.
As far as my fruit and flakes, I prefer Jeff Rense, for the Far Out news facets of life.
I find his voice to be more pleasing.
Hey, there you are, if you don't have a pleasing (completely subjective) voice, it doesn't matter, with CW.
I used to think I may have liked Art Bell, but if he really said such a thing, I'd have to say, that if CW is a dying art, it is as much so, as the popularity of the dwindling listenership of Art Bell.
I'll get my fruitcake from Jeff, thankyouverymuch.
But maybe Art did not say re-allocate the CW bands so that wide modes may encroach upone the narrow modes- maybe he meant, expand the overall Amateur band-space, and not take away from the CW band plan.
If that be, I still think Jeff has a much more mellow and pleasing voice.
CW forever,
The Jedi Live.
|
| |
|
'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says K8LQ
|
|
|
by K1LNC on May 6, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I wonder what K8LQ's CB handle was/is?
I figured that someone would start bitching about the CW/digital allotments sooner or later.
This from a "ham" who takes pride in accomplishing "absolutely nothing" (see his write up by doing a call search)--calls it an "Amplicator", and brags about causing deliberate interference to so called radio criminals on 75 meters. Eleven meter justice--no doubt. 10-4. Comeback!
The spectrum allocations are just fine as they are right now. Funy how those "hams" who couldn't copy CW if their lives depended on it (or someone else's life--think about it!)are the ones complaining about this.
Go back to the freeband freqs. They undoubtedly miss you.
|
| |
|
'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says K8LQ
|
|
|
by R0TER on May 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Is this a joke or for real. Then again who cares!
|
| |
|
RE: 'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says
|
|
|
by W8MW on May 9, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K1LNC: "The spectrum allocations are just fine as they are right now".
You really should monitor 80 meters. There is a tremendous amount of spectrum going unused most of the time. That's not "just fine" when you consider the ramifications of spectrum assigned to a radio service that doesn't use it.
K1LNC: Funy how those "hams" who couldn't copy CW if their lives depended on it (or someone else's life--think about it!)are the ones complaining about this.
Nice job of insulting phone ops and exhaulting CW in the same sentence. But not entirely accurate. 80 meter CW ops have been concerned about the lack of activity for years. My first ham radio QSO 41 years ago was on 80 CW and ever since I've had a special appreciation for 80. But things have changed and
activity is a small fraction of what it used to be. For the most part, CW traffic nets are the only daily users and they don't need 250 kHz.
If something isn't done to put more US amateur radio signals on this chunk of RF real estate, who's going to be the winner in the long run?
|
| |
|
RE: 'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says
|
|
|
by K8LQ on May 11, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K1LNC:This from a "ham" who takes pride in accomplishing "absolutely nothing" (see his write up by doing a call search)--calls it an "Amplicator", and brags about causing deliberate interference to so called radio criminals on 75 meters. Eleven meter justice--no doubt. 10-4. Comeback!
The following is an ARRL article abbout Edwin:
The ARRL has named Edwin Petzolt, K1LNC, of Hobe Sound, Florida, as the winner of its 1999 International Humanitarian Award.
On June 29, 1998, Petzolt responded to an on-the-air emergency call on 20 meters and found himself on the other end of a life-threatening situation in Central America where heavily armed gunmen had kidnapped four missionaries in northern Guatemala and held them for ransom. Desperate to save his family, missionary Elam Stolfus, TG7XQS, turned to ham radio--his only connection to the outside world. On the other end he found Ed Petzolt, K1LNC.
First Edwin congrats on the award and I truly mean that. You were in the right place at the right time...your truly a good American and I'm glad that you were recognized for it!
For me...I do take pride in accomplishing absolutely nothing on Ham Radio. This is a hobby for me Edwin...a HOBBY! If I can save a life as you have using Ham Radio that would make me proud too. But, I wouldn't hold it against you if you hadn't. Edwin, you know nothing about me, you don't know what I do in my life to help humanity and I don't care if you ever find out. You don't know if I REALLY cause interference and I never heard of 11 meter Justice Edwin...were you a CBer once? You are too serious Edwin. This whole article was meant to support HI-FI ops on 14.178 and I tried to use some humor in the article as I do in my profile. I love life and I love my radio friends as well. I, of course, know that it's not an amplicator and do you really think I'd run 25kw in to a G5RV??? What a waste...I'd at least put it into a resonate half wave vertical with 120 ground radials...wouldn't you Jezz!!!
Edwin...get some comedy in your life.
3's
Brian K8LQ
|
| |
|
'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says K8LQ
|
|
|
by AC6DN on May 12, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The CW bands are under used! The SSB parts of the bands are often crowded, practically on 80, 40, and 20 Meters.
Therefore, I think, that the band should be re-allotted based on useage. The FCC should decide, that the ARRL is now in charge of band use (I.e. the band plan). Eventually, as CW becomes uncommon, the whole band should be for SSB, CW, Digital or whatever...
73,
Bruce
AC6DN
|
| |
|
'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says K8LQ
|
|
|
by WA4AOS on May 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I DO IT BECAUSE I CAN !!!!
If SSB operators would run legal power and comply with the FCC rules regarding the use of the maximum power necessary for effective communications, they would have much better utilization of their sub bands. The continuous fights over QRM would reduce, tempers would cool down, power bills would drop and all of the kids could play together.
I often see many SSB ops running 30 to 40 dB over S-9 on nights when an S 9 signal would be well above the noise. Often they claim they are running barefoot and then laugh as if it that was funny.
How often do we hear SSB ops yelling and cursing at other SSB ops 3 KHz down that are 5 KHz wide? The solution is usually to crank up their power and overdrive their audio in an effort to be as wide as the neighboring station. I hear SSB Hams bragging about making elbowroom; I’ll show them!
Next, all of the name-calling and vulgar language starts being tossed back and forth allowing potential Hams to see how sorry many SSB guys have become.
I wonder how many people have listened to our ham bands and decided Ham Radio is just like the CB bands?
Take a listen to 75 meters on a Friday or Saturday night and listen to all of the vulgar language, racial and sexually explicit comments and general nonsense. Not to mention belching in the mic and bragging about what their signal level is doing on someone else’s gauge. Do we really need more HF spectrum being wasted on this kind of NONSENSE?
Before I get flamed for my comments, I am certainly NOT saying all SSB operators are like this. On the contrary, I do hear MANY intelligent conversations on the Phone bands and I would spend more time operating Phone if I didn’t get so fed up with those operators who give all Amateurs a bad name.
I got licensed when I was a teenager a number of years ago. I have operated almost all modes including AM, SSB, RTTY, SSTV, ATV, PACKET, AMTOR, PACTOR, Satellite’s on SSB and CW and my favorite mode and where I operate 95% of the time, CW. With my 30 + years experience on the Ham bands, 99% of the poor operators that I have listened to were SSB phone Ops and primarily on 75 and 20 meters. I am surprised that some of these people have the audacity to think they deserve even more spectrum to demonstrate their stupidity and poor operating skills. I have to say, that if I had heard some of this trash on the bands when I was a youngster, I probably would have never taken an interest in Amateur Radio and never earned my licensees.
So, You guys have it! Go ahead and continue to be totally unconcerned about the potential hams that might be listening. Go ahead and build or buy your 4 and 5 KW amps; some of you are running 10 KW and more power. Go ahead and yell at each other and use your vulgar language. Go ahead and run down anyone who isn’t apart of your little click. Keep it up and we want need to worry about SSB verses CW and who gets what piece of the HF allocations. We might just loose all of it do to lack of interest and better commercial applications of the same spectrum. Heard about what the Power companies are up to? Check it out!
Some of you guys really need to look at what you are doing and THINK! Do you really think this is going to help us with maintaining our bands? Is this what you wanted when you studied for your ticket, bought equipment and erected antennas? Is your behavior to be your contribution to our Hobby?
I will let you guy’s fight it out and have your coronaries and RF induced tumors. For myself, I’ll pour a cup of good, hot herbal tea, put on my head phones, fire up my Ten Tec Corsair II, adjust my paddles, set back in my comfortable radiochair and work some good 40 meter QRP CW. I do it because I can ! ! ! CHEERS ! ! !!
|
| |
|
RE: 'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says
|
|
|
by N2MG on May 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Yeah, lets give the pig farmer nets the entire band.
Take a listen to 80m CW during a CW event/contest. It's really quite busy then.
Mike N2MG
|
| |
|
RE: 'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says
|
|
|
by W3DCG on May 18, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Ask me if I hear any SSB... well,
not much, except on 40m.
But I hear a lot of CW. Every band I find myself on, I hear lots of CW. Very little phone. If any.
See, I prefer CW. So obviously, what little time I have for ham radio is spent where I'll likely find that which I seek, CW.
Now if my favorite mode were phone...
guarantee- I'd be hearing more phone than CW. Because I'd be seeking phone QSOs.
Hell-oh, I'd be spending most of my radio time in the phone sub-bands.
So ask a phone favored person, how much CW do they hear, answer likely would have to honestly be not much.
CW favored person how much phone do they hear, honestly, probably, much less phone than CW.
Then there are some "balanced" people types who do both about equally. But most people who enjoy both probably spend more time on some modes than other modes.
Might it be not about what's more crowded, but rather,
a perception issue.
CW can be used in the phone sub-bands. But I rather do believe, it would take longer to find a CW cohort by calling CQ via CW in a place where everybody is not only expecting, but wanting to be doing phone.
That might be similar to showing up at a base-ball diamond with a driver, tees, and golf balls. In both cases a player hits a ball of some kind.
Here's a kicker:
Sometimes the arguement will be that CW is a dead mode, and we need to populate our RF spectrum with more ham signals or else loose it.
So the easy solution- drop Code completely. That will certainly result in more signals on the Amateur HF spectrum, certainly increase radio and accessory sales.
But isn't there already whining and sniveling going on about how crowded the phone bands already are?
So the answer is to ADD more non code phone signals, because we need to have EVEN MORE no code phone operators in our relatively small slivers of current HF spectrum.
I find it entertaining, the arguements people will conjure in an effort to avoid some kinds of work.
We all do it, avoid certain kinds of work- trading one kind of work for another. Human nature. Everyone has their strengths, weaknesses, preferences...
C'mon, admit it, 5wpm is DEFINITELY geared toward those who may not favor CW as a preferred mode.
I remember having to learn 5 wpm to get a ticket. It used to be, at around 13 wpm or better, "Wow, you can do Morse Code!?! That's cool!"
As a communication mode, 5 wpm is laughable, for sure. If the public perceived CW as 5 wpm when they thought of a CW operator, and if the general public perceived CW operators as belonging to the Amateur/Ham Radio world, I sure would be embarrassed if the image was of a person in front of some complicated looking box with switches and knobs blazing along at five whole words a minute! Wouldn't you? Is that really the image you want to have, a CW operator is someone who goes 5 wpm? Good God, I started at 5 wpm but was too scared to get on with it. Like I'd be too scared to get on an Interstate with a vehicle that has a maximum speed of 45 mph.
Cheers, i'm having fun.
|
| |
|
'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says K8LQ
|
|
|
by K0KP on May 26, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The "CAP"...Code-A-Phobe
Isn't it cool that in ham radio we've got our own slang? Take "Ham" or "Lid" for instance. Well, I'd like to propose a new handle; "CAP" the Code-A-Phobic ham, or Code-A-Phobe if you prefer. Webster defines phobia as an "inexplicable and illogical fear of a particular object, class of objects, or situation....having an intolerance or aversion for." Yep, CAP seems to fit the bill for the ever seeming to whine, "give me my license and privileges even if I'm not willing to earn them" so-called ham. A CAP has such an aversion that he doesn't even seem to tolerate CW, let alone take the time to learn 5 words per minute. It's a shame too, CW is the best, most efficient, and downright fun mode going in ham radio! CW Dead? N E V E R ! They won't get my key until they pry my cold, dead fingers from it! Do you know a "CAP"? One can tell by the whine....
How 'bout it?...don't be a "No Code"...be a "Know Code!"...CW; it's in, it's digital, it's hot, it rocks, and It Rules!
|
| |
|
RE: 'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says
|
|
|
by N4KZ on June 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Few things are as poor as a writer who's trying to be funny -- but isn't.
This piece falls into that category.
73, Dave, N4KZ
|
| |
|
RE: 'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says
|
|
|
by KB0NLY on June 22, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Better yet, take all of the anal retentive Pro-CW crowd and put them in a pool, and then drop in a 100 amp service line.
Too bad all you Pro-CW types will be crying on your keys when WRC2003 removes the requirement. I guess i should sell all that CW crap i got during some equipment trades on eBay now while it still has some value, cause after the requirement is gone i would have to pay to get rid of the crap in my basement. Then again, there has been interesting discussions on a recent article about hamfests, maybe there will still be someone dumb enough to buy that dusty old crap at a hamfest.
Death to CW...
Scott, KB0NLY
|
| |
|
RE: 'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says
|
|
|
by KA9FLX on June 27, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Jesus! Are you no-coders so F'ing afraid of something you feel you either do not, should not have to, or cannot learn, that it isn't enough to ask that the requirement dropped, but you want to believe that if the requirement is removed CW will dissappear?
Death to CW? Grow up already!!!
Yeah, without a doubt the pro-CW people can be a bit heavy. Combine that with the "right of passage" people have tied to getting a license and I can see how no-coders might have a beef.
I personally have a hard time with CW, but I enjoy the challenge.
The thought that some No-Coder desires to eleminate one of the operating modes I am entitled to, is sad.
People talk about the dropping of standards as a major problem with Ham radio today. I personally do not agree with this.
However, the "F" your mode because "I Don't Like It" is really the basis for the concern. Its a big hobby, currently with lots of spectrum for all of us. Run whatever mode you like, as will I. But telling me that some mode is trash because it was a challenge for you personally does not make it so for me.
Death to CW?
People like you need to pull their heads out of the asses. You are not anti-CW, your attitude is anti-social and anti-productive, period!
|
| |
|
RE: 'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says
|
|
|
by W5USB on July 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Dammit!
I just finished my last post to the CW testing thread, conceding defeat on the CW requirement.
THEN I LOOK FOR ANOTHER TOPIC TO READ ONLY TO FIND SOME HELLION WISHES TO TAKE THE CW ALLOCATION FOR VOICE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I agree with the first posters solution. This is war!!!!
.-.. .- --.. -.-- / .- ... ... . ... / -- .- -.- . / -- . / ... .. -.-. -.- --..-- --. . - / .- / .-.. .. ..-. . / ..-. --- .-. / .--. . - . ... / ... .- -.- . .-.-.-
Art Granda W5USB
|
| |
|
RE: 'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says
|
|
|
by W5USB on July 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
LMAO, just noticed this was an old topic. I wonder how I came across this. Sorry folks!!!!!!
Art Granda W5USB
|
| |
|
RE: 'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says
|
|
|
by VK3KCG on August 1, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I am sure the originator of this post was out to boil the pot........I think he succeeded...ROTFLMAO
|
| |
|
'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says K8LQ
|
|
|
by KG5JJ on September 17, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Very funny, Brian ;-} Just to show you that I'm a live-let-live kinda guy, howzabout we have a QSO using Morse in any phone portion of any band?
You'll probably want to reciprocate by using phone in our "exclusive" CW/Morse portions, right? I'll be awaiting your call! Oh! Almost forgot! I've got laryngitis so bad I can barely speak...you don't mind if I reply with Morse, do you?
Respecfully and anxiously awaiting you call,
73 KG5JJ (Mike)
|
| |
|
RE: 'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says
|
|
|
by W5EEX on October 10, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KG4OOA:
You are right on!
And with the new regs regarding 60 meters, how many of these "memorization experts" do you think even have a slight clue about measuring and complying with
the 60 mtr ERP rules......hmmm....do they even know what ERP means? (Clue: It's not what you did when you opened the study guide and saw all those techie questions you had to "memorize")
-W5EEX
|
| |
|
'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says K8LQ
|
|
|
by WA4BWO on October 31, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
WHEW, WHAT TURNIP TRUCK DID YOU FALL OFF? THE BAND SPACE REFFERED TO IS THAT WHICH IS USED, NOT RESERVED! I AM A SSB OPERATOR AND FM AS WELL AS AM AND STILL HOLD TO THE TRADITIONAL FUNDAMENTALS OF AMATEUR RADIO IN THAT CW HAS BEEN AND IS AN IMPORTANT PART OF THE LICENSE. IT IS A PRIVILAGE TO HAVE A LICENSE AND ALTHOUGH, I TOOK ADVANTAGE OF THE NO CODE UPGRADE TO EXTRA, I THEN GOT MOTIVATED TO LEARN THE CODE FROM 0-5 WPM TO 20 AT THIS TIME AND AM LOOKING FORWARD TO THE UPCOMING CW CONTEST. THE THRILL AND RUSH OF THE FIRST CONTACT WILL BE OUTSTANDING. ALMOST LIKE IT WAS WHEN I MADE MY FIRST VOICE CONTACT IN 1964 ON 6 METERS. LETS ALLOW CW TO REMAIN PURE AND THE BANDSPACE RESERVED FOR IT AS WELL. JUST LISTEN DURING THE CONTEST AND SEE HOW MUCH SPACE WILL BE USED THEN! 73'S AND HERE'S HOPING CW WILL BECOME PART OF YOUR HAM LIFE.
|
| |
|
RE: 'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says
|
|
|
by WB9JTK on December 28, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
If the "CW only" frequency allocations were to go away that would allow SSB etc across the whole band. CW is allowed everywhere now anyway, so it would not make much difference to CW ops. The only reason the CW ops stay out of the "SSB band" is because there is a "CW only band" A 100 watt of CW will go through any and all 1500 watt SSB signals with no trouble at all, so the CW qsos can go right in your SSB signal. Maybe its better keep the CW ops where they are now.
|
| |
|
'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says K8LQ
|
|
|
by W4KLP on January 4, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I like operating CW and always will. Conversations with others using this skill are always very enjoyable. This mode will never go away and for that I am thankful.
CW = Mind Over Mouth.
Ken - W4KLP
P.S. K8LQ...Walk it off...and do it in a 'considerate' way!
|
| |
|
RE: 'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says
|
|
|
by K4JF on January 12, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
<I TOOK ADVANTAGE OF THE NO CODE UPGRADE TO EXTRA>
There has never been a "no code upgrade to Extra".
|
| |
|
RE: 'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says
|
|
|
by WA4MJF on January 12, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
For those of us who maintain
that 5 WPM is no code, then,
yes, there are no code upgrades
to Amateur Extra. Of course,
the orginal author you quoted
did not even know the proper
name of his license class, K4JF.
73 de Ronnie
|
| |
|
'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says K8LQ
|
|
|
by N2EY on January 21, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
There is no exclusive "CW bandspace" on the US HF hambands - it's all shared with other modes, either 'phone or data.
There are two reasons 'phone isn't allowed all over the US HF bands:
1) To allow DX 'phones a place to operate away from US 'phones
2) To reward the use of spectrum-efficient modes like CW and PSK31, which use far less of the band than any popular voice mode.
2) is much more important, I think. In most ham QSOs, data rate isn't that important. Regardless of mode, we're on the air as much as our time allows. (IOW, in general, a faster mode doesn't make us operate less - we just have longer QSOs or more QSOs.)
The problem, then, is how many simultaneous QSOs can a band accomodate? If we allow 2.5 kHz per 'phone QSO and 250 Hz per CW/data QSO, the math is pretty clear.
Take a look at how much of the US HF/MF amateur bands is not available to 'phone ops, compared to the total bandspace of 3750 kHz, not counting 60 meters. The 'phone folks have well over 50% open to them.
I think that we should have a part of each HF band set up for CW *only*. Say about the bottom 15%.
73 de Jim, N2EY
|
| |
|
'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says K8LQ
|
|
|
by N1XV on May 8, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Apparently sir you are a phone whore. The majority who are lazy and untalented. Myself? A Proud CW OP who actually utilizes the small bandwidth CW operators do have to it's fullest potential. Vaughn-N1XV
|
| |
|
RE: 'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says
|
|
|
by N5EAT on August 26, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
There's plenty of bandwith for SSB. I had plenty when I was a non-CW using General class operator. If you want inconsiderate, check out all the nets who've
basically "stolen" pieces of your bandwidth.
When band conditions are good, there is barely enough room on some of the HF bands to slip our "narrow" signals in between the dozens and hundreds of cw qso's going on. You apparently hear a cw signal and since you don't understand anything, you think the bandwidth is going unused. Inconsiderate cw ops my A$$!
For every 20 prima-donna ssb ops on the air, you have the ARRL running one cw broadcast on the HF bands. We're not using your SSB space...the nets and broadcasters are. Do what every other self respecting sideband op does: Get a huge amp and talk over someone!!
|
| |
|
RE: 'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says
|
|
|
by WR8D on November 27, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Ref AB7RG Clinton, he probably can't copy cw. The cw operators around the world are referred to as "a few". He probably thinks all those dits and dahs are some kind of interference. 73 WR8D
|
| |
|
RE: 'CW' Bandspace 'Extremely Inconsiderate' says
|
|
|
by WR8D on November 27, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I must add my opinion of ssb bandwidth also. I have eight hf stations setup which i switch between at differant times. They include collins, drake, kenwood, tentec and icom complete stations with amplifiers. I take "all" modes seriously. Its a disgrace to be in qso on phone on any of our bands and be splattered uppon by an idiot with his transmit bandwidth cranked out to make himself sound like a radio disjockey. Now they even have echo which they're adding to the mess. Listen to cb channel 19 and you'll hear what you're becoming. They sit around and ragchew on ssb with their receivers turned out as wide as they will possibly go to hear the bass response. Talk about extreme! What a waste. I use "one" mic into all my stations and they all sound the same. You can't tell the collins from the newest icom i operate. You can't hear me at the legal limit over 3kc's away. Lets talk about the waste of the ssb phone bands with these sometimes 8kc wide ssb signals. I've heard wifi ssb splatter even 10 kc's wide. You guys need a band just for yourselves where you can go and sit for hours and just say "test test test one two one two" Cw is'nt going away just because a few don't want to work it. The cw bands are nice and honestly thanks to all this bitching getting fuller every week. Many are getting their old keys back out after years and rediscovering the mode. You can really open a can of worms when you spew and your spew is not backed by "facts". My two cents! WR8D
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Related News & Articles
Israel Restructures But Retains Morse Requirement
Making CW More Popular... A Proposal:
Does the Changed Q=Herts Ahead!?
Code v. No-Code: A Businessman's View
CW Soundcard Software
Other Opinion Articles
How Social Networking Can Help Ham Radio
Don't Knock It!
Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
EMP a Real Threat to Hams and the USA
High Speed Packet?
|
