'Know-Code' Opinion
Marc Terrien (W1NTI)
on
October 15, 2003
View comments about this article!
I am a no-code tech, and would rather be a general, advanced, or extra (even passed the general exam), but have stumbled on the code numerous times over the past 25 years, but have a radio heritage that many of you probably share. I thought that I would share my perspective.
My father was born in 1916 in New England, and was first licensed as an amateur in the 30's. His practical experience got him into the radio corps during WWII where he installed and maintained RADAR all over the south pacific (back when radar was a classified acronym). He took his experiences to the workforce, spending his career until retirement in 1983 with RCA Service Co. managing radar and support installations all over the world, including Alaska, Greenland, the Dewline (Canada), Edwards, Vandenberg, white sands, and many others.
I spent many an evening at his elbow assisting the assembly of home-brew and Heathkit radio and support equipment. My brother, and brother-in-law are all licensed amateurs. My desire to follow in his footsteps into amateur radio was and is strong, as you might imagine for many sons and daughters. However, for whatever reason, my desire and my ability to conquer the code never quite got into the testing room at the same time.
I have to admit that in the thousands of hours I spent sitting with my dad, listening to him operate over 35 years, I never once saw him operate CW. and since his passing in 2000, I have acquired an old call sign of his from over 50 years ago, and have gone thru his log books dating to the 40's and haven' t found a single CW logbook entry. This from a man licensed almost 70 years, and still bitter about the restructuring of the past. I would love to ask him his opinion right now about the code/no-code issue facing us today.
I finally got my tech license in the late 90's, before my father's passing, but still I couldn't get the code to penetrate my brain. I am active with the local group, Skywarn, ARES, and RACES. I am a technically competent, courteous operator. I have a safe and technically accurate station. I have a passion for antennas (about the only operator variable with the sealed transceivers of the modern era), having built several V/UHF, and moved/installed my father's tribander and tower for him when we moved my parents in with us in their advancing years. I have also heard and experienced bad operators in almost every arena of communication (including email).
The reality is: there are bad apples in every hobby and vocation, (including those that are already in the 'code-club') which risk spoiling things for the vast majority that play by the rules. I have seen it clearly in my other passions, mountain biking, ATV riding, "Jeeping". These are all activities that require access to public and private lands, and cooperation by varied user groups. And everyone is passionate about his or her perspective. Compromise and future thinking keeps opportunities possible for all parties going forward.
So I have to wonder... How many others like me are out there? People I know with absolute certainty would be a tremendous addition to the hobby we know as amateur radio. People who would contribute technical expertise, knowledge, a hunger to learn more from those who came before, and operating courtesy as an example to counter the rough edges that are sure to come along.
Is it a detriment to the hobby that I, and many others like me have not been able to contribute for decades because of artificial stumbling blocks in the way? Are we so fearful of change that we drag the whole thing down?
Is it fair to the hobby that I can't carry twenty years of experience into the 21st century? -- To combat real threats to the hobby like BPL and numerous other threats to spectrum! Or are we trying to protect amateur radio from people like me???
I think we need to embrace this potential change and positively influence the new entrants to the hobby. -- The goal being to outnumber the rough riders and lead a great example for those that are already here and coming our way. Our focus should be on pursuit of knowledge and practical application of that knowledge (including Morse). -- And accountability to our peers and the FCC for operating standards. We should embrace the variety of modes available and use them all to the benefit of the hobby in total.
We cannot continue to be our own worst enemy! The world outnumbers us and they want our spectrum!
Just one man's humble opinion…
Marc Terrien
w1nti@arrl.net
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
|
'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by N8VB on October 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W1NTI:
I agree with you, but expect to get a lot of nasty responses.
73,
N8VB
|
| |
|
RE: 'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by W6WAT on October 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I agree with most of the points you made. I also congratulate you on your well written and articulate commentary. However, I respectfully disagree on the code issue.
Ham radio is a hobby. But to many participants, it is a serious hobby and a lifestyle. Hmmmmmm.....lifestyle. Part of that word is "life". Lifestyle like life in general would suggest that those who are successful in individual endevors are generally more successful in life overall. What I mean is that if you work hard at being a baker, and truly work at it, you'll learn more and more each day. By putting into practice everything you learn, you'll become a very successful baker. On the other hand, if you only want to bake biscuits everyday, you'll never be anything more.
The same applies to any occupation or hobby. The more you put into it, the more you get out of it.
Now, to a better example. Any student understands that each class taken requires a certain amount of effort and learning to acheive success. Some students will only earn a "D" grade. Some will earn higher grades, and some will earn an A+. But a student who does well in Physical Education, English, and Social Studies fails Economics, Trigonometry, and American History. Should that student graduate? Should that student be awarded a job with a highly successful law firm or with a well regarded medical facility? Should that student be allowed to run a large radio or television station?
I struggled with code and still do. However, I understand the origins of this hobby and respect them. I had a very difficult time passing the 13wpm test when I got my General license, but now love to operate in CW contests. I'm the worst CW operator of all time, but I still make the effort. We can continue to make life easier by reducing the requirements for citizenship, school graduation and even Ham Radio. But, this is a disservice to ourselves and our way of life. Most US students are now graduating high school with a 7th grade reading level. Should we adjust every aspect of our lives to accomodate their shortcomings?
For every person that claims "they just can't get the code", there is a way. Someway, somehow, there's a simple solution or trick that they just have yet to discover, and by gosh, they will most certainly be able to pass the lowly 5wpm. For me, it was listening to CODE ONLY for several weeks, and sounding out freeway and road signs as I drove.
I think the single most valuable means to learn the code is not to abandon it, but to Elmer someone who says they just can't learn it. In today's fast paced, technological society, it's difficult to recruit new people into our hobby, but it's up to us not to give up the most basic aspects of Ham Radio in favor of numbers. Ham radio evolved from the lowly telegraph key, and that should always remain the backbone of this great hobby.
73
W6WAT
Advanced
|
| |
|
'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by KA7BTV on October 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Well Marc, I've been a ham for 26 years, with the last 23 as a General. When I was preparing for my general tests in early 1980, I was just sure that I would never pass the code. In fact, the night I first learned the Morse alphabet out of an old ARRL handbook, I was afraid that if I went to bed that night that the new knowledge would leak out of one of my ears and I wouldn't remember it in the morning. Well guess what? I lived through it and became a General. Anyway, while I agree with you that you should be able to use your talents and experience in amateur radio, I also maintain that morse code is a handy thing to know and should be kept as a basic licensing requirement. I personally have trouble understanding these "mental blocks" and "learning blocks" and other blocks which people claim to have when it comes to learning the code. Don't misunderstand me. Its not that I don't think that they exist. I do. Its just that I don't understand the apparent effect which they have on people. Anyway, you've certainly brought up an interesting point here, and I hope that someday you are able to master the code so that you can expand your horizons. Best of luck to you.
|
| |
|
'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by N3TNQ on October 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Interesting piece. The only thing I would question is what do you mean by "artificial stubling blocks"? I have seen the phrase "artificial barrier" used many times. Isn't the test itself an "artificial barrier". Isn't the act of having to apply for a license an "artificial barrier"? I could, of course, go on and on. That particular phrase doesn't carry much meaning to me. Most barriers are "artificial". I'm not one of those who makes much of a deal about the debate. If code is done away with, amateur radio will go on. If it stays, it will still go on. For the record, I am in favor of retaining the code requirement, but I am not fanatical about it :) I do not think of it as a lid filter, nor as a "rite of passage". I realize that most have done away with it. That is the main reason that I feel Amateur Radio should keep it for at least some level of license. I believe we should not let it die. Like I said though, I do not think it will be earth shattering either way it goes :)
Howard
|
| |
|
RE: 'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by KE2IV on October 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Post after post after post...
As I said a few hours ago on the last one of these....
I am....
40+ years a ham with an Extra Class license and here I am responding to this via a laptop connected to my cell phone!
Does that tell you something about ham radio?
Since I was a kid in the '60's I've been hearing grumpy old men complaining about the new hams. Scaring them off, whenever possible, from continuing with the hobby.
And now, forty years later, I'm still hearing grumpy old men complain - whether it is CW, or who gets to work what band and frequency etc.
Enough!
One written theory and regulations test, no code, for all hams for all frequencies!
That is the only way to stop this fratricide and focus on the real threats upon us.
AND, I HAVE NO INTEREST IN THE CRAP GARBAGE DIATRIBES THAT USUALLY RESULTS FROM NO-CODE TYPE POSTINGS ON THIS SITE.
CRAM IT - I AIN'T INTERESTED IN WHAT YOU THINK IF YOU DISAGREE WITH ME - SO THERE!
73,
George
KE2IV
|
| |
|
'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by KD7KGX on October 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I don't mean to be facetious here... but I don't understand how anyone cannot learn code well enough to pass the 5 wpm test if they invest 20 minutes a day for 30 days, especially if they download some of the great free Koch method Morse study software available online (check out the links section on eHam). I think that just about any normally-intelligent person without learning disabilities or hearing defects can learn the code sufficiently to pass Element 1A IF they use the Koch method and study regularly, and I've seen enough pre-teens pass Element 1A to justify my belief.
The original poster seems like a nice fellow, but the reason we have rules and standards is so that everyone knows what they have to do in order to get their license. I think it's neat that the original poster's father was a ham, and that you were able to spend a lot of time together with him while he engaged in the hobby. I never met an active ham that I was aware of, and decided to get my license based upon a chance encounter with 'QST' at the local bookstore. It's great that you like experimenting with antennas... me too! But all of this is irrelevant when it comes to getting the license. Either you can meet the requirement and pass the test, or you can't.
Most people (me included) who fail the Morse test fail because they don't know the code. After I failed (and failed miserably... it was the only thing keeping me from earning my Tech and General on the same evening... I passed Elements 2 and 3), I got embarrassed, and then I downloaded the free software, studied for 20 minutes a day for the next two weeks, and passed the next code test with 100% right answers and 5 minutes of perfect copy. Something else I did... I bought a keyer and single-lever paddle, and during the last week spent the last 5 minutes out of each 20 sending text that I would read out of a magazine. It really helped.
If you learn one letter a day, then you will learn every character you need to know within 2 months. Learning Morse at this pace is EASY. Think about it: you could learn 30 lines of Shakespeare in 30 days, and that is harder than 30 characters of Morse!
Re "keeping people out who could help the hobby"... are you not a ham with your Technician-class license? What additional boost could you provide to ham radio, if you were GIVEN HF privileges, that you couldn't provide now? This is a red herring... what you really want is to get on HF without having to pass Element 1A, and I gather from your post that since your Dad didn't find much use for CW you don't either. I can understand that sentiment even if I don't agree with it... but that still doesn't change things. As it stands right now, you have to pass Element 1A for HF access.
Please take this response in the spirit it was written... not as a castigation but instead as a prod to urge you to reach down and exert yourself so that you accomplish something that you CAN accomplish. Come on... which would you prefer, to study for, and pass Element 1A, and know enough code to start along a lifetime of using it on the bands, or be given HF privileges and always wonder what is going on in the CW subbands?
|
| |
|
RE: 'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by RobertKoernerExAE7G on October 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
My excuse:
It is too hard for me (I will never use CW; I don’t need it to be a good operator).
If you can make up a better excuse than mine, post it. So far, you haven't made a better excuse than mine.
Bob
|
| |
|
'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by W8VOM on October 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
In most cases Cant learn code = Wont learn code!
It is more of an attitude,most people who practice 30 mins a day 5 days a week for 6 weeks make it. When someone tells me they Cant learn the code,I ask them if they practiced 30 mins a day 5 days a week for 6 weeks. Their answer=NO and at least they were honest!
It takes time to learn the code,I worked 55 hours a week and still was able to get my code speed up to to 20 wpm. Ya gotta want it bad in order to succeed!
Many can learn the code but they refuse to dedicate 6 weeks to a mode they dont want to use! I respect people who say "I refuse to learn code" more than the people who say they cant learn the code.Why not be *bold* and just say I Refuse To Learn Morse?
Now many hams are in the waiting mode,they will be rewarded for waiting with a free pass to HF. The funny thing is this...they will never know or understand how good we had it. They will inherit huge pileups that we never had to deal with. Some of us can remember pileups for rare dx that had perhaps 40 people in the pileup. In the future,these pileups will be much more competitive. Good luck and I hope those who waited out the "code problem" get everything they earned and deserve! W8VOM
|
| |
|
RE: 'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by N4GI on October 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
You could have learned CW in the time it took you to compose that long dull gripe session.
Why does everyone insists on poking the angry bear, I wonder?
N4GI
|
| |
|
RE: 'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by KE2IV on October 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Someone said:
Can't learn code = won't learn code
So what?
Who really cares, except for the self-appointed CW-forever crowd?
What is this, some late-middle age virility challenge? (you know - can't afford a Hummer so I'll come up with some other assinine way of proving I still can do it!)
Who on this planet, other than US Ham radio operators, really cares if someone can decifer letters and words from dits and dahs?!
Certainly not our own military. Nor anyone else's.
Wake up, dudes.
If BPL comes in (as it is likely to happen) it will probably wipe out the HF bands.
So, whadda'ya you "CW purists" gonna do?
Go VHF and up?
Guess what - - it's NO CODE land up there. And they ain't gonna change that!
So, they gotcha, old timer!
You can keep the code on HF but live with all the BPL hash (which will drive everyone away). Then who are you gonna "work"?
Boy, now don't you feel real right and proper?
I am 40 years a ham and seeing it all die over a stupid battle about a useless mode - instead of seeing hams uniting together to fight the real threat.
Whadda shame!
73,
George
KE2IV
|
| |
|
'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by W0UCE on October 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Marc:
I would like to ask you a question about operating privlidges...
If there was No Code licensing for General, Advanced and Extra that allowed Voice and Digital mode (RTTY etc.) operation in a band plan that restricted operation in CW segments would you be satisfied? Or... do you want HF bands open to operating any mode anywhere?
Jack W0UCE
|
| |
|
RE: 'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by N2ERN on October 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The facts of life:
Today's rules require 5 WPM. My wife learned enough to pass her test years ago. All the students in my elmer class learned 5 wpm. 6 year-old kids have learned it.
At 5 wpm, all you have to do is memorize. Once memorized, you can probably copy at about 8. PLUS, you don't have to score 100% to pass the test!
If you want it bad enough now, you will DO it.
But you have my permission to whine and complain all you want.
|
| |
|
'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by WA4ET on October 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I sit on the side of NO code threads and think about all the work I did to pass the code tests, and attain my extra. As an engineer, and maintainer of complicated and cutting edge electronic equipment, I also wondered at the time I spent trying to learn code, and what it really had to do with radio, electronics and where code fit into the picture. I also wondered why I would be excluded from portions of the band, simple because I could not learn a simple, but often to many difficult series if dits and dahs. This is especially difficult to understand, since I know just a little more the most Hams about Radio and Electronics. It seemed absurd from my point of view to be excluded, when I had so much to offer to the Ham community as a whole.
I also reflect upon my experience in boot camp, when I and a number of individuals where singled out for special testing in language skill, and knowledge of code. Well left rephrase it, an ability to learn languages and ability to learn code.
As it turns out,, and this is never mentioned in all these code debates, is that some people have an innate ability to learn it. I know this because the test was about learning fictitious languages and code. It did not test what you knew, so much as it tested you ability to acquire it in a relatively short amount of time.
I learned my code the old fashioned way years later, because I didn't have this innate ability they tested for,, but maybe the real questions is,, why cant there be room for both.
The debate is always Code VS No Code,, I think this is rather obtuse view. Why cant both exist in portions of a segmented band. I think to take away something because the body of individuals cant' or wont learn code for a number of, what I am sure are valid reasons, is very demeaning to individuals that worked like hell to aquire it.
I think that's the bottom line! Being an Extra means going the extra mile, and being a General,, well is something less,, and that's what its supposed to mean. You get a portion of the band,, just not all of it.
Regards
David
|
| |
|
'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by MY_OPINION on October 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The time soon will come where the code / no code debate will be moot. The license requirement for CW will soon be gone.
In reviewing some of the comments, I note the hue and cry from the mandatory-code-as-a-testing-requirement camp. In particular, one must notice the wail against lowering standards. The argument belies the true aim of the mandatory coders: to limit access to a public resource by means of an archaic skill, popularized when other techniques were yet to be developed. Nothing precludes, and many would support, expanding and making more comprehensive, written exams to test for current, relevant knowledge. One could even test for knowledge of, but not mechanical skill in, the mapping of code to alpha characters.
Removing the CW requirement does not equal the lowering of standards. Rather, it acknowledges that the state of the radio art has long passed beyond CW. Also removing the CW requirement does not equal a ban on using CW. Whether or not CW is truly compelling will be determined, to some extent, by how much CW activity is heard, now and when the testing requirement is removed. Let the keys, bugs, and paddles fall where they may.
73,
MY_OPINION
|
| |
|
RE: 'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by W3JJH on October 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
One of the youngsters that I elmer is bright young man; his IQ is probably something around 140. He's an excellent contester who participates in club multi/multi operations. He is active in ARES/RACES. He's also a no-code Tech. He has a neurological deficit that will most likely prevent him from ever being able to properly copy Morse code. He doesn't whine or complain; he just operates on VHF and UHF when he's on his own rig and gets on HF when he visits a friend's station. He is beginning to elmer younger kids. I expect that he will be one of the first no-code Extras when the FCC gets around to dropping telegraphy testing.
Not everyone can learn Morse telegraphy. For some of us it is a wonderful part of the hobby, but it's now the 21st century. Requiring a new ham to have a skill relevant at the turn of the last century make no more sense than requiring new sailors to be able to trim a jib or a new soldier to know the manual of arms for a muzzleloading rifle or a new driver to know how to advance and retard the spark on a Model T. When all there was to radio was wireless telegraphy, it was vital that all radio operators know a common form of Morse code. A century later, what was once a common sense requirement has become an artificial barrier.
|
| |
|
RE: 'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by KB9YZL on October 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This is yet another thread in a seemingly endless succession of such threads. There has been nothing said here that has not been said before.
But what the hell……………if we keep beating this issue, maybe something good will come of it.
To me personally, this is a non-issue. I learned code a long time ago, and I have no interest in using it. The reason this debate concerns me is that it appears to be widening gaps between various factions, and alienating many people who might otherwise contribute to the ARS.
I’d like to offer an observation…….. Call it a little “Reality Check”:
Morse Code was introduced in the 1840s in order to make it possible for information to be transmitted between a simple on-off switch and a simple electromagnet, connected together by miles of wire. This was all they had back then. They dealt with the issue of learning Code, and probably thought the whole thing was pretty cool.
I am, however, willing to bet that all those Keys and Sounders would have gone into the trash, if someone back then had offered those users an alternative that allowed good, clear voice transmission.
The proof of this is what happened to Telegraph communications once the telephone network became widely established. How many towns do you know of today that still have a telegraph office?
……………..
There is no reason for people who love Code to feel threatened. If that’s a big part of your hobby, then good for you. Enjoy it!
Just don’t slam other people’s Intelligence or Personal Drive because they aren’t interested in the same things you are.
Kent Carroll
KB9YZL
|
| |
|
RE: 'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by W5WJP on October 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
It took me over 2 YEARS to pass the code test. Mental block? I think not....20 years of playing Army...being around artillery and other loud things. My point is some people just hear things differently (sometimes not at all). Don't give anyone this crap of if you really wanted it you could do it.
|
| |
|
RE: 'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by N8VB on October 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KE2IV:
Re BPL. There are some 20 WPM Extras on this website that think BPL somehow will magically interfere with 900 Mhz cell phones and therefore the cell phone companies will not let BPL be implemented here. So much for their superior knowledge of radio and them being licensed before the so called "dumbing down" of HAM radio.
BPL is certainly the greatest threat to HAM radio or SWLing. Anyone who has not gone to the arrl's website and view the BPL videos should take some time and do so now. BPL has already been implemented in Europe so it is technically feasible. There is some big money pushing for BPL. It is only a matter of time before it is widespread here. I was hoping that fiber or wireless would outpace BPL and make it obsolete before BPL could get a stronghold but now I am not that optimistic.
Your observations about the CW forever old farts having to move up to the no-code frequencies is right on. All this effort and argument wasted on a "mode" when the real threat is BPL. In the scheme of things HAM radio operators and SWLers preferences don't amount to squat with the big money pushing BPL.
73,
N8VB
|
| |
|
'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by VK3XXX on October 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Excellent post!!
And to those of you who say "you guys are just too lazy to learn the code" there are plenty of us out there with hearing problems that makes the code test near impossible!
Lets all wake up and remove these archaic requirements before our hobby dies totally!
73,
Mark - VK3XXX
|
| |
|
'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by K7FD on October 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KE2IV said:
"Post after post after post...
As I said a few hours ago on the last one of these....
I am....
40+ years a ham with an Extra Class license and here I am responding to this via a laptop connected to my cell phone!
Does that tell you something about ham radio?"
It tells me we have dumbed down to a bunch of appliance operators.
Knowledge of cw enables you communicate with simply constructed circuits -- can you build a laptop and cellphone, if you HAD to? It's time to start thinking worst case scenario vs. poolside luxury...
73 John K7FD
|
| |
|
'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by AD7DB on October 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Marc W1NTI,
I agree with most of your points. But, why struggle? Why not just get that morse code test out of the way. Buy "Code Quick", try it as directed for 30 days. If it doesn't work, you can get your money back! The satisfaction guarantee is (I believe) for a whole 3 months. The publisher of Code Quick says he gets very few hams taking him up on that refund offer... because it works. And, you'll have acquired the skills to be able to enjoy working CW on all those parts of the bands that will now be open to you.
|
| |
|
RE: 'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by N2DY on October 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well written article. It is interesting how so many have jumped on whether you could learn the code or not. That is not really relevant. The point is why should you learn the code? There is no logical reason if you don't plan to use that mode. It is simply a barrier to keep others out. The old guard is trying to protect its turf.
Well I have been a ham for 25 years and got my Extra by passing the 20 WPM code test. I don't really enjoy CW. If the rules had not required me to pass that test, nothing would have changed in the way I operate today. I do not feel threatened by new blood. No code is the way to go to keep amateur radio alive. For those who can't deal with change, get a life already!
If we want to really test a person's dedication to the hobby, perhaps we should require that people do 40 push-ups before they get HF privileges. It's no less logical than testing someone on a mode that they will never use and it would have added health benefits too. Maybe it would inspire fat hams to get in shape. Sounds silly but it is no more silly than making someone learn something completely useless to them.
I agree with many posts here. This debate is tiring. No code is coming whether you like it or not, so deal with it.
|
| |
|
RE: 'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by N8VB on October 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N2DY:
"Maybe it would inspire fat hams to get in shape. Sounds silly but it is no more silly than making someone learn something completely useless to them."
LOL! Excellent suggestion. And give them a bar of soap too with instructions how to use it before the next hamfest!
73,
N8VB
|
| |
|
RE: 'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by N8VB on October 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K7FD:
"It tells me we have dumbed down to a bunch of appliance operators."
It tells me that here are too many oudated old farts in this hobby... Ooops! I mean service... wink wink...
N8VB
|
| |
|
RE: 'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by KB9YZL on October 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W5WJP brings up a good point. In my own case, my Tinnitus is so bad that I have difficulty distinguishing between an “S” and a “U”.
Kent Carroll
KB9YZL
|
| |
|
'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by KC8KEQ on October 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I have a question addressed to the pro-code group.
At the present time there are a few countries that have dropped the code. So having a QSO with a person in these countries means you will from time to time be communicating with a no code operator on the HF bands.
By your own statements you would be incouraging people you accuse of "Dumbing Down the Hobby".
So as a solution are you willing to stop communicating with Great Briton , Ireland, Germany, Denmark, Norway, Switzerland, Singapore and any other country that drops the code requirement? If more and more countries drop the code, do you intend to scratch them off your list of contacts.
I'm sure that operators in these countries would be interested in your comments about them. After all there are a lot more operators in the rest of the world than in the USA.
73 KC8KEQ
|
| |
|
'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by N1RJA on October 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Marc,
When are you going to get it right? Isn't it clear by now (by reading some of these posts) that you are simply a lazy unmotivated ham that just won't get off your duff and learn the code? What about "code" don't you understand? If you learn it, you're a qualified, gifted, elite amateur operator that can do wonders just like all the other pro-coders in these posts. If you don't, you're a drag and a detriment to the service, and therefore, not wanted my friend. Involved in SKYWARN, ARES and RACES? So what? No code - no go. Courteous, technically competent operator? Big deal! No code - no go. Build your own equipment? Who cares! - No code - no go. Elmer? Yada yada yada - You want the recognition? Get the code. You want acceptance? Get the code. You want to contribute? Get the code. You want that covetous "title" the rest of us coders have? (you know - REAL HAM) - Get the code.
Marc, you probably know this is tongue-in-cheek - the sad truth is that you have been labeled and will never live it down to the pro-coders. It's their insecurity and problem, not yours. Outdated tradition is a most difficult slave master indeed. You have already contributed much to amateur radio whether you know it or not. You have probably done and accomplished more than most of us that have posted here. I'm impressed with your resume. Wish I knew and could do half of what you've accomplished already. I'll admit it here that I see myself as an appliance operator compared to hams like yourself. I am not technically savvy, have very little precious time to give back to the service, but know enough to know that my station is accurate and safe, and I go out of my way to be a courteous operator when I have the chance to get on the air. But you see, I somehow had the knack to pick up the code quickly, and therefore, have passed the "holy grail" of all tests, CW - (of which I hardly ever use being a digital operator). I'd gladly "trade" my code for your knowledge and accomplishments any day, for I know (between the two of us) who has truly contributed more to amateur radio. Nuff said. Marc, hope to meet you someday on the bands! 73 - Rick
|
| |
|
RE: 'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by N2ERN on October 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
1. I guess you will just have to wait until the rules are changed in the U.S.
2. Complaining isn't going to change anything.
3. If you want it NOW, you have to live by today's rules.
4. Every day you put it off is a day lost.
5. This subject has been beaten to death.
|
| |
|
RE: 'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by N2ERN on October 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
1. I guess you will just have to wait until the rules are changed in the U.S.
2. Complaining isn't going to change anything.
3. If you want it NOW, you have to live by today's rules.
4. Every day you put it off is a day lost.
5. This subject has been beaten to death.
|
| |
|
RE: 'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by N2ERN on October 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
1. I guess you will just have to wait until the rules are changed in the U.S.
2. Complaining isn't going to change anything.
3. If you want it NOW, you have to live by today's rules.
4. Every day you put it off is a day lost.
5. This subject has been beaten to death.
|
| |
|
RE: 'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by WB8YQJ on October 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
1. Getting a ham ticket should be difficult. (See item #3 below). I do high speed CW but would be just as happy with a really tough test and no CW requirement at all. If this happens, will a new organization called "No Test International" be formed? Probably.
2. There is recreational radio with no test and no code, it's at 26 to 28 mhz (and now spilling over to 29 mhz) "freeband".
3. I suggest to anyone that's pushing for relaxation of the existing lame requirements take at listen to the freeband. If you like what you hear, just "open up" your rig and start operating there today. Funny, not too many CW ops there for some reason.
|
| |
|
RE: 'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by NI0C on October 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KC8KEQ:
I'll respond to your question above. I've communicated with amateurs in all the countries you mentioned-- using the Morse code language via the CW mode. I'll continue working amateurs in these and other countries, but if they want to talk to me they will have to "know code," because that's how I prefer to communicate. Unlike those who view code simply as a hurdle to overcome, I actually use it every day. I really have no issue with licensing requirements in other countries, but I have filed my comments with the FCC concerning licensing in the U.S.
|
| |
|
RE: 'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by NI0C on October 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KC8KEQ:
I'll respond to your question above. I've communicated with amateurs in all the countries you mentioned-- using the Morse code language via the CW mode. I'll continue working amateurs in these and other countries, but if they want to talk to me they will have to "know code," because that's how I prefer to communicate. Unlike those who view code simply as a hurdle to overcome, I actually use it every day. I really have no issue with licensing requirements in other countries, but I have filed my comments with the FCC concerning licensing in the U.S.
|
| |
|
'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by K3UD on October 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Mark,
Your father had enough interest in becoming a ham radio operator that he decided to learn what the testing at the time required in order to do what he wanted to do with his license.
As you mentioned, he had a very good experience with ham radio for many years using phone operation as his only mode.
My father was also very interested in ham radio in the late 30s / early 40s and although he knew the theory cold, he could never get his code speed up to the required speed which was 13 WPM at that time. He could do 8-10 but never got over the hump. WW-2 intervened and at discharge, he got married and started a family. He was never licensed.
Fast forward to 1964 and his 13 yearl old son who truely thought radio ws magical and who listened almost every day before and after school to hams chatting on 40 and 80 meter AM on his father's old Hammarlund Comet Pro receiver with a piece of wire out the window for an antenna. I wanted to be one of those guys on the radio and my father enlightened me as to how he wanted to be one also, all those years ago.
I had friends in my Boy Scout troop whose fathers had obtained CB licenses and let their kids use CB for communications with other kids. I thought that CB would be a good easy way in and I could get a ham license later. My father would NOT hear of it, and would not send off the CB application to the FCC even though I offered to pay the fee out of my paper route and lawn mowing money. He believed that if you wanted to do something, you do it right or don't do it at all.
If I wanted to be a ham radio operator, I was going to have to learn the code and theory and take the test. CB was NOT an option. The code was the most difficult part for me and my mother often told me I was doing code in my sleep.
My father was a big believer that the more you work for something, the more you value it when you finally get it. As far as ham radio was concerned, he always believed that you take the tests required for the privileges you want to have.
When I failed the General test and settled for the Technician for a while he was not very sympathetic, telling me I just did not work hard enough and if I really wanted the General privileges (which were all amateur priviliges at the time) I would either work harder or I really was not serious about getting them.
The choices today are a bit different. 5 WPM code for most people is not difficult learn. Yes, there are those documented cases where for some, it is difficult if not impossible. There is a possibility that the FCC may eliminate the code test if you want to wait long enough. In the meantime, you take the test required for the privileges you want to obtain. After you get the license you want, it does not matter if you ever touch a key.
73
George
K3UD
|
| |
|
'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by K3UD on October 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Mark,
Your father had enough interest in becoming a ham radio operator that he decided to learn what the testing at the time required in order to do what he wanted to do with his license.
As you mentioned, he had a very good experience with ham radio for many years using phone operation as his only mode.
My father was also very interested in ham radio in the late 30s / early 40s and although he knew the theory cold, he could never get his code speed up to the required speed which was 13 WPM at that time. He could do 8-10 but never got over the hump. WW-2 intervened and at discharge, he got married and started a family. He was never licensed.
Fast forward to 1964 and his 13 yearl old son who truely thought radio ws magical and who listened almost every day before and after school to hams chatting on 40 and 80 meter AM on his father's old Hammarlund Comet Pro receiver with a piece of wire out the window for an antenna. I wanted to be one of those guys on the radio and my father enlightened me as to how he wanted to be one also, all those years ago.
I had friends in my Boy Scout troop whose fathers had obtained CB licenses and let their kids use CB for communications with other kids. I thought that CB would be a good easy way in and I could get a ham license later. My father would NOT hear of it, and would not send off the CB application to the FCC even though I offered to pay the fee out of my paper route and lawn mowing money. He believed that if you wanted to do something, you do it right or don't do it at all.
If I wanted to be a ham radio operator, I was going to have to learn the code and theory and take the test. CB was NOT an option. The code was the most difficult part for me and my mother often told me I was doing code in my sleep.
My father was a big believer that the more you work for something, the more you value it when you finally get it. As far as ham radio was concerned, he always believed that you take the tests required for the privileges you want to have.
When I failed the General test and settled for the Technician for a while he was not very sympathetic, telling me I just did not work hard enough and if I really wanted the General privileges (which were all amateur priviliges at the time) I would either work harder or I really was not serious about getting them.
The choices today are a bit different. 5 WPM code for most people is not difficult learn. Yes, there are those documented cases where for some, it is difficult if not impossible. There is a possibility that the FCC may eliminate the code test if you want to wait long enough. In the meantime, you take the test required for the privileges you want to obtain. After you get the license you want, it does not matter if you ever touch a key.
73
George
K3UD
|
| |
|
'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by AB7UW-MONTANA on October 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I worked my butt off for 6 months in order to pass my 20wpm code test. I wanted full acess to the bands and I achieved it. OK,fine, remove the code but add 150 more questions to the written examinations concerning everything involved with ham radio from erp to eme to rf exposure. you gotta pay to play so lets ramp up the written if the code goes away. IM 100% hf code and Im only 37 years old,not a old fart as some might think. I would think that a notably larger written examination for general and extra would be just the thing to weed out the everything for nothing crowd. Just my opinion, I hope it comes to pass. 73 to all. Vaughn-AB7UW a know coder.
|
| |
|
RE: 'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by WB2WIK on October 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Marc, the "artificial stumbling blocks" existed for about 75 years and somehow were neither artificial nor stumbling blocks all that time. I wonder why they are now?
When "Novice Enhancement" occurred in the mid-1980's (Novice licensees received new and updated privileges), somehow anybody who had the slightest interest in ham radio magically passed the 5 wpm code test and became licensed. We had such a flood of new licensees, it was feared the service would be completely out of control before long.
Regardless, the code test has been the *only* proficiency test of any kind, on any matter, for an amateur radio license in the past several decades. The multiple-choice written test is not a proficiency test in any subject. With the elimination of the code test, so goes any demonstration of proficiency in anything. Think that's the right way to go?
Maybe it is, but I'd prefer to see the code test replaced by a real proficiency test in, say, operating practices, equipment and antenna construction, or *something.* Proficiency as in demonstration, not multiple-choice.
WB2WIK/6
|
| |
|
RE: 'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by W9WHE on October 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Gee whiz....I guess we should give EVERYBODY full phone priveleges, A MK-V (loaded with filters of course), an Alpha 87 AND a 60 foot tower!
WHY do people think they should get everything for NOTHING? OOOpps! I forgot, liberals think that they have a RIGHT to everything for nothing. Silly me.
|
| |
|
An Answer to Marc's Question
|
|
|
by AB0OX on October 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"So I have to wonder... How many others like me are out there? ..."
At least one. I was a Novice twice and passed the General theory once. From my experience, perhaps the only thing worse than a code requirement was the "crystal control" rule for Novices -- for those beginners and youngsters who could least afford it to have to lay out for a whole new station if they upgraded... Plus the cost of XTALs...
That said, 5 wpm is "do-able" for most (but not all) people, given that most likely you can at least hand-write at that speed.
As the others have said:
1) get a computer program that has mock QSOs.
2) pay particular attention to numbers and punctuation, as they're worth 2 characters each.
3) you need 25 characters in a row to pass.
4) the test will not intentionally misspell words.
5) a typical "pass" is 27 or 28 characters.
Slo-Code must have brought back more than one middle-aged ex-Novice. No-Code may bring back some ex-Techs. We need to pay close attention to the Average Age per License Level as I suspect we may be recruiting from within.
Who is TRULY NEW to the hobby?
Marc, if 5 wpm is never to be for you, then you can at least get your CSCEs for the theory tests. Don't do nothin'...
My recommendation (doesn't apply to you, since you're licensed already -- but it's FREE!) to potential operators (and their ELMERS) is to
1) play along during field day, or from a station, or listen to shortwave, etc to decide if you LIKE RADIO. This can be as simple as having a contest between a group of kids to see who can hear the farthest AM station at 11:00 PM Saturday night.
2) First, learn the code. The easiest way is to assign everybody (in the game) a callsign, a XCVR model, and a QTH. Send your transmissions one letter at a time in English at 5 wpm. Get the pace down. Then substitute CW for the letters one at a time until it's all code. This won't make you fast, but it will make you confident. 10 minutes a day (no more than that) for 2 months. It takes a while to "re-wire" your brain. Don't push it. Practice is your strength. The fatigue and confusion will guide you. You learn nothing when burnt out.
3) Get the code CSCE.
4) Study for a month and get the Tech. You'll be a Tech + right from the start.
5) Study for a month and get the General.
6) Study for a month and try the Extra. Don't be suprised if you need a LOT of web practice tests if you're not in some way involved in electronics or engineering. Try this test several times if you need to, in order to assess whether you think you'll EVER pass.
7) AFTER you know what license class you are (or can expect to be), and what your callsign (long term) is going to be, THEN go out and buy the appropriate radio, QSL cards, antenna, etc.
EXTRA STUDY TIPS FOR CW TEST!:
1) Get 14 back issues of the CQ Rigs calendar and every issue of QST back to 1939. Memorize the names and spellings of every boat anchor ever made.
2) Get a Rand McNally road atlas and cross out every town or city in the US and Canada longer than 10 letters, or with funny spelling. Schenectedy[?], Cincinnati[?], Opalachikola[?], Piscataway[?], Clearwater, Harrisburg, etc. Just figure that if you could spell anything that long (and they don't know where you live), then it would be almost half the test, right? So, memorize the rest of the atlas and practice sending it. ... :)
Your mileage may vary. Offer not valid where prohibited by law. Don't eat garlic bread and chocolate ice cream. Engage rotor lock before changing lanes.
73,
Jack
|
| |
|
'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by KD5ZES on October 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Nice article and opinion, Marc.
Unfortunately, as long as there are hams that believe that the ability to communicate in CW somehow makes a more considerate radio operator, this debate will exist, much to the detriment of the amateur community. Many would like to advance their license grade and have the technical ability to do so, but are held back by a mode of communication they have no intention of using.
Knowing and adhering to an established bandplan, following the rules set forth by the FCC, and above all, consideration of others will never be imparted or assured by any manner of testing - the latter being an issue better addressed in an individual's childhood and not by the perpetuation of "tradition" by the "purist" hams or the FCC.
|
| |
|
'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by W8AD on October 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Look at these reponses and the ones in the other article about current distribution in coils. Has this site become the "Jerry Springer Show" of ham radio?
I wonder how much damage has been done and how many new (or potential new) hams have been chased away reading all these "flames". Boy, what a shame.
It seems it's a reflection of our culture which has become more mean spirited and selfish than ever before! I've been a ham for 53 years and have never seen anything like it.
Don, W8AD
|
| |
|
'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by W6NNABE on October 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
To all of you rabid pro-coders:
There is more to ham radio than the code.
I took my Tech exam just about a week ago, haven't gotten my callsign yet. I plan to learn CW, as I'm getting into it for the electronics and the best way to do that is to learn my way around things like the Pixie. Well, most QRP hardware is run on HF, so I'm going to have to get my General ticket fairly soon if I want to do anything like that.
That said, let me speak of an analogous possibility: that perhaps, to proceed from elementary to middle school, a child has to show proficiency in cursive writing (not the case anywhere I know, but humor me). As it is, I never quite mastered cursive. I can read it, but my handwriting is barely legible as it is (not to mention a real labor for someone who's prone to RSIs), and my signature is barely recognizeable as writing. I don't write script on a daily basis, never will.
However, I can do calligraphy, and quite beautifully. I'm rather proud of that, especially in light of what my usual handwriting looks like. To me, cursive writing is an art form and should be treated as such, as a unit in a school art class or perhaps an entire calligraphy elective; it's enough for me that someone be able to communicate in written form without the exact "font" being an issue. It seems sufficient that a person be able to read script and sign their name.
Now I'm not saying Morse has any equivalent to calligraphy, but the fact is that I don't see how it's served to force someone to learn the code in order to operate worldwide. The ITU doesn't care anymore. I *can* see a case for retaining it for Extra certification, while making it sufficient for Generals to be versed in worldwide operating procedure and the physics of long-haul RF linkage.
The original poster made a very clear case for his qualifications -- he's pushing the frontiers of radio, certainly, and knows his way around the equipment probably better than I ever will. Isn't that sufficient to advance him? Morse is a tradition, but it's an optional one, no longer used commercially except by airplane pilots. Why should it be an issue for us? No one's saying we have to stop using it...
|
| |
|
'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by KE4ZHN on October 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
How many more times must we beat this code thing to death? ENOUGH already!
|
| |
|
RE: 'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on October 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N8VB said:
"Re BPL. There are some 20 WPM Extras on this website that think BPL somehow will magically interfere with 900 Mhz cell phones and therefore the cell phone companies will not let BPL be implemented here. So much for their superior knowledge of radio and them being licensed before the so called "dumbing down" of HAM radio."
N8VB, if you are making reference to something I posted, I don't speculate or assume anything and concoct a theory out of the clear blue. You can read Cingular Wireless' reply to the FCC's BPL NOI at:
http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6514683408
After reading what Cingular had to say, it should be quite obvious that their engineers consider BPL harmonics to be a threat to cell service on 800 MHz and possibly 1.9 GHz.
|
| |
|
'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by KC8KEQ on October 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Two observations.
1. It is very unlikely that very many have changed their position on this issue based on the comments in this forum or others. If you were pro-code in the beginning you probably still are and if you were no-code I doubt that you have changed your mind either.
2. I don't believe that the FCC is going to base their decision on comments written in forums such as this or else they wouldn't have gone to the trouble to set up a place to comment on their webpage. The only opinions that are going to be heard will be on their webpage.
So both sides are at the mercy of the FCC as to whether the code stays or goes. And I do think that they have a little better vocabulary than; dumbing down the hobby, lazy, stupid cber's , whinners, grumpy old men old geezers or sleezy old hams. And I doubt that it scores any points with them anyway.
If you have a point to make, and want it to count for something, make it to the FCC. I haven't seen any notices from the FCC that a vote on the issue will be held on any of these forums.
73 KC8KEQ
|
| |
|
RE: 'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by W5HTW on October 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I really no longer care about the elimination of the code requirement for ham testing. I did at first, but the more I thought about it, the less I cared. At least for several years into the future, it will not curtail CW operations and I shall be free to operate there. At some point it will reduce the CW bands, but that has been done before and we survived.
What DOES bother me is that everyone has to be qualified for everything. I think that is dumb. I can no longer exercise my "right" to fly an airplane due to high blood pressure. I can't play baseball due to poor vision - can't see the damned ball coming at me! And that was true when I was a child, too. I can't swim the English channel because I don't swim that well. I can't design NASA rockets because I don't have the knowledge.
So should the rules of those activities be changed to accomodate me? Should the ball be larger, and thrown slower, in baseball, so I stand a chance of seeing it and maybe hitting it? And if I can't run the distance to first base, due to shortness of breath, should the bases be closer together?
Suppose that happened. Suppose baseball was redesigned so I could play it. How about all those guys and gals who used to play it the old way? Would they still be interested? Would they still find it a challenge? A sport worth their time? I hardly think so!
We tend to think everyone should be into everything, and if they can't be, or won't be, we change it so they can be. We modify it so it suits the weak, the lazy or the just plain unqualified, and then the strong, ambitious and qualified no longer want to play the game. We make molehills out of mountains and leave the mountain climber - the achiever - with nothing to do.
I hate to say this (no, I really don't) but I taught ham radio classes and once in a great while I found someone who claimed to be unable to learn the code. Whether or not he was really unable or just unwilling is not for me to judge. But the requirements for a ham ticket were, "learn the code." So ... he didn't become a ham. Maybe he went on to collect stamps, or fly planes, or be great at fishing. But he didn't become a ham. And that's how it should be. Sorry, Charlie.
That philosophy has fallen by the wayside of the "everyone can do everything" belief. And it has meant lowering the bar in almost every aspect of life, from graduating those who are effectively 4th graders into first year college, to hiring computer techs who barely regognize a keyboard and can hardly figure out where the screws are to remove the case.
So now we want everyone, everywhere, to be a ham. And if they can't, or aren't interested, or aren't "very" interested, no biggie, let's make them hams anyway. Interest is not important. Achivement is not important. Effort is not important. Just the end result of "I got a ham license."
And oddly enough, there is a surprising number of recently licensed hams who think they simply bypassed a college degree in electronics and, by nature of that little piece of paper, are now electronics experts! Or, for many of them, they think they bypassed the police academy and now, thanks to the ham license, they are quasi-cops, heck, even with uniforms and badges and HTs on the belts. The shortcut to success. Get a ham ticket and fly the world. Yet it is virtually valueless!
But prior to 1992, and the new Code Free Technician, there were hundreds of thousands of hams who DID pass a code test. And as the original poster said, they never touched a key again. But they took the darned test and they passed it. Isn't that amazing? Were they a smarter society? More ambitious? More capable? More likely to view the requirements and think, "Oh well, that's what I have to do, so I'll do it?"
There is only ONE conclusion that can be made from that. That the society before the code free ham had more ambition than the society after it. All these guys who say "I won't learn the code because I will never use it" are comparing themselves very unfavorably to those who went before saying "I'll learn the code to get the ticket, but I'll never use it." The conclusion? A society that 'wants it all' without effort. "Change it to suit ME." "Give it to me." "I don't care about ham radio and what that means; I just want a license." "NO, I don't have any ambition, so give it to me anyway."
As noted, I don't care about the code requirement. And frankly, as I get older, and NCI morphs into NTI (No Testing International) I really don't care if they dispense with testing entirely. I've had my run in what was once a respectable hobby. But the fraternity disappeared long ago, and there is no eliteness to what was once a completely elite hobby. That's all gone. I enjoyed it for years, so now if it is destroyed I can be the Bob Hope of ham radio and say "Thanks for the memories." And I can go on to other things.
But removal of the Morse requirement is not a bug up my butt. Go for it. I have no plans to sign any pro code petitions. Doesn't bother me.
What bothers me is 12th graders who can't read, or don't know where Iowa is. The failures in ham radio are just symptoms of failures in society. None of it can be reversed.
73
Ed
|
| |
|
'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by KB9TMP on October 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Up until last year I was a diehard nocoder. I wanted on HF and kicking and screaming my way through learned code and passed the test. I have Tinnitus in both ears which made it very difficult to learn code. I am also a visual learner which added to the problem. But I still passed the test which proves if I can do it any one can! It all depends on the amount of effort you put in, as to what you will get out of it. I for one am glad I didn't wait to have it handed over for free. While all the no-coders are waiting for a rule change I'll be playing on HF having fun.
Just for the record I think they need to drop the test for the Technician license and give non-coded Technicians Novice/Tech + privaliges. That way they will have some HF to operate in code free. We should at least keep the General and Extra licenses coded. Just my 2 cents worth.
|
| |
|
'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by KC0ODY on October 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Dear Moderators of eham.net:
I would like to respectfully request that you add the following disclaimer language to your homepage. It doesn't need to be a huge banner-type deal; something along the lines of the font size that's presently used for the warnings on cigarette packages should be sufficient. Here is what the disclaimer should say:
"WARNING: The reading of and/or participation in the content of the code/no-code debates could be hazardous to your opinion of the amateur radio service. Participating in code/no-code discussions has been found by the State of California (and all other 49 states, and many foreign countries) to cause feelings of nausea, disgust and generalized feelings of malaise and hatred towards other ham's sensibilities. As far as we know, these forums do not cause birth defects and/or cancer, but studies have shown that quitting the dead-horse beating and incessant yammering about the code test now can significantly increase one's enjoyment of actual on-the-air radio activities."
Respectfully submitted,
KC0ODY
|
| |
|
RE: 'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by NI0C on October 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Good suggestion from KC0ODY! It would be an interesting study to determine if the number of "hits" to these controversial Internet forums is inversely proportional to the SFI and/or directly proportional to the A index.
73 de Chuck NI0C
|
| |
|
'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by K0RGR on October 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
My grandmother died in 1962 at the age of 83. When she was young, Colorado had two grades of license to drive a car - 'mountain drivers' and 'flatland drivers'. She was one of the first women to get the 'mountain' driving license.
As part of her exam, she had to demonstrate the proper techniques for descending a steep road. In those days, cars didn't have reliable brakes, so that meant getting out of the car, chopping down a small tree, and tying it behind the car to act as an emergency brake!
The Morse exams are exactly the same thing. Once, a very necessary demonstration of an essential skill. Now, an anachronism that repels potential newcomers, not because they are lazy, but because they cannot fathom why anyone should need to know Morse Code to talk on the radio.
I don't have any hard facts here, because there really aren't any available. However, I think we've had a big net loss of CW operators over the last three decades. Remember that prior to the existence of the no-code Tech license, there were practically no new Novices, and after the no-code license came to pass, there were none at all.
I think it's time for a new approach: let them in, then convince them that code is a good thing, rather than rejecting them because they don't know code. If they want to use the truly superior mode known as CW, they need to learn how. It's that simple.
Let's look at some conservative numbers. Let's say that eliminating the code brings 40,000 new people to HF. That would include people coming from VHF as well as newcomers. Let's say that 2 out of every 100 become convinced that CW is actually a superior mode and choose to learn it. That's 800 new CW ops - probably more than we've added in 20 years!
OK, don't like my numbers? Plug in your own. But if you are going to tell me that less than 2 out of 100 will choose to learn Morse on their own, then why on earth should we retain such an unpopular thing!
|
| |
|
RE: 'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by W9WHE on October 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I can't pass medical school, but I want to be a doctor;
I can't pass law school, but I want to be a lawyer;
I can't pass dental school, but I want to be a dentist;
I can't pass engineering school, but I want to be an engineer;
So.... I think siociety should just relax the rules so I can be a Doctor, lawyer, dentist AND engineer!
AND if siociety won't, then, I WILL WHINE, STAMP MY FEET AND COMPLAIN UNTIL IT DOES!
|
| |
|
RE: 'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by W9WHE on October 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
After all, lowering the standards for doctors, lawyers, dentists & engineers will bring in thousands of new people!
|
| |
|
RE: 'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by K4FAU on October 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Heres the bottom line:
Yes the code sucks!. I am an Amatuer Extra and agree with you 100%.
But everyday you whine is a lost day --
And the FCC is going to take at least until 2008 before they rule. If anyone thinks that the FCC is going to drop the code requirement next year that is wishful thining -- it took them lmost 10 years from the first petition to go No Code....
I know its sucks -- but order some good code software ... stop your whining.. and pass your test..
if not -- then remain on the sidelines for the next 4 plus years screaming at the team to do this or that -- ham is not a spectator sport -- but you have to have the right equipment to play -- and for right now -- right or wrong -- the equipment consists of the ability to pass morse code to get a license....
but all joking aside -- its only 26 letters -- 10 numbers being sent one every 2.5 seconds... thats pretty slow...
and to add insult to injury -- last week at the hamfest we had two signal officers from Ft Gordon pass their Morse code test first try -- they started studying the Monday before and passed it 5 days later ( no one had told them it was hard so they didn't know!!!) -- then they took allthe tests in a row... so in less then 5 days of asking about this ham radio stuff -- we have two Amatuer Extras ...
now go study!!!
Paul
|
| |
|
RE: 'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by WB2WIK on October 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K0RGR: Before the no-code license, there were few new Novices?
Lately, that might be true, due to societal changes that drive people's need for instant gratification; however, in the mid-80's your statement could not have been further from the truth.
When deregulation created "Novice Enhancement," and the Novice class licensees were granted all sorts of new privileges never before held by Novices, there was a stampede of new Novices, unlike anything seen before. And they all had to take, and pass, a 5 wpm code test. I remember this well, I was in the thick of it, and gave about two hundred Novice exams in my own living room. I made sure the prospective Novices could not only copy 5 wpm, but could clearly send it, too.
From my perspective the *only* reason people are griping about the code requirement today is that deregulation has already occurred; the speed requirement is already reduced; and in some cases, the requirement has already been eliminated. Had none of this occurred already, virtually nobody would be complaining. After all, prospective hams took code proficiency exams for 7+ decades, whether any of them ever used code again as long as they lived, and for most of that time, nobody complained.
As for CW activity on the bands diminishing: Might be true, but not that I can tell. Listen in the "CW end" of the bands when anything new pops up, like 3C0V or BQ9P most recently. The CW pileups are deep and wide, and it sounds like everyone on the planet is using CW.
WB2WIK/6
|
| |
|
RE: 'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by KC0ODY on October 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"After all, lowering the standards for doctors, lawyers, dentists & engineers will bring in thousands of new people!"
No one would go to doctors, lawyers, dentists or engineers who didn't have the multiple years of training and skills that allow them to do their jobs safely.
Using Morse code isn't akin to:
- brain surgery
- tooth pulling (although the debates here sometimes make it seem just as pleasant)
- interpreting the law
- designing/building bridges, nuclear power plants, etc. etc. etc.
It's red herring-laden statements such as this that keep the horse a-kickin', long after its expired.
To paraphrase the "pet shop customer" of the famous "Dead Parrot Sketch":
"He's passed on! This horse is no more! He has ceased to be! He's expired and gone to meet his maker! He's a stiff! Bereft of life, he rests in peace! If you hadn't constantly brought him to these forums, he'd be pushing up the daisies! His metabolic processes are history! He's off the twig! He's kicked the
bucket, he's shuffled off his mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisible!! THIS IS AN EX-HORSE!!"
|
| |
|
RE: 'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by W8JJI on October 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It is time to end the code requirement.
It has long outlived it's usefulness.
|
| |
|
'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by N8YV on October 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I think it's time to switch this whole topic over to something FAR less controversial....say, abortion? How about gay discrimination? Or maybe, Republican vs. Democrat? Islamic vs. Christian? Hunt's Catsup vs. Heinz? Pepsi vs. Coke (the kind you DRINK, stupid)?
Surely, these topics will provide some much-needed relief from the CW thing....if only for a millennium or two?
(Tongue firmly in cheek)
N8YV
|
| |
|
'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by K0RGR on October 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
WB2WIK -
OK, my memory of 25 years ago may be flawed, but I believe lack of new Novices, or at least a drop-off in new Novices was part of the justification for the no-code license. We went through a long period where only a small fraction of new Novices upgraded to General, too. Interest in the CW-only Novice priveleges was perceived as very low.
In any case, once the no-code license was in place, there were virtually zero new Novices.
Back then, I'd try to recruit new people, and once they found out that they could not 'talk' on the radio, the interest plummeted to zero. It's a bit like the reaction that happens today when new Technicians realize that they can't get on HF.
I'll have to go find the old QST's and review what happened. I found a reference on the net - the 'Novice Enhancement Edition' of 'Tune in the World with Ham Radio' was published in 1968, not the mid 1980's. I don't remember which enhancement we're talking about, though. VFO's, higher power, 10 year licenses - 10 meter phone came years later, of course.
Wayne Green was advocating the abolition of code tests back in the 60's, and he was not alone.
Kids today question authority even more than their parents, the Baby Boomers, did. They question all requirements.
|
| |
|
RE: 'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by NI0C on October 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well, though some may see this as beating a dead horse, the debate will continue until the FCC rules on the multiple proposals before it. So, given that the SFI is only 92 and the A index is up to 40, I'll add a few more comments here.
So, to K0RGR, I would say that perhaps-- just perhaps--the best way to "convince them [the new hams] that cw is a good thing" is to continue to require a basic literacy in the language known as Morse code. I know that there are sincere folks who believe that new hams will flock to CW on their own if Morse testing is completely eliminated, but I'm not convinced. For those who are completely code illiterate are not qualified to judge the merits of the code as used in the CW mode.
And I have to agree with Steve, WB2WIK, that most of the complaining about code testing has occurred since the requirements have been reduced. People need to keep some perspective here. Five words per minute used to get you only one year's worth of non-renewable HF privileges. Fluency at 13 wpm was required for permanent HF privileges, and competency at 20 wpm was required to gain access to all HF frequencies. W5YI and his no-code group have succeeded in their lobbying efforts to reduce the code requirement to 5 wpm. Did that stop the complaining? From my perspective, it seems that the complaining has gone up about 40 dB!
73 de Chuck NI0C
|
| |
|
RE: 'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by TECH2003 on October 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
To KC0DY, if it's such a dead horse then why are YOU still beating on it? You put your trolling comments in every forum that has this issue. If you don't like the subject then don't comment. You won't be missed. Asta la vista.
|
| |
|
RE: 'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by W4EWJ on October 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
For those of you who insist that CW is no longer
being used ... or to quote one post...our military
doesnt use it nor any others...just to paraphrase
the quote. If you have a gen cov rcvr I suggest you
lsn to the following freqs:
8342, 43, 44khz ... early eve...0030gmt approx
lsn for RAL46 calling RMP ... the times are some
what random but he will show up
8103khz, 10047khz (and others) 4XZ automated CW coded groups
14931khz, (and others) 8BY 3 and 4 digit coded groups
in short form
5302khz, CW numbers station
8042khz, CW numbers station
8269khz, normally tunes up a few mins b4 0200z and
sends either short form letter groups and
110 baud data, receives from unk. stations
very poor fist but he does this because no
computer algorythm can decode a fist this
poor..he knows this. Sometimes a response
is sent on 8142khz.
8042khz, CW numbers station
6985khz, pt to pt CW tfc...random times
These are just a very few examples...8BY is France
4XZ is Israel RAL46 is Russia, the Special Forces
has pt to pt test CW ckts that are exercised frequently
to maintain rediness...you can also hear coded grps
on 10127 frequently...I dont mean that RAL46 is located
in Russia...RMP is.
The U.S. Dept State has back up CW ckts.
Although Vint Hill Farms (near Warrenton Va)was closed
in the late 90s the CIA also has back up ckts but
no longer uses the CW coded gr. bcst method...its a
little more subtle now.
Theres a lot more of it out there than you think...
problem is MOST hams can not copy CW anymore...
Be careful what you wish for ... you might get it.
Earle Johnson
|
| |
|
RE: 'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by KA3RFE on October 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Kent, YBL:
I am profoundly hearing-impaired with bilateral tinnitus that will never go away. I copy code just fine. I have tweaked the audio using notch filters and the RIT controls until I get a frequency that works. Then I use headphones with my hearing aids. MFJ makes a nice speech intelegibilty enhancer that can work with code too. I can do NO phone work whatsoever on ANY band. Yet I passed Novice given to me by another ham back when novice didn't need to do VEC tests in 1987 and got right on the air after I got through the first-time jitters and I worked all states and around 50 DX all on CW in my first year. It wasn't easy, but I did it. I was concentrating on getting my code speed up enough to take general.
A year later, I took the tech and general written and passed both. I took the code test by myself as some adaptations had to me made in order for me to hear the tape, but I passed that with no trouble too.
There is always a way around problems if one is creative enough. There are totally deaf hams out there doing code by "feel" or flashing light, although "feel" allows one to copy and write down the code at the same time. I sometimes do that using an old speaker with the paper cut out of it. Most of the time, though, I copy the very tweaked audio.
I have a 140 dB hearing loss. Speech is difficult for me even when lipreading but I can hear SOUNDS with hearing aids, and the code is just short sounds and long sounds.
If you are going to make excuses for yourself, you'll have to find another excuse, your tinnitus won't work with me.
73, Pete KA3RFE
|
| |
|
RE: 'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by W5EEX on October 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
A few comments and observations:
1)If BPL somehow gets going (I hope it won't) ...the CW ops will be the ones most likely to still be able to have QSO's. Sure there will be lots of noise, but I operate CW now with lots of noise from sources right in my own home....DSP and good CW filters make it possible....I didn't say EASY....I said possible.
2)Doing away with the code tests will not do away with operating CW....there is LOTS of bandspace for it. We
can operate CW virtually anywhere in the HF spectrum now.....maybe more SSB space will be allocated, but I doubt that CW would be excluded from the same bandspace. Operating CW next to a SSB QSO is not a difficult thing to do (see # 1).
3)Maybe the CW test should be eliminated and replaced with testing for more meaningful technical skills:
-How about an essay question or two on explaining the basic building blocks of a modern transceiver??
-Some antenna calculations with numbers that are not the same as those in the study guides.....actual
calculations would be required!
-As essay question about how one might go about determining and measuring ERP for 60 meter operation.
-Modernize the tests to include PSK31 and DSP questions
-Put some REAL Smith chart problems in the test
Anybody who is a real ham and not an "appliance operator" should know these things.....if you don't think you need to know them, most likely you ARE an
appliance op.
73,
W5EEX
|
| |
|
RE: 'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by KC0ODY on October 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Tech2003, I have as much right to be here as you do. And I am not a troll, because my comments are not meant to stir up trouble, but to be amusing. You're crabbier than most of the longtime crabbers on this forum-- what gives?? If you don't like my comments, then don't read them.
|
| |
|
Here's where we're going...
|
|
|
by KR4XH on October 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It isn't my idea, or my doing... But this so accurately reflects the direction that I fell this country is heading...
With advance apologies to anyone who might be offended by the language I've selected...
73
don
KR4XH
Teaching Math in 1950:
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100.
His cost of production is 4/5 of the price.
What is his profit?
Teaching Math in 1960:
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100.
His cost of production is 4/5 of the price, or $80.
What is his profit?
Teaching Math in 1970:
A logger exchanges a set "L" of lumber for a set "M" of money. The
cardinality of set "M" is 100. Each element is worth one dollar.
Make 100 dots representing the elements of the set "M." The set
"C", the cost of production, contains 20 fewer points than set "M."
Represent the set "C" as the subset of set M and answer this question: What is the cardinality of the set "P" of profits?
Teaching Math in 1980:
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100.
His cost of production is $80 and his profit is $20.
Your assignment: Underline the number 20.
Teaching Math in 1990:
By cutting down beautiful forest trees, the logger makes $20. What
do you think of this way of making a living? Topic for class
participation after answering the question: How did the forest birds
and squirrels "feel" as the logger cut down the trees?
There are no wrong answers.
Teaching Math in 2000:
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100.
His cost of production is $120.
How does Arthur Andersen determine that his profit margin is $60?
Teaching Math in 2010:
El hachero vende un camion carga por $100. La cuesta de
production es
|
| |
|
RE: Here's where we're going...
|
|
|
by KC0ODY on October 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100.
His cost of production is $120. How does Arthur Andersen determine that his profit margin is $60?"
LOL!! Now THAT was funny.
|
| |
|
RE: Here's where we're going...
|
|
|
by KR4XH on October 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It's the "new math"...
I don't understand it...
don
KR4XH
|
| |
|
RE: Here's where we're going...
|
|
|
by TECH2003 on October 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
To KC0ODY, you are right. I am crabby. My only point, which I usually don't make very well, is that this is not a dead horse issue. It is a topic that the FCC may make a decision on as early as Jan 2004. I know that we need to make remarks to the petitions (RM-XXXX) and I have. I have also made remarks on BPL RMs and have donated money to ARRL for BPL. Is BPL a dead issue? I don't thik so. Is the Know-Code versus No-Code a dead issue? I don't think so. So we have discussions, debates, flame wars here. This is only a internet site. 99.99% of the people here will not change their opinion on the subject because of eHam. I know that I won't, but that dosn't mean that I won't voice my opinion on the matter.
Finally, if it is a dead horse issue then just ignore it and move along. There are many other issues and dicussions on this site. Some technical, some opinions. Please feel free to join in other discussions if you are so disatified with this dead horse.
|
| |
|
RE: Here's where we're going...
|
|
|
by W5EEX on October 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Jeff Foxworthy might say "You could be an Appliance Op" if....
-You've never built and tuned your own dipole
-You've had to ask someone what BPL stands for
-You thought a Smith Chart was that thing your neighbor Ms.Smith has on her refrigerator door
-You thought ERP had something to do with stomach ailments
-You've used "Hey Good Buddy" ever in a QSO.....
-You have to ask what a QSO is....
-You think CW is a type of music played on the radio
-You thought Ohm's Law related to some traffic violation
-You thought a third harmonic was that thing you played back in Kindergarten
-You thought a log periodic was something carved from a tree trunk
-You've mistakenly remembered W1AW to be a brand of rootbeer
-You've wondered how a cold 807 could relate to beer
-You thought a DX-Pedition was a model of a Ford SUV
-You thought a two element quad was some sort of ATV
-You thought a G5RV was GM's fifth generation recreational vehicle
-You've ever gone to a hamfest to pick up chicks
-You thought tailgating was only something done at NFL football games
All in fun guys.....it's just a hobby (but a fun one!)
73,
W5EEX
|
| |
|
Try this technique for learning code...
|
|
|
by KD5WIH on October 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Two myths exist about learning Morse code. Each myth does much harm to amateur radio.
The first myth is “Anyone can learn Morse code in a short time”.
The second myth is “Some people, no matter how hard they study, can never learn Morse code”.
People are not the same. Some have one talent; some have another. I am an example of someone who has no natural talent for learning the code. Even after lots of lessons, my guitar playing is not good. I don’t pick up other languages easily. In English, I mispronounce words and my spelling is terrible. I don’t have a good sense of rhythm and would be embarrassed to try to dance in public. It’s taken me about three months, and I am still long way from being good enough at Morse code to use CW on the air. I am more visually oriented and find understanding mechanical and electronic concepts easier.
If you want to learn the code there is one simple true, “If you start studying Morse code, and don’t stop studying Morse, you will learn Morse code”. Try this technique, It will work for you!
I have used 3 different code CD series. I like CodeQuick best, but the “don’t stop studying” is what is working for me. Want to get on HF? You can do it if I can.
73
KD5WIH/AG
Note that’s /AG, even though element 1 was rough for me!
|
| |
|
RE: Try this technique for learning code...
|
|
|
by TECH2003 on October 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
To KD5WIH/AG, good job. I will keep trying and will soon join you. I know that I need to practice more but I am busy with other things. No excuses though, I will get it in time.
Steve
|
| |
|
RE: Try this technique for learning code...
|
|
|
by K3UD on October 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Myth #1 is most likely a real myth.
Myth #2 is not a myth, but reality for some people.
During WW2 the Army conducted research as to why there were problems with with a percentage of personnel assigned to the signal corps who had problems learning the code at the required speed. The research concluded that there are a certain percentage of people who would never be able to learn code at any speed. Yes the percentage was small but it was there.
I used to teach code and theory at community college continuing adult education level and other venues and found that almost no one had problems grasping the theory concepts needed to pass a Novice or technician (old technician, same as general) exam, but there were always some who just could not get the code. Maybe it was my teaching technique but over 90% of all the students in the class had mastered the code at 5wpm by the end of the course.
We had some who would actually write down the dit and dahs on a sheet of paper as it was being sent, and then quickly translated it manually, writing the letters above the marks. Some were almost moved to tears of frustration because of their inability to get it.
Granted, 5WPM is not as difficult as 13WPM and lowering the code speed required for a General or Extra opened the door for those who copy well at the lower speed but there are still those who simply can not tell an A from and N when it is sent in code.
Of course, the Army study (which I saw in the early 70s) was talking about learning code at a pre- determined speed (I think 10 WPM) and we are talking 5WPM. My experience suggests that even at 5WPM there is a very small percentage of the population who could never do it for whatever reason.
There is another myth not mentioned here
Myth #3 If I can do it, anybody can.
73
George
K3UD
|
| |
|
RE: Try this technique for learning code...
|
|
|
by TECH2003 on October 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Yes George there is also a small percentage of people who CAN'T graduate high school either, but most who don't graduate were just quitters and could have done it.
Myth #4 Ham Radio is for everyone.
Myth #5 Ham Radio is dying.
Myth #6 We desperately need new hams in the hobby.
Myth #7 All these groups are trying to steal our HF frequencies.
|
| |
|
'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by K3WVU on October 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Not to worry! CW is about to enter the Smithsonian as just another curiosity of the past. Just about everyone else in the communications world has canned it, and very soon, it will be gone from amateur radio. I do think, however, that the theory exam should be much more difficult then it is now. I don't think that the question pools should be available for memorization, but that would make the exams harder to administrate.
Learning code at 5 wpm was easy for me. At that speed, you can listen to the dihs and dahs, translate them to dots and dashes, then the dots and dashes to letters and numbers, and write it all down. In between the letters, you have time to tie our shoes and brush your teeth. I've known people who couldn't learn it at any speed, however, so I know where you're coming from.
Be patient. The code/no code issue will soon be made moot. Time marches on.
If you'd like to expand your horizons in the meantime, maybe you should join MARS. There are no restrictions on operation even if you're only a no-code Tech, and CW is no longer used anywhere in MARS.
Check out http://www.navymars.org
Good luck.
Dwight K3WVU
|
| |
|
RE: Try this technique for learning code...
|
|
|
by W5HTW on October 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W4EWJ... Vint Hill Farms was ASA. I don't think the ASA exists anymore.
As long as we are talking about dead horses, can someone tell me why owners put blindfolds on horses? I saw three of them (horses, not owners) standing in a pasture this morning, and they all wore blindfolds. (Not blinders.) But they weren't dead, and none of them showed any signs of the kind of torture these code threads are. And they weren't dead, either!
I sure miss copying the old maritime traffic lists on CW, but they weren't awfully fast, about 18 WPM I think. Some of the ships that answered were pretty fast, and a lot of the operators used bugs, making some choppy keying. Of course, the maritime shore stations still maintain a CW watch, but I haven't heard but one reply to it in the past few months, probably just someone testing to see if it worked, as they handled no traffic.
Used to copy news relays, too, in CW. Really great practice.
What is a shame is the no-coders will never know what ham radio really was like, as they never lived it. Except for the lack of profanity, and the use of call signs, it sounds like where they came from - CB. I guess it's a bit like the kids who will never hear a railroad steam engine, or see a hand crank on a car. They aren't necesary these days, but they are a part of our history. I hope for that reason, despite the removal of Morse as a testing requirement, some of the newer hams keep hand Morse alive, not just keyboard CW, but the "real thing."
Like oil lamps. Few of us need them, but they are decorative. Yet, here in this rural area, they are often very much more than just decorative - they are a necessity, on a small scale. I would not want to not have them available.
We can automate the world, but somewhere, someday, when you least expect it, someone will come up to you and say "CW." Maybe you'll know what they mean.
Ed
|
| |
|
RE: Try this technique for learning code...
|
|
|
by KD5WIH on October 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
George,
In WWII the military transfered those who didn't learn the code quickly to other assignments. They had a war to fight. They wouldn't have taken time to teach me the code and I wouldn't blame them!
You are correct that I overstated my argument when I said "If I can learn the code anyone can". I should have said "any ham can". I stand by my claim that any one itelligent enough to pass element 2 can learn code well enough to pass element 1.
Two steps: 1. Start studying code. 2. Don't stop studying code.
73
KD5WIH
|
| |
|
RE: Try this technique for learning code...
|
|
|
by K3UD on October 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
TECH2003
After WW2 the aviation industry geared up for what was forcast to be a tremendous demand for personal light aircraft. We were going to have all kinds of cool flying machines ranging from gyrocopters, small helocopters, flying car hybrids, and most of all, easy to fly light planes. They even solved the problem of the stall spin, auger in situation with the design of the Ercoupe in 1946.
There was a thought process in the industry which suggested that if you could learn how to drive a car safely, you could learn how to fly. The history of he period shows that many tried and many failed. Sometimes for health reasons but the largest washout rate was due to depth perception and disorientation probelms.
The anticipated personal aviation boom went bust and many firms went out of business or were consolidated into others. If you had depth perception problems or disorientation problems, there was no way you were ever going to meet the requirements demanded of a private pilots license.
To a large extent I agree with the example of dropping out of high school, however if serious learning disabilities were the problem and had not been addressed early enough (again that small percentage) dropping out would be a predictable result.
I also agree with myths 4 and 5. Ham radio at present is not dying out, and like most hobbies or pastimes, it is not for everyone.
Reserve judgement on myths 6 and 7. There is evidence based on FCC numbers that we will shortly see a marked decline in the overall number of licensees. I will also wait for the final outcome of the BPL situation before I pass judgement on myth 7.
73
George
K3UD
|
| |
|
RE: Try this technique for learning code...
|
|
|
by K3UD on October 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KD5WIH/AG
Your 2 step process should work well for about 95+% of the population. For the others, there is the Technician Class license and most likely the General and Extra in a few years.
BTW
Congratulations on the General and hope to hear you on the air!
73
George
K3UD
|
| |
|
RE: Observation
|
|
|
by N1RWC on October 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I would like to say that this issue is still beaten up and down, sort of like a dead government mule.
here's the funny part about this,
As of today in the Untied States of Amreica,
If you want to operate CW on HF, you need to know CW.
If you want to operate AM, FM, SSB, Digital on HF,
You need to know CW.
Yet you don't need to know how to speak properly in a microphone to be an Amateur Radio Operator!!!!!
For those readers and posters with an active brain cell or two, use it. Think, write the FCC, and maybe we'll get the ball rolling into the 21st century, instead of the 19th Century.
PS If you are offended by the above comments, write your Congressman and Senators and tell them to repeal the 1st Ammendment of the Constitiution of the United States of America. Don't forget to include your E-mail Address, Postal Address, Home Address, and description of what you look like, so it will be easier for the good ol' US Armed Forces to open up a can of whoop*** on your sorry butt. And you'll even make the 11 o'Clock News.
|
| |
|
RE: Here's where we're going...
|
|
|
by KC0ODY on October 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
TECH2003: "To KC0ODY, you are right. I am crabby."
I am sorry to hear that you are so jaded while still so young.
"My only point, which I usually don't make very well, is that this is not a dead horse issue."
Well, as long as little to nothing gets accomplished and the same old arguments for and against get hashed around, then it may as well be. I usually come here to read these articles to see if I can get some new insights or viewpoints, but when I don't see any new, original thinking, I sometimes point it out (and try and use humor when I do). It's too bad that my attempts to lighten things up aren't appreciated; at least now I know why.
"Here's a quarter, son... go buy yourself a sense of humor."
(with apologies to W.C. Fields)
|
| |
|
RE: Here's where we're going...
|
|
|
by K4FAU on October 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
All I want to know, and it has nothing to do with my stand of Code / No-Code .... is where these folks are coming up with that by jan 2004 the FCC is going to rule?
1. The FCC takes anaverage of 10 years (as it did with NO CODE TECH) to make a ruling. All the petitions have to be exhuasted and that is a lengthy internal FCC process.
2. The FCC has no reason to push this one way or the other -- i don't think that the FCC really cares one way or another.
If you are waiting or holding off taking the CW test becuase any moment now the mighty FCC is going to drop everything else they are doing and jump on this and rule -- you are being foolish -- almost everyones money is on that it will be 2008 befroe it gets through their on internal process..... and hey -- even the mighty ARRL isn't taking a stand o it can't be that concerning accept to the same 12 people that keep bringing up this topic...
see ya in 2008 on the HF....
|
| |
|
RE: Here's where we're going...
|
|
|
by K6BBC on October 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hey, I like to communicate at 10 WPM in 2003. I think everybody should learn how. I want the hobby to stay as it is. I want to keep interesting people out of my hobby. Now, pass me the beer nuts, I’m hungry.
K6BBC
|
| |
|
RE: Here's where we're going...
|
|
|
by TECH2003 on October 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Hey, I’m too lazy to learn CW at 5 WPM in 2003. I think nobody should learn. I want the hobby to change for me so I don’t have to learn. I want to get CBers and other lazy cretins in the hobby. Now, pass me that joint. I’m gonna chill.
|
| |
|
RE: Here's where we're going...
|
|
|
by K6BBC on October 16, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Oh, I forgot the hazing rituals of amateur radio. I guess learning code is like wearing your underwear on your head or swallowing a live goldfish to get into a fraternity. Now that I think of it, it is called “the ham fraternity.”
K6BBC
|
| |
|
RE: Try this technique for learning code...
|
|
|
by W4EWJ on October 16, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W5htw
Vint Hill Farms Station was a large site...the CIA
had transmitter and rcvr sites there ... the ASA
used the site to conduct various experiments in
communications technology...other govt depts did
other services. The ASA was the parent of the NSA.
Vint Hill is about 9 miles north of Warrenton, VA
its a right off rt 15....theres still a sign there
but its a large new home track and small business
now.
Earle
|
| |
|
RE: Here's where we're going...
|
|
|
by N1KGH on October 16, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
In a sense, the FCC *has* been preparing for this moment since 1988, the time they first proposed what would become the codeless Technician license (and my first ticket, BTW).
They took the position that the Morse exam tested the ability of the applicant to decode Morse *and only that*. They said then, and again in their 2000 decision, that Morse testing does not indicate the character of the applicant.
The 2000 decision was the result of a biennial review that the FCC is required to perform in order to find regulations that could be simplified and removed, and the new licensing structure is the result.
It's not clear to me why 2008 is a significant date to the argument; I think the 2004 time frame is about right. Remember that technology has made it much easier for interested parties to review comments, NOI's (like the BPL NOI) and NPRM's. The 1998 restructuring process only took 2 years from NPRM to ruling, and much of the groundwork has already been laid, and dead horses long beaten, to get to the point we are at now.
Moreover, it's been clear over the past 15 years, that the FCC simply does not place the amateur service in the same esteem as some of the more rabid posters here.
Why is it that a government agency with many other responsibilities besides regulating Part 97 has to bolster the self-esteem of people "who worked hard" so that others would have to work hard as well? Some letter writer in QST even said that the license structure should be maintained to give people like him "a challenge", a purist Incentive Licensing advocate if you will.
Why?
Are we not people of free will who can pick and choose the challenges we meet in a hobby (and it IS a hobby!). If Morse is easy at 5 WPM, by all means go on to 13, 20, 50 WPM. Who's stopping you?! If we ask the FCC to uphold practically archaic regulations just to salve the feelings of the incumbents, is this not a welfare program of it's own?
We should not bother the FCC with giving us a higher purpose to make us feel better to the outside, or to other hams. I realize after 15 years of this debate that if the participants really valued learning, they'd pick up a book. Snobbery does pay here more than self-learning or education.
73,
Dave
N1KGH
|
| |
|
RE: 'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by KB9TMP on October 16, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"If you are going to make excuses for yourself, you'll have to find another excuse, your tinnitus won't work with me."
"73, Pete KA3RFE"
If your saying that I'm making excuses you need to read my post again. I'm on your side on this one. I passed my element 1 a year ago. It only took me 8 months of study to learn it but I did learn it.
73 from KB9TMP
|
| |
|
RE: 'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by W4EWJ on October 16, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W5htw
There are no American Coast Stations standing a
watch anymore...they all closed in 1999 when GMDSS
was fully implemented worldwide...what you might have
hrd was WLO, KFS and KPH doing the so called
"NIGHT OF NIGHTS" to honor the retired cw operators
at each station and the ship guys. Its a yearly
event, held in August I believe. BUT a company called
Globe Wireless is remoting several stations sending
email over HF using the old stations...I dont know
which American stations are used but they bought
up a bunch of them and many around the world and in
fact built a few in CHINA.
Press was sent to subscribers up until about 1982 or
3 from WCC, Chatham, MASS. Obviously any body could
copy it for free but legally it was subscribers only
All the Delta Lines passenger ships out of San
Francisco paid dearly for the service.
WLO, Mobile Al. is very active on SITOR.
Some Coast Stations overseas...IAR Roma comes to mind
still sending his wheel as he has been for 80 or so
years...quite a few Russian, and Eastern Block stations
and Asian as well. Some tfc is now both F1 and A1 from
Russia...lot of health and welfare stuff., all Cyrilic
morse.
I agree with your posts...
rgds
Earle Johnson USMM ret.
|
| |
|
'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by K0RGR on October 16, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I'm still doing a sanity check on my previous comments.
Yes, the last round of Novice Enhancement (and there were several) came in 1987. That's when they got limited voice priveleges.
I can't find my QST's on CD for that decade, so I have to rely on other sources. The index for QST shows an Editorial in 1985 "Where are all the Novices". I don't think they were asking where the millions of new Novices were hiding out. One year after Novice Enhancement, there were a series of letters to the Editor with the title "Did Novice Enhancement Work?".
In 1994, The AM Press - published a document tracing the history of licensing, and mounting a FISTS like opposition to the reduction in the General code speed from 13 to 10 WPM, which was proposed at the time. In the document they make the statement "...Novice enhancment like all previous attempts...failed dismally".
I think it can be fairly stated that before Novices were granted HF voice priveleges, the license class was endangered, and that granting those priveleges did not result in a lasting flood of new licensees, since the success of the enhancement was being strongly questioned prior to the adoption of the no-code Tech license.
I favor granting ARRL's 1999 proposal to refarm the Novice bands and grant Techs and Novices all HF CW priveleges except those reserved for Extra and Advanced class. I'd also throw in some digital priveleges on 30 meters and 160 and 10 meter phone. Computers do a fair job of sending and receiving CW when they talk to one another. That way, the newbies are coerced into using CW - they might just learn to like it, and the rest of us should have no trouble copying their machine-sent code. As for the General test, I don't really care, as long as the Techs get something they can actually use. There's room for all of them in the CW bands.
|
| |
|
RE: 'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by N8VB on October 16, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
AG4RQ:
I have already read the comments. If you reread the last paragraph you will see the Cingular does not know whether BPL will interfere with their 800 and 1.9 systems. The only information that they have is that the WCA "believed" that there "may" be a risk of interference up to the 10th harmonic. This then is only a concern for BPL equipment that operates up to 80 Mhz or higher. It is not a foregone conclusion that those systems will cause any interference to the cell phone systems - testing needs to be done. What if it does? Then the higher limit for BPL can be set at somewhere less than 80 Mhz. This doesn't mean that BPL has been stopped by the cell phone companies. If the cell phone company is satisfied that, after testing, there is no interference to their system then do you really think they will still oppose it for the good of HAM radio operators? They could care less.
If it makes people feel better to think that some entity other than HAMs are going to magically stop BPL for the sake of the ARS then let them feel better while they have time. I am not so convinced. All they are worried about is interference to their section of spectrum.
N8VB
|
| |
|
RE: 'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by W3DCG on October 16, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Let us take the "average" ham.
Have the "average" ham, dissect, digest, and thoroughly comprehend every intricate detail of the W8JI/K3BU Current In Antenna Loading Coils disagreement.
When the average ham has acquired the requisite knowledge to fully understand every aspect of every step of each of those non average hams hypotheses, I would be willing to bet, that much more time and effort would have been invested in this exercise toward personal enhancement, than is required to learn their ABC’s and numerals, add a few prosigns, to a rate of 5, whole, burdensome, words-per-minute.
Noteworthy it is, how 5, 13, even 20 wpm never stumble-blocked Old Timers, and as some have described, “Old Farts.”
I am not yet obviously Old. But we all fart, don’t we?
Indeed, Young, Old, left-brained, right-brianed, whole-brained, No Code or Know Code, we all do share the need to fart.
Ham Radio, it's a Gas!
HAVE FUN!
73.
|
| |
|
'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by KD7EFQ on October 16, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
If you go by the clinical definition of the word "CULT"
the keep CW forever bunch is a "CULT following" Maybe we should change the definition of the term "CW" from "Continuous wave" to "CULT WAVE". Whatever you do, DON'T Drink the KOOL-AID at your next club meeting!
(Remember the Rev. Jim Jones Bunch?):-) 73.
|
| |
|
RE: 'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by KI4CJM on October 16, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
All testing for any ham license is a joke. I've been licensed to operate an HF marine SSB on my boat for 10 years. I simple application and a fee gets you a license. I can operate on 8 megs, not 7. I can operate on 12 megs, not 14. I can operate on 4 megs, not 3. This is silly. For the most part, the operators on the marine side of the bands are as courteous and professional as any on the ham side. Of course they certainly aren't as knowlegeable about antennas and the inner workings of a radio. But do they need to be? It makes as much sense as saying that to operate your car on this road you need to study, test, and jump through the hoops, but only block over, the road is available to anyone with $20 and a postage stamp.
|
| |
|
RE: 'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by N2ERN on October 16, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KI4CJM states:
"...the road is available to anyone with $20 and a postage stamp. "
He left out that you also need a boat. Non-commercial land-based stations aren't allowed. You can only talk to other maritime mobile stations, on a few channels. No VFOs.
|
| |
|
RE: 'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by KI4CJM on October 16, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
To N2ERN:
Much of what you say is true, but you'd be suprised just how many nets operate on the marine freqs. It used to be said that a strictly marine HF radio was pretty much useless, but not anymore. There's plenty of activity. All modern marine SSB's are VFO capable since the FCC opened up many "new" freqs in the 90's on both 4 and 8 megs. To my knowlege, these freqs have never been assigned ITU channels.
|
| |
|
RE: 'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by KB9YZL on October 16, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
To KA3RFE;
You said:
>>>>”If you are going to make excuses for yourself, you'll have to find another excuse, your tinnitus won't work with me.”<<<<
Hey Pete………..Try reading both my posts! I KNOW CODE!……..and I have said so many times in response to other “individuals” who post without bothering to do a complete read.
I mentioned my tinnitis only because I felt that another poster had made a valid point in saying that there were factors that can make learning code more difficult. I never said it made it impossible!
I’m sorry my disability isn’t severe enough for you.
This sort of thing is the reason there is such bitter debate in these threads: People are so anxious to criticize, that they don’t even bother to get their facts straight!
Kent Carroll
KB9YZL
|
| |
|
RE: 'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by G5FSD on October 16, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>by W9WHE
>I can't pass medical school, but I want to be a doctor;
'passing medical school' is directly relevant to being a doctor.
>I can't pass law school, but I want to be a lawyer;
'passing law school' is directly relevant to being a lawyer.
passing a Morse test is NOT directly relevant to being an amateur. Only perhaps if your idea of amateur radio is actually Radio Telegraphy. There is more to amateur radio than this. Heck, it's not even as if you yanks ever complied fully with the ITU regs anyway. They actually specify tests for RECEIVING AND SENDING 'by hand and by ear'.
>So.... I think society should just relax the rules so
> I can be a Doctor, lawyer, dentist AND engineer!
REALLY poor argument.
>AND if siociety (sic) won't, then, I WILL WHINE,
> STAMP MY FEET AND COMPLAIN UNTIL IT DOES!
In other words, if YOU don't get your own way YOU will WHINE, STAMP YOUR FEET AND COMPLAIN etc...
|
| |
|
'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by WB2AMU on October 16, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
There are many excuses....including the one about hearing loss and the code. I have a 35 percent
bilateral hearing loss since the age of three and I actually find the code much easier to copy than
some of the accents that I hear on SSB. The best way to work weak DX is the code and that has
been proven time and time again on the bands. I seriously doubt that there has been that much of
a drop in CW activity...listen to any of the major CW contest and try to tell anyone that there is a
significant drop in CW in the last two or three decades. If anything, it probably has increased.
There are just too many excuses.
|
| |
|
RE: 'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by WR8D on October 16, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
VK3XXX...well as for hearing problems i have a buddy that waivered the code years ago because he couldnt hear it. He bought him self a radio that had varible pitch control. He set the sidetone to something he could hear and today does about 35 wpm in his head while talking to me on the phone.
Sorry where there's a "will" there's a way!
John WR8D
|
| |
|
RE: 'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by KI4CJM on October 16, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Following that logic, if I choose to be a GP (General Practitioner), I be required to jump through the all hoops to be a neurosurgeon just to be accepted into the old boys club. CW is mode. Should we test for ALL modes? To many hams, the CW requirement is 100 times more important than any other part of the process.
|
| |
|
RE: 'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by WR8D on October 16, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
RE KC8KEQ: Well those folks that i'm talking to in all those countries seem to be just great individuals. But never once has one of them ask me for my damn cb handle...or said 10-4 to me when i've ask them a question. All you folks have eyes and ears but you're just not seeing and listening to what its all about..its not code or nocode. Its "trash" and "filth" getting on our bands. Its about being a good operator and respecting others. Its about having pride in the work it took you to make your license what ever class you might be. Most folks are like this..but there are many that fit all the above i've mentioned. Thats why most of us are afraid to see any changes made. We figure it will only get worse.
Sorry to rock the boat guys but get your heads out of the clouds and be aware of the "real" issue...and what is really causing all this split here in the "ham community". Notice i didnt say "cb" community! I've had to deal with these types first hand. It ain't pretty either.
73
John WR8D
|
| |
|
RE: 'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by G5FSD on October 16, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> They actually specify tests for RECEIVING AND SENDING 'by hand and by ear'.
ooops, silly me... past tense required.
They actually specifIED tests for RECEIVING AND SENDING 'by hand and by ear'.
WRC-2003 removed this requirement... perhaps the USA will realise one day ;o)
|
| |
|
RE: 'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by KA3RFE on October 16, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
WB2AMU:
It pushes my buttons when someone says they can't learn code because they have a hearing impairment.
I've mentioned my own profound hearing loss and it did not keep me from learning morse or using it. It might mean I have to fiddle around with the RIT and the cw pitch controls a little, but I copy just fine using headphones with my hearing aids.
It's not an acceptable excuse in my book. It can be gotten around.
73, Pete KA3RFE
|
| |
|
RE: 'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by WILLY on October 16, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
RE: 'Know-Code' Opinion
by KI4CJM on October 16, 2003
All testing for any ham license is a joke. I've been licensed to operate an HF marine SSB on my boat for 10 years. I simple application and a fee gets you a license. I can operate on 8 megs, not 7. I can operate on 12 megs, not 14. I can operate on 4 megs, not 3. This is silly. For the most part, the operators on the marine side of the bands are as courteous and professional as any on the ham side. Of course they certainly aren't as knowlegeable about antennas and the inner workings of a radio. But do they need to be? It makes as much sense as saying that to operate your car on this road you need to study, test, and jump through the hoops, but only block over, the road is available to anyone with $20 and a postage stamp.
Fantastic!
This is wonderful!!
The Code vs. No Code thing has come about due to some people wanting to change Amateur Radio to suit them, instead of joining it as-is.
I think they want voice priviledges on HF.
They have that sort of radio service available to them, with CB, but apparently are not satisified with it, and want to expand. Lots of them are doing so between the CB band and the 10 meter ham band.
So... you have provided the solution.
They can all go to the marine HF bands!
This way, they can all use voice on HF, without learning simple morse code. They won't have to bother hams by trying to change the hobby to suit their needs and wants.
They don't need to worry about the little legal things like only using their HF SSB rigs from boats, because using them from land would be illegal. Shucks, they don't worry about legality right now on the CB band and the so called 'free band' above it.
Thank you for pointing out the availability of HF SSB on the marine bands and inviting them to join you there.
Perhaps you could post this in lots of other places too, so that those that don't want, or don't have the discipline, to learn simple morse code, will know where to take their HF voice desires.
|
| |
|
RE: 'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by KB9YZL on October 16, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KA3RFE;
Pete, your “Profound Hearing Loss” is apparent to all.
Anyone who spent any time at all listening, would have apologized to the people he wrongfully slammed in his previous posts.
But, unless I miss my guess, you won’t “hear” this one either.
Kent Carroll
KB9YZL
|
| |
|
RE: 'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by W5HTW on October 16, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
WILLY Excellent idea! Let 'em chat on the marine bands.
I don't listen to the marine bands these days, as I'm pretty far from any water other than a dab I get from my well. Back in the mid seventies, though, I was near the coast and listened to the 2-3 mhz marine band. Sounded a heck of a lot like 27 MHZ, with, if it's possible, even more profanity. Not much jamming I gotta admit, and they did throw in a legal call sign now and then. Of course, then it was on AM and just moving over to sideband, so there were the same heterodynes heard on 27 mhz.
I also was not aware that marine HF radio was no longer channelized. A "go anywhere" within the bands hobby? Like ham radio but no code? Sounds like a solution we have been searching for. I agree -- let's promote the hell out of marine HF radio. So what if they don't have a boat -- who's going to catch them??!! Why heck, I betcha my Icom 706 would go on the marine bands, too, since I modified it to go on 60 meters.
This is the best solution I've heard since the code debate began to blanket the internet-waves. To be honest, I have liked having them on the internet instead of on the ham bands, but the marine bands sounds even better. Real radio, real 'real time' chat on real sideband, on real HF.
Yes, I love it, and I think we should immediately promote it as the "new ham radio."
Why didn't someone do this before?
And, come to think of it, I have heard a net on 12560 USB, I think was the frequency. It's on every day, checking on boat positions, and sounds a whole lot like the Pacific Seafarer's Net, except this one is on the East Coast. And no profanity, either. I think they even run patches.
Yep, the absolute ideal new ham radio! No skills required except how to find the PTT switch.
Ed
|
| |
|
RE: 'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by WILLY on October 16, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
'Know-Code' Opinion
by W6NNABE on October 15, 2003
>To all of you rabid pro-coders:
I'm not rabid.
I'm healthy.
But I'll reply anyway.
>There is more to ham radio than the code.
Sure is.
>I took my Tech exam just about a week ago, haven't >gotten my callsign yet.
Congratulations.
I remember that wait too.
> I plan to learn CW, as I'm getting into it for the >electronics and the best way to do that is to learn my >way around things like the Pixie. Well, most QRP >hardware is run on HF, so I'm going to have to get my >General ticket fairly soon if I want to do anything >like that.
>That said, let me speak of an analogous possibility: >that perhaps, to proceed from elementary to middle >school, a child has to show proficiency in cursive >writing (not the case anywhere I know, but humor me). >As it is, I never quite mastered cursive. I can read >it, but my handwriting is barely legible as it is (not >to mention a real labor for someone who's prone to >RSIs), and my signature is barely recognizeable as >writing. I don't write script on a daily basis, never >will.
no problem.
Become a Medical Doctor.
<g>
>However, I can do calligraphy, and quite beautifully. >I'm rather proud of that, especially in light of what >my usual handwriting looks like. To me, cursive writing >is an art form and should be treated as such, as a unit >in a school art class or perhaps an entire calligraphy >elective; it's enough for me that someone be able to >communicate in written form without the exact "font" >being an issue. It seems sufficient that a person be >able to read script and sign their name.
"it seems sufficient..." is your opinion.
You are entitled to it, of course.
But you are - in your example - the one trying to get through the school. You are not the one setting the standards for doing such. Either do what the school requires, or don't. Its up to you.
If you don't like what the school requires, quit. Or find another school that teaches something else.
Just because your opinion differs fromt the school's, doesn't mean you have the right to expect the school to change.
>Now I'm not saying Morse has any equivalent to >calligraphy,
Right.
It is not.
> but the fact is that I don't see how it's served to >force someone to learn the code in order to operate >worldwide.
"Force" ???
Nobody is forcing you to do anything.
Even when you try to qualify it with " in order to...".
You are welcome to your opinion, of course. But don't expect the hobby to change just to accomodate you. If you don't like it the way it is.... perhaps it is not for you. Move on... don't waste your time if its not for you. I know I sure don't waste any time on knitting... its just not for me.
Perhaps you would like CB? That band of frequency offers world wide communication when the propogation is good. And to use that band, there is no requirement that you learn simple Morse code.
And if you want to get a real example of force, talk to somebody that has been drafted into the Military Service. That's coming closer to "force", although they do have the option to get around that too... by leaving.
Regarding CW and ham radio, you are not being forced to do anything.
> The ITU doesn't care anymore.
So?
>I *can* see a case for retaining it for Extra >certification, while making it sufficient for Generals >to be versed in worldwide operating procedure and the >physics of long-haul RF linkage.
Again, you are certainly allowed your opinion... but that's not what the hobby is.
By the way, why do you want to change the hobby, instead of accepting it the way it is? or finding a hobby that does suit your needs?
Also, do you, as a newcomer, feel that you know as much about it as those that have been in it for 5, 10, 15, 20+ years?
>The original poster made a very clear case for his >qualifications -- he's pushing the frontiers of radio, >certainly, and knows his way around the equipment >probably better than I ever will.
So?
> Isn't that sufficient to advance him?
In what?
Amateur Radio here in the U.S. ? ? The answer is: of course not.
If he wants to play with radios without learning Morse Code, he should be looking at other radio services. This one requires that operators learn simple Morse code.
He shouldn't be coming to this service, then wanting it to change to suit him. That is downright silly.
> Morse is a tradition, but it's an optional one,
It is?
or is that just your opinion again?
It sure isn't optional in the HF Amateur Radio Service.
>no longer used commercially except by airplane pilots.
So?
Amateur Radio isn't commercial radio, obviously.
What's your point?
>Why should it be an issue for us?
You are right.
It shouldn't be an issue! :)
Like I said, why do people come to this hobby, and make an issue out of it? if the hobby doesn't suit them, then they shouldn't be here whining about it, but should find something else that does fulfill their wants and needs.
They have a lot of nerve - to make an issue out of it! It is very audacious of them, when you really think about it.
> No one's saying we have to stop using it...
I certainly hope not. That would be very silly - to make it illegal to use the most basic form of radio communication, in a hobby that allows home brewing and experimentation.
By the way, you are invited to join us in ham radio on the HF bands. This invitation is not just to you, but to anyone that has the discipline that is necessary to pass the tests. All that is required is passing grade on a written test, and copying CW at only 5 words per minute. It is not unusual for the CW part to be mastered in less than a month's time of study and practice.
This is what is required and you are welcome to decide to join us.
By the way, the tests are much easier today then they used to be. Too easy, actually - but that's just my opinion. :)
|
| |
|
RE: 'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by WILLY on October 16, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"
It's not an acceptable excuse in my book. It can be gotten around.
73, Pete KA3RFE "
So - you are speaking from personal experience.
Thank you for sharing it with us. Because you've been there, it has meaning and weight.
|
| |
|
RE: 'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by WILLY on October 16, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"
RE: 'Know-Code' Opinion
by W5HTW on October 16, 2003
WILLY Excellent idea! Let 'em chat on the marine bands.
"
Ya like that, huh?
<g>
Sad part is... the logic that is in use in the discussion, and the logic that is in use with the 27Mhz freqs - applies.
----
"Yes, I love it, and I think we should immediately promote it as the "new ham radio."
Here, I respectfully disagree. :)
Not sure if we are being silly or serious here, but either way:
I think that part of the problem today, is that so many people out there feel that CB and ham radio are closely related. I feel that is why they are looking at ham radio, when they want to expand.
So, I'd ask that you not promote it as the "new ham radio". Promote it maybe as "World Wide Talking, No Code Radio ". <g>
-----
" No skills required except how to find the PTT switch.
Ed "
Your last line there is exactly what they are looking for! Way to go!
<g>
|
| |
|
RE: 'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by W0UCE on October 16, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Here is a simple solution... Do as many kids try when they don't get their way... Hold your breath until the problem goes away...
Lets get on with the hobby.
|
| |
|
'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by KC8KEQ on October 16, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Let's narrow the argument just a little. To all of you (pro or con) who say that the hobby isn't going to change, may direct your attention to last July and the WRC 2003. Ham radio WAS changed at this conference as far as the world as a whole is concerned. You may or may not agree with their decision but at least until the next WRC the decision will stand. Also as of today there are 13 nations that have dropped the code requirement, ANOTHER CHANGE to the hobby. So please don't argue that ham radio won't change, nobody believes that to be the case anymore. It already has.
And on some sunny morning when the code issue has been decided and we all go back to our radios I think the next problem to be addressed should be a crackdown on amateurs who use profanity and make obscene statements on the air. These people should be handled the same way we do those who jam others transmissions, operate outside of the band they are licensed for and in general conduct themselves as if they never had to answer to anyone. They should receive fines, jail time and confiscature of their equipment.
There is no place in amateur radio for this, ever. I appeal to all of the pro coders, no coders and the don't care coders. Whether it is phone, code, packet, satellite, RITTY or any future mode this conduct has to go.
73 KC8KEQ
|
| |
|
RE: 'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by WR8D on October 16, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
REF N8VB: I guess i really am. They have ruined amateur radio here where i live.
73 from the antichickenband
WR8D
|
| |
|
disabilities and code
|
|
|
by KA3RFE on October 16, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
So, I'm taking some heat from some quarters regarding my firm position that hearing disabilities don't prevent anyone from learning and using morse. It seems to some that I'm slamming them. I'm slamming the complete idea that hearing disabilites preclude learning code. It's simply untrue.
I've been talking with a man who has MS and his condition right now is an alomst complete paralysis. He WANTS to learn morse! But he didn't know how he could do it being as incapacitated as he is. I told him about "puff n sip" devices and suggested he join the Courage Center's HandiHam program and now he's all fired up and plans to take the Tech exam and the 5 wpm code test. He wants to use code and he has alternative ways to study and pass the code test. He's not waiting for the FCC to decide what they'll do about the code tests.
He could just take the technician exam by itself, but he wants the HF privileges the code test allows and is determined to pass the code exam come hell or high water.I have no doubts that he'll make it.
There's a way around almost any disability. I'll never back off from that opinion.
73, Pete KA3RFE
|
| |
|
RE: disabilities and code
|
|
|
by KB9YZL on October 16, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KA3RFE;
OK…………I’ll make this simple, and use small words!
Pete,… I KNOW CODE!
I never suggested that a disability was an excuse for not knowing it. I merely agreed with another poster that there were factors that could make it more difficult.
Jeez………what’s the matter with you?????
TO EVERYONE ELSE: I’m really sorry about spamming the thread to address one person who is either incapable of getting his facts straight, or too stubborn to admit he screwed up. If this post fails to clear things up in his mind, I promise I won’t respond to him again. The rest of you have all been interesting reads, and I have enjoyed it. 73s
Kent Carroll
KB9YZL
|
| |
|
RE: 'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by K4WTW on October 16, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
this no code verse code requirments is getting damn childish. the hams who had to pass a 13wpm code test to get a general ticket thinks they are better ham operators than the ones who only had to have 5wpm and then the 5wpm general thinks they are a better class ham operator than the no-codes.then we have the hams who has been licensed 25+ years without a shadow of a doubt in their minds they are better than all of them. so what makes a better amateur radio operator the one with code so he/she can brag "well when i got licensed we had to pass code and the tests were giving at the fcc building......" or the no-code AMATEUR RADIO OPERATOR who is made to feel like he/she is not a real ham radio operator until they pass a code test. lets just drop all the no-code/code bashing and enjoy the frequencys you have..tech,+/general,advanced and extra class.
|
| |
|
RE: 'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by W5EEX on October 16, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KB9YZL
Spare us.....you can click on the guy's call sign at the top of his posting and send him a direct email....only to him....say anyting you want....and he can then reply and say anything he wants to you.
Then the rest of us can continue to read the droves of other BS that shows up here.
73
|
| |
|
'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by KG4LSH on October 16, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I am very sad to see this topic tearing apart a wonderful group of folks. I will hold my comments on Code or No Code as they are meaningless just the same as all these in this forum until they are no longer comments or opinions but are votes.
|
| |
|
'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by WB2AMU on October 16, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hi Pete, KA3RFE:
Thanks for seconding what I said regarding hearing loss and the code. Like you said, there are ways around it...RIT, volume control, or even touching an external speaker to sense CW. It blows my mind that someone can say they can't hear the code yet they can distinguish SSB. Granted, understanding the code initially can be a problem but I cannot see how a having a hearing loss will prevent some sort of simple code setup. I never thought that CW would be important to me when I started the hobby but it has remained my favorite mode for many reasons.
Thanks again,
KEN WB2AMU
|
| |
|
RE: 'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by KA3RFE on October 16, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Ken WB2AMU:
I can't copy even FM, let alone SSB! But you know something? Someone with hearing aids can copy morse even better than people with more or less normal hearing. All that is needed when QRN or QRM is bad, is to slightly turn up the audio volume and turn the hearing aids down a notch or two. Cuts out quite a bit of the noise that way. I use the "walkman" style headphones and place the pads right over my HA mic on both ears, adjusting for the slight feedback that results. Alternatively, using the hearing aid T-coil switch works great too.
A third method using hearing aids with morse is the induction loop amplifier using the T-coils. The loop is nothing more than a coil of wire soldered to a headphone jack. The coil goes around the neck and the T-coil picks up the magnetic field. I made one out of zip cord.
I bought a Mark V Field this past summer based on the audio specs and the filters and the "shaping" that can be done with it and I'm in heaven! I can do so much with the audio response with this radio that it's almost like Yeasu/Vertex made the thing just for me!
As you say, a hearling loss isn't a barrier. Not really.
73, Pete KA3RFE
|
| |
|
'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by N9XV on October 17, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I think there may be a middle ground for no-coders in the license classes preceeding the EXTRA ticket. I think the extra class exam should always retain the code requirement and offer the extra privileges. I have been a ham since I was about 14 years old and never imagined that I could pass the extra exam, much less pass the 20-wpm code test. I was feeling prety good about passing the 13-wpm test for the general/advanced ticket. I was fortunate to have time to study the code as I was the primary care taker of my newborn daughter at the time. The time thing is really no excuse because we all make time for what we really want or need. I went to bed listening to the code and woke up listening the code. In a few weeks "I KNEW THE CODE". Other hams around me were saying "why waste your time with that, it's gonna be 5-wpm for everybody anyway so just wait a few months". Being the stubborn one, I went ahead and passed the 20-wpm code test just before it changed to 5-wpm (here's a tissue for all you code haters), just to prove to myself I could do it. All that being said, I reallize that the code is not for every one. I DONT hate people who DO hate the code but the no-coders should not have the same privileges as an extra. The powers that be seem to shy away from the word "filter" but we everyday hams know very well that of course it's a filter. To what degree it filters is a good question but it's better than no filter at all. Being a ham is not an inalienable human right, it's a privilege. Just like driving a car is a privilege not a right. You pass the drivers exam, you get a license to drive. You pass a ham radio exam, you get a license to transmit. I respect all aspects of amateur radio, I just think that no-code for everyone across the board is not in the best interest of the future of ham radio. - - - -
Good luck marc, you can do it!
"Sometimes, when nobody is looking, I tune in the 11-meter band just to see what lerks on the other side" - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
MAN I'AM GLAD I'M A HAM ! ! !
73
Kevin
|
| |
|
RE: 'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by KB9YZL on October 17, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W5EEX;
John, I’m really sorry I upset you. I tried to follow the course you indicated, but when I clicked on the individual’s call sign, (and your sign as well) all I saw in the personal profile was a name. No email address, no other information.
It’s entirely possible I’m missing something here, and if there is a way of contacting people who don’t post email addresses in their profiles, I would be grateful if you shared that with me.
73
Kent Carroll
KB9YZL
|
| |
|
RE: disabilities and code
|
|
|
by WILLY on October 17, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"
TO EVERYONE ELSE: I’m really sorry about spamming the thread to address one person "
No, you're not. Else you wouldn't have posted here again, especially with smart a** comments.
" who is either incapable of getting his facts straight,"
He looked like he was doing fine.
" or too stubborn to admit he screwed up."
You can still go ahead and admit your mistakes.
This was your question to him: " Jeez………what’s the matter with you????? "
Maybe you should answer it.
|
| |
|
RE: 'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by WILLY on October 17, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"
the hams who had to pass a 13wpm code test to get a general ticket thinks they are better ham operators than the ones who only had to have 5wpm and then the 5wpm general thinks they are a better class ham operator than the no-codes.then we have the hams who has been licensed 25+ years without a shadow of a doubt in their minds they are better than all of them."
For the record:
I passed a 13wpm code test at the FCC
I've been licensed 25+ years.
I'm not way above average in smarts.
I'm not particularly skilled.
I'm not special.
I'm not better than anybody.
25+ years ago, I didn't ask them to change ham radio so I wouldn't have to learn the code. I looked at ham radio, and decided that it was something I wanted, and that I could do - knowing full well that I would have to learn to copy CW.
So - I went out and learned it.
no big deal.
In other words, I joined the Amateur Radio world.
As one who has been around 25+ years, I invite anyone that wants to, to join us. I think the vast majority of my peers would too.
Anyone that wants, can join us by passing the current exam requirements. That's all that is required.
Including the CW!
Then, they will be one of us.
The 25+ years thing means little, because that is beyond their control.
Learning what is necessary to pass tests to join us, is not beyond their control.
" lets just drop all the no-code/code bashing and enjoy the frequencys you have..tech,+/general,advanced and extra class. "
I semi-agree. Yes, we should enjoy what we have. But there is nothing wrong with wishing to preserve it too, not see it go to ruin.
|
| |
|
RE: 'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by WILLY on October 17, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"I was fortunate to have time to study the code as I was the primary care taker of my newborn daughter at the time."
Let's hear a lullaby in CW!
<g>
" The time thing is really no excuse because we all make time for what we really want or need."
Within limits, agreed.
The 13 and 20 wpm tests obviously were within thousands upon thousands of persons limits.
Surely the 5 wmp test is within peoples time limits.
---
"just to prove to myself I could doit."
In one short sentence, you've said a lot.
About your discipline, which often goes hand in hand with character.
"All that being said, I reallize that the code is not for every one. I DONT hate people who DO hate the code but the no-coders should not have the same privileges as an extra."
True.
" The powers that be seem to shy away from the word "filter" but we everyday hams know very well that of course it's a filter."
Bingo!
Bravo!!
"To what degree it filters is a good question but it's better than no filter at all."
Bingo again!
" Being a ham is not an inalienable human right, it's a privilege. Just like driving a car is a privilege not a right. You pass the drivers exam, you get a license to drive. You pass a ham radio exam, you get a license to transmit. "
Very, very true.
"I respect all aspects of amateur radio, I just think that no-code for everyone across the board is not in the best interest of the future of ham radio. - - - -
"
I agree with you.
|
| |
|
RE: 'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by N3EVL on October 17, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Someone said:
"...The powers that be seem to shy away from the word 'filter' but we everyday hams know very well that of course it's a filter..."
Which is precisely the reason we need to get rid of it!
What is it with this hobby that so many want to set up so many barriers to entry and enjoyment? I swear there are some out there that would glady study and test every day just to prove how 'special' they and the hobby are. What a sorry state of affairs. Maybe we should think about renaming it to the "Amateur Radio Testing & Ego Inflation Service". Funny - I thought a ham ticket was an entry mechanism - you know, demonstrate that you know the basics of theory and rules - then start learning. I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that all we need is one exam, one license class, end of story.
N3EVL
|
| |
|
RE: 'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by N2FKF on October 17, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Amazing. This country has turned into a giant welfare office. Expecting something for nothing. Maybe we should just hire ticket scalpers and place them outside all govt buildings. Why learn a lousy 5 words per minute. Go to the city and buy your extra class license without having to use .00002% of your brain. I am just sick and tired of hearing all this petty argument over a very small issue. If you want your ticket bad enough, WORK FOR IT.
|
| |
|
RE: 'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by N3EVL on October 17, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"...If you want your ticket bad enough, WORK FOR IT. ..."
Of Course! But some here seem to have confused the "working for it" bit with the "now you've got it, use and enjoy it" bit and have made the silly testing part of the process the end-goal!
I also would argue based on the definition of 'it' - if it is a reasonable, sane, contemporary, valid set of skills and accomplishments that I'm supposed to be working towards then that is fine. If 'it' is a filter disguised as a worthwhile task or a task that no longer has the relevance it once had then I argue for it's removal.
N3EVL
|
| |
|
RE: 'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by W5EEX on October 17, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KB9YZL-
Kent, my apologies...you are correct...I clicked on someone else's call and got an email....the one you are
replying to doesn't have one posted.....maybe for obvious reasons. Maybe your only recourse is to mail a
"friendly" QSL card :)
73
|
| |
|
RE: 'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by NI0C on October 17, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N3EVL:
You are right, of course, that the entry testing for amateurs is not the end, but rather a beginning of a journey in what is a wonderful hobby. Although I'm on record as a proud member of FISTS, and I support their proposal for continued Morse testing, I do sympathize with those who have difficulty mastering the code. Perhaps one of the factors in this whole debate is the average age of those who are entering the hobby. Morse is a language, and languages are more difficult for adults to learn. Most of the people (like me) who've been in this hobby for 40 plus years learned the code when they were young teenagers. It was easy for us!
What I fear the most (and I suspect that there are many of us in this camp) about dropping the code testing altogether is the severing of a connection that we once had in the form of a common language. What would that mean for ham radio? I honestly don't know, and I don't think anyone else can predict it either. I do have a passion for Morse (my last SSB contact was about a hundred log entries ago). I want others to share that passion but I recognize that coercion is not the answer.
73 de Chuck NI0C
|
| |
|
UU - W5HTW, To Answer Your Horse Question - UU
|
|
|
by AA9KK on October 17, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W5HTW: "As long as we are talking about dead horses, can someone tell me why owners put blindfolds on horses? I saw three of them (horses, not owners) standing in a pasture this morning, and they all wore blindfolds. (Not blinders.) But they weren't dead, and none of them showed any signs of the kind of torture these code threads are. And they weren't dead, either!"
Emmett, you most likely saw horses wearing fly masks. They're constructed from fine mesh material and can appear opaque from afar, but the horse can see right through it.
Here is a product description of one from the Libertyville Saddle Shop catalog (http://www.saddleshop.com):
THERMO MASTER® Comfort-Aire Protection Products: Fly Hood. Fits snugly around the nose and neck to protect horse's face, eyes and ears from bugs. Fleece binding to prevent chafing. Self-gripping closure. Three sizes for perfect fit. 07-0377 Large (16-1/2 Plus) Horse.
http://www.saddleshop.com/cgi-bin/shopper.exe?preadd=action&key=07-0377&reference=/cgi-bin/shopper.exe%3Fsearch%3Daction%26keywords%3Dcaf%26searchstart%3D0%26template%3DTemplatesSearchResult.html
More information than you probably wanted however I hope this answers the question.
73,
Neil (Chicago, IL)
|
| |
|
RE: UU - W5HTW, To Answer Your Horse Question - UU
|
|
|
by TECH2003 on October 17, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
But, I don't want to learn the code. It's too hard for me. I tried for 30 minutes last week and I just can't learn it. So, please eliminate the code. I did however, memorize the answers for the tech exam so I am a ham and once code is eliminated I will be able to become a General by memorizing some more answers
|
| |
|
'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by K1CJS on October 17, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Marc,
I know how you feel. I've tried to learn code and just can't seem to get it. Tried three times to pass the test and failed to do it three times.
I've given it up. If the future brings an end to the code requirement, I'll rejoice and upgrade. If not, I'll just keep on as I am now.
Talking about it here won't solve anything. You'll just get frustrated--and flamed.
Good luck and 73,
Chris K1CJS
|
| |
|
YZL: stop it alreday!!!!
|
|
|
by KA3RFE on October 18, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Four days ago I sent you an email that has not bounced back telling you that I would not discuss my posts regarding the hearing disailty issue with you on the list or off of it. You have personally ratcheted-up your emotional investment into posts that have nothing to do with you, entering what essentially have become personal insults. Most people who find that their messages are being ignored would conclude that the other party won't engage in further escalations of the topic. My refusal to answer your increasingly irate messages should at least hint to you that I have no desire to deal with you on this. You are taking things that are generic "you" and making them personal. This is not my problem, it's your problem. I'm not getting into it with you.
One Last Time: I WILL NOT RESPOND TO YOUR POSTS1
Does that make it clear enough for you??
|
| |
|
RE: 'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by K2AAU on October 18, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Bill:
I am a no-code technician and enjoy the hobby / service as much as the next guy. With help of an Elmer, I want to take my 5 wpm test to increase my privleges and work the HF bands using CW and Phone on 10m'S. With practice, I hope to build enough proficiency to work CW at a faster pace.
People should get away about making CW a crutch to obtain HF privleges. In fact, Technician should not have been a class license. It should have stayed the same as Tech plus passing the General Theory and 5 WPM. To become a General, all anyone needed was to pass the code test at 13 WPM.
In fact you could say that the people who changed this hobby / service so much were real amateurs themselves. They couldn't leave well enough alone. It wasn't broken and they had to fix it!
Besides, changing the code requirements from 13 to 5wpm of course more people became Generals over night and bought HF gear. Did the HF manufactures reward the Amateur Community with more affordable HF gear?
Oh I know! The HF manufactures want more! They want no CW so that they can sell not only to whom in the Amateur Community wants their products but also to the free-banders so that they can have fun too!
Wake-up ARRL, Don't worry about what the rest of the world is doing. There are more Hams in North America compared to anywhere else. DON'T TAKE AWAY THE CODE REQUIREMENT FROM OBTAINING HF PRIVLEGES.
73 all
Artie
|
| |
|
'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by KA5CVH on October 18, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Without a doubt CW truly is the international language of amateur radio.
However, not everyone is a paper chaser and wants to work every country in the world on every band. As for me I'm in the category of I could care less about working some rare DX station on CW. Just about anyone (including many CB’ers) can buy some plug and play HF radio off the internet, sting some wire in the air and with a little patience “work the world”. Because this is not what interests me about amateur radio does that make me any less of a ham? I sure as heck hope not. It is however my opinion that may of our ranks only sees amateur radio through their eyes. Unfortunately it would appear that many of them have a set of blinders on and refuse to see all the possibilities that amateur radio has to offer.
What about the enormous number of hams who are techs or tech+s and would like to have HF privileges for working the various RACES/ARES/Skywarn/Hurricane nets and provide emergency communications to their communities other than through V/UHF repeaters? Are they any less as important to the hobby?
One of the mandates of amateur radio is the "Advancement of the art". I can only ask how does holding on to a 100 year old mode of communication "advance the art". I am one of those who does value CW as a viable mode of communication but does not see it as a REQUIREMENT for licensing. If you want to work nothing but CW that’s fine with me. But lets move to move the hobby forward and not remain stagnant. We are keeping a lot of people out of the hobby who could be the very one who though hobby experimentation come up with the next greatest communication breakthrough. Wouldn’t it be nice if they’d be in a position to say “if it were not for amateur radio I may have never have had the opportunity to make this discovery”?
Now everyone might as well face it that the CW requirement for amateur radio licensing is going to go the way as that of the Coast Guard maritime CW monitoring stations. And just because the FCC will no longer require CW as a requirement doesn’t mean those who enjoy the key will have to put it away and pick up a microphone in the future.
Mike KA5CVH
|
| |
|
RE: 'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by K9KJM on October 19, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Sigh, This whole "code vs no code" thing is just
like those who were really concerned to get the
deck chairs arranged properly as the Titanic
was going down...... Nowadays, Most people have
NO IDEA what ham radio even is! Let alone
even considering taking any test for what is
fast becoming a hobby/service that will soon
DIE if we do not get young people involved!
I feel really sorry for those bitter old
hams who would rather see the hobby die than
change.
I want to see the CW requirement REMOVED from
tests for the general class license AS SOON AS
POSSIBLE!
(I would however, Like to see a CW test required
for the Extra Class license)
It seems to me this proposal would be a fair compromise
for those who are rabid CW fans.
|
| |
|
RE: 'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by K6BBC on October 19, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Dear K9KJM,
I appreciate your forceful post. You have hit the truth. “MOST PEOPLE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT HAM RADIO EVEN IS!” Yes, the code should be dropped immediately. The ARRL should be fighting for this – fighting for our hobby. But I’ll shut up about that. I’ll just insight more barbs from the listening audience. K9KJM, you are the Ham Messiah.
Just one suggestion for that extra class requirement. Put the requirement back to 20 WPM and let them have special privileges in the CW portion of that band – a portion of the band that should be shrunk to 100 kcs.
K6BBC
|
| |
|
RE: 'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by KD7KGX on October 19, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KA5CVH sez:
Without a doubt CW truly is the international language of amateur radio.
I SEZ:
Yep... regardless of your national origin, if you know Morse code you CAN have a successful QSO with any other ham who knows Morse world-wide. The same can't be said for SSB.
KA5CVH continues:
However, not everyone is a paper chaser and wants to work every country in the world on every band. As for me I'm in the category of I could care less about working some rare DX station on CW. Just about anyone (including many CB’ers) can buy some plug and play HF radio off the internet, sting some wire in the air and with a little patience “work the world”.
I point out:
This isn't true... you can't buy a station that will work the DX Honor Roll off-the-shelf and then work it without operator skill... and CW skills since many of the rarer entities have few hams and few of those work SSB.
I once thought getting DXCC would be easy... but it's a lot harder with low power and wire antennas than I expected (and you state).
KA5CVH continues:
Because this is not what interests me about amateur radio does that make me any less of a ham? I sure as heck hope not. It is however my opinion that may of our ranks only sees amateur radio through their eyes. Unfortunately it would appear that many of them have a set of blinders on and refuse to see all the possibilities that amateur radio has to offer.
I interject:
This is true... but I personally think this is true for this poster as well.
KA5CVH continues:
What about the enormous number of hams who are techs or tech+s and would like to have HF privileges for working the various RACES/ARES/Skywarn/Hurricane nets and provide emergency communications to their communities other than through V/UHF repeaters? Are they any less as important to the hobby?
I point out:
Many of these nets will switch to CW if propagation conditions worsen so that SSB doesn't make it through... or if something else comes up that makes SSB infeasible (equipment or power failure that requires lengthy operation from batteries). What will the no-coder do then?
I submit that it ESPECIALLY behooves anyone involved with RACES or ARES to be as knowledgeable about as many useful methods and modes of ham radio communication as possible, including packet, PSK31, and Morse! I further submit that a continued requirement for a nominal proficiency in Morse is VERY important to both the the hobby AND service aspects of amateur radio.
So... to answer your question, YES... any ham who wants to help his community via ARES/RACES but who is not willing to learn Morse code sufficiently to pass the 5 wpm test is, everything else being equal, worth less as an emergency communicator than the otherwise-identical ham who can operate Morse.
KA5CVH continues:
One of the mandates of amateur radio is the "Advancement of the art". I can only ask how does holding on to a 100 year old mode of communication "advance the art".
I point out:
How old of a mode is voice communication? Just because something is old doesn't mean it is obsolete. We have all sorts of new technology... but the oldest method of creating life is still the best and most reliable (and most enjoyable)!
KA5CVH continues:
But lets move to move the hobby forward and not remain stagnant. We are keeping a lot of people out of the hobby who could be the very one who though hobby experimentation come up with the next greatest communication breakthrough. Wouldn’t it be nice if they’d be in a position to say “if it were not for amateur radio I may have never have had the opportunity to make this discovery”?
I point out:
If someone lacks the discipline to exert enough concentrated effort (a modicum of effort really, compared to passing a college course or holding down a day job) to pass the 5 wpm Morse test, they lack the discipline to invent much of anything. I very much doubt that the "I refuse to study Morse code" bunch is comprised of the mindset that separates great and inventive genius from the rest of us. Instead, they are aligned with the "I refuse to believe the earth is round" and "I refuse to believe man can fly" bunch... those who are afraid to buck the conventional wisdom and try something new and afraid to put forth much effort, because they are afraid to FAIL!
KA5CVH concludes:
Now everyone might as well face it that the CW requirement for amateur radio licensing is going to go the way as that of the Coast Guard maritime CW monitoring stations. And just because the FCC will no longer require CW as a requirement doesn’t mean those who enjoy the key will have to put it away and pick up a microphone in the future.
AS DO I:
I don't think your conclusion is a given. Remember that the Amateur Radio Service exists for different reasons than the other radio services. I don't think that one of those reasons is to get as many people on the air as is possible... that's what FRS and CB are for. I don't think the FCC will throw out the code requirement anytime soon... in fact I think they will keep it for General-and-above license classes, while letting no-coders have LIMITED CW and HF digital mode access to the HF bands.
Then what will the no-coders do? I'm sure some will conclude that it would have been far smarter to just study for a few minutes a day for a month and pass the test, rather than miss out on years and years of HF operating from stubbornness.
|
| |
|
RE: 'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by KB9YZL on October 19, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
A previous post asked the following question;
>>>>”Many of these nets (RACES/ARES/Skywarn/Hurricane) will switch to CW if propagation conditions worsen so that SSB doesn't make it through... or if something else comes up that makes SSB infeasible (equipment or power failure that requires lengthy operation from batteries). What will the no-coder do then?”<<<<<<
I have trouble imagining a scenario where a ham wouldn’t have access to a running vehicle for power purposes. The only time that would become an issue would be in a situation where the supplies of motor fuel were also interrupted for an extended period of time, on a national level. I shudder to think of the kind of scenario that would create that situation.
But anyway,…..within the authors criteria, the question is a valid one! (and I suppose that it never hurts to “plan for the worst”!) The author is, of course, correct: CW will do more with less power and less sophisticated equipment than any other tool we have available. This is a point that none of the “No Code” crowd can deny.
I don’t think things are as grim as some of the more adamant “Pro Coders” seem to feel. The average ham is generally a pretty smart fellow,…..even the “No Code” guys! (Don’t flame, I meant that humorously!) Every new Ham that I know has several books around the house that contain the Morse Alphabet. If a situation arises where CW is the only way to make contact, and you give the average “No Code Ham” tem minutes to collect his thoughts, he will be able to pre-write his code message on paper, and then send it.
Will his timing be right?……….No, but an operator who really knows code will be able to figure it out.
Will he be able to “read” the reply in real time?……No, but an experienced operator will have figured from his transmission that a REAL slow response is in order. The “No Coder” can copy down the dots and dashes, and translate from his “cheat sheet”. In a real national/global emergency CW can always be made to work, one way or the other.
I very much hope that CW continues to be a popular mode of transmission. Whether or not it should be a testing criteria is an entirely separate issue (at least in my mind).
Kent Carroll
KB9YZL
|
| |
|
RE: 'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by NN6EE on October 19, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It's a shame that eventually Morse will be eliminated as a FCC Testing element as it is one more HURDLE that I think should be required to learn in order to get HF operating privileges. But with the apparent dumbing-down of Amateur Radio in our immediate future that the next objective of the "Testing-Whinners" will be the elimination of the Theory elements as well!!! Since most guys are now "Plug'N'Play" types what's the need for something to learn that's just as hard as Morse in some Slackers' eyes???
Ultimate Amateur Radio testing will be on Rules/Regulations and Operating procedures + 20USD for a call-sign!!! I bet I'm right!!!
Jim/nn6ee
|
| |
|
RE: 'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by W8MW on October 19, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N3EVL: I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that all we need is one exam, one license class, end of story.
Yeah, me too Pete. The Wireless Institute of Australia developed a position paper for their radio
regulatory agency. It includes a Beginner class with generous access to HF, all modes and a power restriction. They also proposed amalgamation of all other license classes into a single license. They are aware of the damage from divisions and segregation inside amateur radio and are doing something about it. I hope they are successful and would like to see that exact approach here.
73, Mike W8MW
|
| |
|
'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by WB8ROL on October 19, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
After seeing so many pathetic responses to the original post -- none of which have convinced me there EVER should have been a C.W. requirement for an Amateur license -- I have made a vow NEVER to use the CW mode again. Not even at gun point.
Many of my fellow "hams" make me ashamed to be associated with them.
Maybe they should petition the F.C.C. to tighten up the requirements some more.
Maybe this might make a few happy :
1. 50 WPM code send/receive with straight key
2. Masters degree in related electronics field
3. 3 year membership with MENSA
4. Average yearly income of $500,000.00 or more
5. Ability to break dance and yodel while making
a french crepe at the same time.
That should get rid of all them lowlife slackers
and make it a real elitist club!!
|
| |
|
RE: 'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by N8RR on October 19, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This code issue is unbelievably devisive. It should not be, in my opinion. There are far greater threats to the future of ham radio. Some of the threats, not necessarily in order are:
1. Increasing restrictions or prohibitions on antenna installation from CC&R and zoning rules. It is already far more difficult to buy a house and put up an antenna
than it used to be.
2. Proliferation of home electronic devices of all kinds that are susceptible to interference from RF. Yes,these devices are supposed to be able to filter out and not be affected by our signals, but we live in the real world.
3. BPL could become the worst of the systems/devices which will affect ham radio, both in terms of noise generated in our receivers and susceptibility of the BPL system to our signals. I think if a system gets widely deployed that will not co-exist with us, at least as far interference from our signals goes, we will lose in the end.
4. Aging of the ham population, because of the low number of youngsters coming into the hobby. This is directly related to the computer and internet explosion.
The no code license proponents make much of the fact that morse is now obsolete. In reality, ssb voice transmission on HF, other than for ham and perhaps some maritime channels, is nearly obsolete. Heck, the standard landline telephone is becoming obsolete. Everyone uses a cell phone now. You can sit on your computer and voice or keyboard chat around the world with no radio, antenna hassle, or license. Where is the attraction for new people to get into ham radio and talk on the radio? I don't have the answer to this question.
One thing is clear to me. If we want the ham radio hobby to go on, we need to attract people. Thus, licensing should not have a requirement to learn an archaic, if traditional, skill only to be allowed to get on the radio and use only a slightly less archaic mode. I am in favor of eliminating the CW testing requirement for all but the Extra class license, and would keep that at 5 WPM. For whoever is interested in this hobby, get them in if they can pass the written test and hopefully the bug will bite and they will stay interested.
I have been licensed since 1962 at age 14, and passed all my General and Extra code and theory exams at an FCC office. I used CW exclusively for several years, as all my equipment was homebrew and simple. Most of my friends who got licensed at the same time went to phone and more or less remained. In the Navy, in 1966, my morse knowledge caused me to be assigned overseas for 3 years as a Morse Intercept Operator. My expertise was high speed morse reception (coded groups 50 wpm +). Many of my personal ham friends never touched a key after becoming licensed. Many did. I never considered those who were not morse proficient to be any less of a ham than I was. To each his own. If I wanted to talk to them, I went to phone.
Those of us who know and use CW should try our best to interest newcomers into learning this interesting mode. I don't think we should mandate it, not in this modern age.
One concern many CW using hams have is, with the influx of people who don't use code, the continuance of the CW sidebands. If you don't use CW, it might surprise you how many hams use it, even newer ones. CW scores in contests keep going up every year, in spite of the OT's becoming SK's. Although CW can co-exist with ssb, it is not very pleasant. Co-existing with digital signals is bad enough.
These are my thoughts.
73, Chas N8RR
|
| |
|
'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by KC8UMB on October 20, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I have been following all the code/no code threads for some time now. I felt the same as alot of others, why learn code, I will probably never use it. But as of now if you want to upgrady you have to learn it. I started studying it and did'nt think I would ever be able to learn it. I seen they were offering testing in my area in 2 weeks and it was a day that would fit into my schedule. Well I started studying it and just kept at it and in 2 weeks I took the test and passed. The first day I started studying I think I tried about 4 differant computer programs, I was ready to give up, but figured I would just give it some time. A week later it started coming together and the following week I passed the test.
If anyone wants any info on the programs I used or the methods I used for studying, e-mail me and I will be happy to help you out.
If I would of put the same time into studying the code as I did reading all the threads on the debate I would of had it down a long time ago.
I was not able to take the written test the same time I took the code do to the fact that the ve's could not give the written for General, but hope to take the written in the next 2 weeks. I will look forward to working some of you on hf
73
Jeff
KC8UMB
|
| |
|
RE: 'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by K7IHC on October 20, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
To all the no-code bellyachers: quit whining.
After all this, I believe I'll stay a *no-code* Tech for awhile. I *do* support dropping the 5 wpm Morse receive test for General class, but that's not my point.
I was all fired up to get my General by this January. I studied for the written test and was easily passing all the practice tests. I started studying Morse with the Koch Method on my computer. But lately, I've been wondering why I should even want to operate HF, when I haven't even begun to use all the spectrum and modes available above 50 MHz? Most of my routine contacts are through VHF/UHF linked repeaters in my greater metro area when I'm mobile or at home. I enjoy talking with these *locals* and eventually meeting them in person. I've made a few good friends that way. Some of the linked systems cover most of the state, too. That makes for some good *repeater DX-ing*. I also like the smaller size of VHF/UHF antennas, especially on my house. This year, I've also gotten into 23 cm (1.2 GHz) FM operations and have built an APRS tracker device from a kit. APRS is a neat and useful thing, and I'm planning on soon expanding my APRS capabilities.
I've met some of the local repeater system owners, and I'm learning a lot about just how complex a linked, wide-area VHF/UHF repeater system is and how much knowledge and effort it takes to build and maintain it.
Another fellow ham (General class) has a great time operating 6 meter SSB. I just got a 3-element 6m Yagi, and hope to soon try SSB ops on this band, as soon as I find a suitable radio. I'd also like to try SSB on 2 meter and 70 cm, as I hear it's a challenging way to operate. I've built some VHF/UHF antennas, and even a few 23 cm ones, too. I like to re-program and tweak commercial VHF/UHF equipment for ops on the 2m/70cm bands. Packet operations and SSB on 23 cm (or higher?) sound interesting, and I might do those eventually.
With all these great opportunities above 50 MHz, I can't really find a reason why I *need* to get HF privileges at this time. So, I have hung-up the Morse lessons for awhile and have lost interest in taking the General written. Some of these feelings may have been strengthened by all this no-code/know-code mudslinging, but most of it came from a self-analysis of why I'm a ham and what I like to do (and mainly do)as a ham. HF ham ops just don't fit into my life at this time.
|
| |
|
RE: 'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by TECH2003 on October 20, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I'm so tired of the hams that just don't want to learn code complaining about how they shouldn't have to and how unfair it is to them. If you don't want to then leave. Just go an find another hobby. Let FRS, MURS, CB and GMRS satisfy your radio needs. But, please leave us hams who want to learn something out of your crying games.
|
| |
|
RE: 'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by NE2Q on October 20, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Currently more than one third of all licensed hams cannot copy Morse. If your microphone fails, don’t depend on them to be listening for your PTT Morse emergency transmission.
|
| |
|
'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by KU4GW on October 20, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Know what you mean Marc(W1NTI). I'm a 20 wpm Extra Class and I cannot beleive some of the idiotic comments that some hams post on here. I understand perfectly what your saying. I have a good friend, W3RAM Russ who is 62 years old and has made much effort at learning CW with no success. He is a fine courteous operator and to no avail, has no success with code comprehension. CW is not everyone's cup of tea, although I like and enjoy it, to put it frankly,
"I want Russ on HF, he's one hell of a good & courteous ham!", unlike some of the idiots I've encountered on 75 meters recently. I just sent in an
Intentional Interference Complaint a few weeks ago to K4ZDH about 2 hams(more like CB'ers-KR4IS and KA4OEY who were playing Tarzan yell type noise makers on top of myself and W4WWF Dale on 3867.5 Khz whom had been in QSO for 20 minutes prior to the QRM, not to mention the belching noise.) Mmmmmm, fine examples of CW licensed ops, considering one is and Advanced and the other a General Class licensee,respectfully to the calls listed above. Even guys who have passed the code can be rude and malicious insofar as acting like idiots on Amateur Radio! I'm all for good operators, code or not talking to me on HF, because if I had to choose between idiots that know code and act like children and ops that don't know CW and act like good radio operators, I'll choose the latter any day of the week. Hey, just my opinion, but, hell!, I'm entitled.
73 de KU4GW Cliff
|
| |
|
RE: 'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by K6BBC on October 20, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Currently more than one third of all licensed hams cannot copy Morse. If your microphone fails, don’t depend on them to be listening for your PTT Morse emergency transmission. "
If they can't copy Morse, I'll use my cell phone. This is no argument. It does not hold up. Forget about it. Please. There is no reason to learn code today. None. Nada. Forget it guys. Let it go. We need more ham. DROP THE CODE! SAVE HAM RADIO form from the boring geezers. DROP IT!!! NOWWWWWW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
K6BBC
|
| |
|
'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by K1MKF on October 21, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I learned the code. Why? Because I thought CW was real Ham radio. I found it difficult. I tried three methods before I could pass a 5 wpm test. I did pass, with solid copy. I used it on the air ONCE and never again. Why? Because I didn't like it, it was like PSK and AOL IM, both of which I discarded after a short time. I enjoy hearing another Human's voice. Just like silent movies lack somthing that's the way I felt about CW, PSK or AOL IM.
Now, did this make me a better operator? I don't think so. Did the pride of accomplishment stir something inside me? I don't think so. Is it good I learned it for the "big one" when only CW will get through? No, I only remember CQ and SOS. I do not want easy or non-existent testing. I just doubt the validity of CW testing for non-CW privledges.
And finally, the big contradiction. Do I support the retention of CW testing? Yes! Just to save the hobby from the fighting. I would even endorse a 10-20 wpm Extra. The old timers will never accept the newbies without a CW test. Just give the new guys a taste of HF with small voice, cw and data subbands prior to CW testing. They will either try it and upgrade or go away. Better yet, make the first license only good for a few years to get those that give up out of the database quicker.
|
| |
|
RE: 'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by W9WHE on October 21, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
BOTTOM LINE:
Cant learn code = won't learn code.
Hams that are as young as 10 and as old as 70 have learned code.
Hams that never finished high school and hams with M.D and J.D. degrees have learned code.
Hams that can't speak english have learned code.
The world has a place for those that won't learn code, its called "above 30 Mhz".
IF YOU WANT TO ENJOY HF, THEN EARN IT LIKE THE REST OF US DID. I'M SO TIRED OF THOSE THAT EXPECT EVERYTHING FOR NOTHING. (they are called Democrats)
|
| |
|
'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by VE6VQ on October 22, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Gee, there's almost as much Internet bandwidth wasted on this debate as there is on spam e-mail :-).
My two cents worth is to agree with others who have pointed out that while our little family sitting on the HF couch, arguing about which channel to watch on the "mode" TV, commercial interests with real political power and better organization than us are eating away at our spectrum and our privileges. Time to pay attention and forget about who's right. We could all end up being dead wrong. Freeband anyone? That's all that will be left if we aren't careful and wise now.
|
| |
|
RE: 'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by TECH2003 on October 22, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
But, I don't want to learn the code. It's too hard for me. I tried for 30 minutes last week and I just can't learn it. So, please eliminate the code. I did however, memorize the answers for the tech exam so I am a ham and once code is eliminated I will be able to become a General by memerizing some more answers.
|
| |
|
'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by WB8ROL on October 22, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I just had a great idea. Let's raise the standards for an Amateur license to require a test on modern computer competency. That would eliminate 90% of the geezers who want to make Ham Radio a bunch of elitist CW operators.
I am sure most Ham operators can barely find their way around the modern OR any computer and yet they talk about technology .....
If the geezers don't get with technology they may die with a staright key in their hands and take Amateur Radio with them ...
CW is fun, it's even useful BUT it should NOT be a requirement -- A more important requirement would be computer literacy and REtesting the old gezers to weed out the computer-phobes!
Whew! Nothing like a good rant ..... especially when there is some truth to it .....
|
| |
|
RE: 'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by OLDFART13 on October 22, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
The computer idea is a good one for the new know-nothing hams that think DX is working Oregon on echolink. Hell, you can get your DXCC with two box tops and AOL IM. But don't mention having to work for a few weeks to earn a license, that would be too much work. Hey mom, can you buy me a Dell so I can pretend to be a ham operator.
|
| |
|
RE: 'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by WB8ROL on October 22, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"IF YOU WANT TO ENJOY HF, THEN EARN IT LIKE THE REST OF US DID. I'M SO TIRED OF THOSE THAT EXPECT EVERYTHING FOR NOTHING. (they are called Democrats)"
Hooray! Spoken like a true elitist. By gum if a 10 year old can learn code AND if Mozart wrote concertos at age 6 well NOone should be allowed to listen to music unless they can send code ...... Does this sound nonsensical? So does a lot of what I see on this forum ... Some folks should be glad that the F.C.C. doesn't test for logical thinking to get a Ham license .....
Eltists of the world unite!
|
| |
|
RE: 'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by WB8ROL on October 22, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"The computer idea is a good one for the new know-nothing hams that think DX is working Oregon on echolink. Hell, you can get your DXCC with two box tops and AOL IM. But don't mention having to work for a few weeks to earn a license, that would be too much work. Hey mom, can you buy me a Dell so I can pretend to be a ham operator."
Ahhhhhhh! The computer-phobes come out ... at last. Mayhaps the computer could be used for something else besides echolink? Of coursr not ..... never .... what tripe ...
Watch OUT!!! There is a keyboard sneaking up on you! Duck!
|
| |
|
RE: 'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by K6BBC on October 23, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
“IF YOU WANT TO ENJOY HF, THEN EARN IT LIKE THE REST OF US DID. I'M SO TIRED OF THOSE THAT EXPECT EVERYTHING FOR NOTHING. (they are called Democrats)”
Truly one of the most ignorant post I have yet seen. I want to drop the code like a bad coin and I’m not a Democrat. Some days I really think the code testing should be replaced by psychological testing.
K6BBC
|
| |
|
RE: 'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by OLDFART13 on October 23, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Yes, it's true. Ham radio license are going the way of the democrats welfare state. To lazy to work, we'll give you welfare. Not enough money for the stupid, have more kids we'll give you more money. You're a hard worker and you pay your taxes, then you must be a mean spirited right wing whacko who just wants to hurt the poor stupid welfare people who are too lazy to work. Those who are too stupid or lazy to learn the code can get their HF license while they wait in the welfare line to get their NCI license.
|
| |
|
'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by N4UPX on October 24, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Marc
I Just last year got my General ticket. I like you had one heck of a time with the code. I like you was for ever talking on 6 and 2 meters. I got the tech no code back in 90 and just year like I said made it to General. Please don't give up on the code keep trying. It took me 5 times before I got it. Don't let these people get you down.
73 Bob N4UPX
|
| |
|
'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by W9TM on October 24, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
It's seems strange to hear so many arguing over the cw requirement when the real impairment to entry to ham radio is the written test. What a waste! People who already know electronics and communications theory learn nothing from memorizing the answers in the license manual. People who know absolutely nothing about electronics and communications theory learn nothing from memorizing the answers in the license manual. It's simply an artificial barrier to entry to our hobby.
|
| |
|
RE: 'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by KB9YZL on October 24, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W9TM;
You are, of course, joking................right???
Kent Carroll
KB9YZL
|
| |
|
'Know-Code' Opinion
|
|
|
by W9TM on October 24, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Kent:
No, I'm not joking. The written test is a waste and an insult to the people we ask to take it. We might as well be asking folks to memorize bible verses or poetry as the material we have them memorizing now. Today, like cw, it's just an entry barrier.
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Related News & Articles
Passing It On
Will April 15 Make Any Difference?
Holders of Expired Novice, Tech Licenses Eligible
Typing is Just a Mode!
Element 2 Study Guide:
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?
|
