Let's Have CW on 60 Meters
Hal Williams (N6TZ)
on
May 13, 2004
View comments about this article!
An open letter to the ARRL:
I do not hear all that much activity on 60 meters. It is a good band, but after the first few months it has become a band that needs more use.
I cannot believe that the FCC and NTIA would be in a jam to copy CW. If there was a very unusual situation where they needed to identify a station using CW, I believe they would have recorded the station and could find a code buff on their staff to copy the CW.
I think it is time to petition for use of CW on at least one of the present USB channels. With 2.8 kHz of bandwidth allowed, there is easily room for 2 simultaneous CW channels.
For Instance, the present USB channel centered on the 5405.0 kHz could accomodate CW on 5404.5 kHz and 5405.5 kHz. This would leave .9 kHz guard on each outer side and 1.0 kHz between CW channels. Anyone with a 500 Hz filter could work under those conditions.
Just like the USB operation on this band, the CW ops will have to learn their radios and the offset techniques to be "on channel", however, I think that we proved we can do this as there were very few mistakes on USB when the band opened.
What do you think.
Hal, N6TZ@arrl.net
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
|
Let's Have CW on 60 Meters
|
|
|
by WR8D on May 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hal when we really give it some thought its pitiful. Think about it, many of the ones making the rules now are no coders. They wanted to be hams and could'nt make the grade so they got in key positions and got the rules changed. I'm all for cw on 60.
73
John WR8D
|
| |
|
Let's Have CW on 60 Meters
|
|
|
by KZ1X on May 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Actually, we are already allowed MCW on this band. (I see no rule against it.)
So, it's daft for the FCC/NTIA to not allow OOK type emissions, especially since they are narrower in bandwidth than USB. They are also easily 'removed' with simple notch filters in the unlikely event that someone didn't want to hear them.
|
| |
|
Let's Have CW on 60 Meters
|
|
|
by W3JJH on May 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
We are secondary users of the 60 m band. None of the primary users use Morse code. The primary users (such as Homeland Security) need to be able to identify amateur stations using the band. It is reasonable to require that we operate using a compatible mode.
If you want to operate using telegraphy, there are 3.5 MHz of HF spectrum available to use.
|
| |
|
RE: Let's Have CW on 60 Meters
|
|
|
by JN3XCV on May 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Could we key up our mikes on 60m, and then say into them: dah di dah dit dah dah di dah?
Hmmm spoken CW, just a thought.
|
| |
|
RE: Let's Have CW on 60 Meters
|
|
|
by K2WH on May 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
CW? Why CW? with the single channels we have with a given bandwidth allowance, it would be much better to allow narrow band PSK or one of the other digital modes.
Technically, it is possible to fit 32 individual conversations in a 1khz space. This would be shoulder to shoulder signals. Not a reality. However, since we have more than 2khz per channel, each channel could easily accomodate about 50-60 individual qso's. CW, the individual qso's would be very limited.
So, I think a petition for PSK priveledges should be started instead of trying to use wide band and obsolete modes such as CW.
K2WH
|
| |
|
RE: Let's Have CW on 60 Meters
|
|
|
by KC9BNY on May 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
From Hal: “Hal when we really give it some thought it’s pitiful. Think about it, many of the ones making the rules now are no coders. They wanted to be hams and couldn’t make the grade so they got in key positions and got the rules changed. I'm all for CW on 60. “
Another sad state of affairs from WR8D. With his childish mentality and arrogant narrow-mindedness he believes that the ones wishing to change the CW requirement are the ones who do not have the ability to learn it. HA! Well I guess Hal is really the dumb one and even more pitiful because he has not the ability to place himself in a position of authority/rule-making to keep CW rules and requirements from changing.
This country of ours has been shaped by those who had the intelligence and constitution to stay the course and effect change. Hal is one of those who sit on the sidelines criticizing all those rules in life that he can never change. You must feel very helpless Hal. I bet you think the speed limits and seat-belt laws are pitiful and break them consistently every day saying to yourself “these rules are silly so I just won’t adhere to them. I’m going to do things my way.”
Well Hal, perhaps one day you will grow up and become one of the rule-makers instead of a rule-breaker. But I forgot you are one of the OLD Hams, tired, hopeless, helpless, undeniably and extremely resentful of those who do not have to ‘jump’ through the same hoops as you once did. I do not believe so, but perhaps, one day you will begin to think of others as equals rather than believing only those who have stepped in your shoes will ever understand you.
|
| |
|
Let's Have CW on 60 Meters
|
|
|
by WB9NJB on May 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Good Lord, here we go again. Please, stop the insanity. _ _... ..._ _
|
| |
|
Let's Have CW on 60 Meters
|
|
|
by WA0ZZG on May 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
How about proposing this:
Using any narrow band data mode, CW included. On
channel center. Then do a USB voice ID every
10 minutes. This is not in the spirit of using a
narrow data mode, but satisfies the ID requirement.
Dave...
|
| |
|
Let's Have CW on 60 Meters
|
|
|
by W3DCG on May 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Bring it on.
I've tuned in before just for grins, heard nothing.
Scanned the CHANNELS, heard nothing.
I'll sign it.
|
| |
|
Let's Have CW on 60 Meters
|
|
|
by M0AFJ on May 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
In the UK we are allowed to transmit CW, PSK SSTV and other digital modes, can't see why you guys can't have the same privilages.
Theres qite a bit of experimentation over here using low power and digital modes (including cw!), should the need arise its quite possible that your mains power may be out and battery powered transmitters may be all you have.
Just a thought, it might help you with your petitioning the FCC
|
| |
|
RE: Let's Have CW on 60 Meters
|
|
|
by KJ7XJ on May 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I agree. I was all excited a year ago when we got this small slice of spectrum. Now I tune across it and I dont hear much. If we want to keep it, I think digital modes should be allowed. I would love to be able to use the keyer on 5 Mhz. - Eric
|
| |
|
RE: Let's Have CW on 60 Meters
|
|
|
by K2LES on May 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The code is dead. Why do you people keep hanging onto it?
|
| |
|
RE: Let's Have CW on 60 Meters
|
|
|
by K2LES on May 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The code is dead. Why do you people keep hanging onto it?
|
| |
|
Let me guess: K2LES is a vanity call, right?
|
|
|
by KZ1X on May 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Code is dead?
Les, let me share a story with you, to help you become a bit more open-minded.
Did you know that, not so long ago, tomatoes were thought to be poisonous? People would see the "wolf's apples" growing and, because they had been told they were poisonous, nobody ate them.
Then, one day, somebody tried one, and they found it to be delicious. They didn't drop dead! In fact, we now know it's one of the most healthful fruits you can eat.
All you have to do is try it. Not just a nibble; really get to be a tomato expert. Then, and only then, would you be qualified to tell someone what you think about tomatoes and expect them to listen to your opinion.
In the meantime, tomatoes aren't poisonous, and LOTS of people eat them. If you leave them out of your own diet, fine; that is your loss. But don't say they're deadly if they're not, and especially when you don't have any in-depth personal experience on the subject.
Back to this thread: we ARE already allowed CW on the 60m band. In fact, as soon as I get a chance, I will get on that band and key my USB rig with a 700 Hz tone, identifying only in voice. Show me where it's illegal, and I'll stop.
|
| |
|
Say what?
|
|
|
by WB2WIK on May 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I think, based on propagation, practical antennas and the established (and incredibly low) e.r.p. limit for the 60m allocation, we could easily fit 100+ CW QSOs on any single channel without bothering each other or anybody else.
Spacing between perfectly copyable CW sigs during a CW contest such as the ARRL DX, ARRL SS or CQ WW is about 20 Hz. Often, less. Sometimes, a lot less, and the tone I hear is the beat note between stations that are nearly zero beat -- still results in easy contacts.
It's called operating skill, a neat thing that many hams used to have and some still do.
WB2WIK/6
|
| |
|
Let's Have CW on 60 Meters
|
|
|
by N6TZ on May 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Let me add a little to my original posting. I am not against petitioning for narrow digital modes to be included in this proposal.
PSK would be a fine mode to include and that could be allocated in the very center of the channel. Probably room for many PSK channels and they would not affect or be effected by the adjacent CW channels. A darn good idea. Will one of you PSK people please figure this out? Post your idea of how much bandwidth you need for up to maybe 6 PSK channels in the middle. ( see my original frequency proposal at the head of this string )
The idea of cultivating this channel to handle a combination of modes like this should be pleasing to everyone, including the ARRL and FCC. This is what the Ham spirit should strive to accomplish.
Now is the time to let our constructive comments be known to the ARRL. Please email them to the following ARRL leadership:
1. The head of the ARRL Regulatory Information services, John Hennesse reginfo@arrl.org
2. Your ARRL Section Manager: you can find him by looking at this website: http://www.arrl.org/sections/
In the meantime, let's try to be creative, and get something positive going.
Do I have support? Let me know !
Hal N6TZ@arrl.net
|
| |
|
RE: Let's Have CW on 60 Meters
|
|
|
by W5HTW on May 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I have an idea! Let's operate CW on 80 meters!
One reason 60 meters is going to pot is summer propagation and QRN.
The powers who do be, and yes, they do be the powers, told us five channels, and how to use them. We aren't using them very much, so why are we complaining we need more freedom? We aren't using what we have.
I'm all for CW, and my operating is probably 80 percent or better CW. But I have a feeling if we start demanding CW, PSK31, RTTY, Wi-Fi, enhanced SSB, spread spectrum and amateur fast scan TV on 60 meters,(Ok, I'm being facetious) they'll say "Sorry, folks, you looked this gift horse down his throat. We're taking it back." We don't "have" to have that band. And it is shared. When it is no longer shared and becomes exclusively a ham band, then we may have more of a say in how to use it.
But there are always those who, if you give 'em a piece of pie, that want the whole damned bakery. Let's let this band - or 'channels; - simmer a bit with use, until we consider it well done. It is still raw at the moment, and the oven isn't even warm.
Ed
And WIK is right - skills many hams used to have and some (whoops, make that "a few") still do.
Want summer QRN? I'll meet ya on 80 meters. Though I prefer 40.
Ed
|
| |
|
RE: Let's Have CW on 60 Meters
|
|
|
by NI0C on May 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
In principle, I am in favor of CW privileges on 60 meters. However, unless our 60 meter privileges were expanded to an actual band, I think operating CW and other narrow-band data modes within the existing channelized arrangement would be unwieldy.
73 de Chuck NI0C
|
| |
|
RE: Let's Have CW on 60 Meters
|
|
|
by WR8D on May 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Jeff that was totally uncalled for but to be expected from a tech like yourself. What do you know about hf? Let me answer, not a damn thing. You don't even have a right to be in this conversation. Go troll on the cb bands where you belong.
John WR8D
|
| |
|
RE: Let's Have CW on 60 Meters
|
|
|
by DUALGATEMOSFET on May 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
All the attacks against CW in this thread were made by either Technician class licensees or those with a reputation for championing the cause of code test abolition. K2LES, code is only dead in your head. It is only dead in your fantasy world. KC9BNY is an obnoxious ill-mannered dog with a dangerous attitude. If he or anyone like him takes power in our country, anyone over 50 will suffer the same fate that Jews did in Nazi Germany. Baby Boomers beware. There are a lot of dangerous people out there with zero tolerance for anyone over 50.
The no-coders lied. They claim that they only want code testing eliminated, not the mode itself. It is obvious to me that they want CW wiped completely clean from the face of the earth.
IMO, anyone with no knowledge of CW is not a real ham, but a cheap counterfeit - a CBer.
73 from DUALGATEMOSFET
aka
"The Epitaxial One"
|
| |
|
RE: Let's Have CW on 60 Meters
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on May 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Gentleman,
I always found that one can disagree with one's opinions expressed without the need to start an "US vs. Them" mentality.
No one ever wins those type of discussions.
73
|
| |
|
RE: Let's Have CW on 60 Meters
|
|
|
by KC9BNY on May 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
My apologies to Hal, N6TZ. My comments are directed to John WR8D to first to reply to Hal's post. There is never a bad or wrong question to ask Hal only bad and wrong answers such as those from John WR8D!
|
| |
|
RE: Let's Have CW on 60 Meters
|
|
|
by WR8D on May 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Ref KC9BNY: As i said your comments were totally uncalled for but to be expected from a tech with your attitude. Go troll on the chickenband!
John WR8D
|
| |
|
RE: Let's Have CW on 60 Meters
|
|
|
by WK2X on May 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I wonder if it would help if someone who earned his extra class ticket "the hard way" many years ago would voice support for removing the morse code requirement? Probably not.
Saying a "no-coder" isn't a "real ham" makes about as much sense as saying a "no-slow-scanner" isn't a real ham.
|
| |
|
Let's Have CW on 60 Meters
|
|
|
by G0GQK on May 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
What special properties does 60 metres have over and above every other band of frequencies that makes it so important to have CW usage ?
Morse code can be sent around the world quite adequately on 30 metres, the band is designated for Morse code and there are vast acres of space.
Why do amateurs always have the "need" to cram themselves together, it only ends with QRM and bad tempered users
|
| |
|
RE: Let's Have CW on 60 Meters
|
|
|
by N5KBP on May 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well said Mel. 80 has 250 kc's 40 has 150 kc's. Why do we need aprox 15 more kc's on 60?
N5KBP
Advanced class Know coder.
|
| |
|
RE: Let's Have CW on 60 Meters
|
|
|
by WB2WIK on May 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
G0GQK, very good point.
There may be some time of day when 60m would work better than any other band, and that would explain the reason for trying it; but you're right about 30m, which is "open" about 20 hours a day and still isn't crowded...
WB2WIK/6
|
| |
|
Let's have SSB on 30m
|
|
|
by K4RAF on May 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
You CW freaks have 50KHz on 30M with no SSB, by FCC decree...
We have 5 'borrowed' channels on 60M that are USB, by NTIA accomodation. The FCC has nothing to do with it!
It makes better sense to propose SSB use in 30M since it is not used heavily at all & the FCC controls the band unlike 60M..
You CW freaks want to keep hanging on to the life boat that is sinking around the world.
Can we get back to looking for BPL under every rock & impeding high speed wireless development on any amateur bands, even if no hams use them except on paper?
"Smart Dust" is coming: Do you even know what it is?
Not likely but we have an "@" in CW...
Technological stagnation & absurd preservation = Ham Radio circa 2004
|
| |
|
RE: Let's have SSB on 30m
|
|
|
by N6AJR on May 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Aw come on folks.. Cw is a mode, Not a measure of Ham-ness.. really. I am an old fart, and had to learn it in 1978 to get my Tech ticket.
An I have used it on an off over the years, but I prefer ssb, rtty and psk31 in that order so lets not do another Cw is dead, long live Cw, its just another mode..
Ue it if you choose anywhere but 60m it ain't allowed there..any where else is ok.. should be enough room for any CW'er..
|
| |
|
Let's Have CW on 60 Meters
|
|
|
by N4QA on May 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
YES!
CW on 60 meters NOW!
NTIA & FCC would do well to encourage...nay, DECREE...the use of ALL digital modes on 60 meters.
CW must be first...we OFs believe in SENORITY!
Got CW? or, got MILK? It's up to you.
|
| |
|
RE: Let's Have CW on 60 Meters
|
|
|
by W3ASH on May 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
KC9BNY: That was so well put. Very well thought out and deftly stated. Thank you!
|
| |
|
Let's Have CW on 60 Meters
|
|
|
by K5MDM on May 13, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Lets let the CW ops have 60 meters and give us ssb guy 30 meters...now that makes some sense!! Murray
|
| |
|
Let's Have CW on 60 Meters
|
|
|
by W3JJH on May 14, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The FCC and NTIA regulate the use of the spectrum *in the public interest*, and we hams are a very small segment of the public. We have been allowed on 60m over the objections of the primary governmental users.
As primary users, they have the right to operate without interference from us. They have the right to tells that we are interferring and that we must shutdown. That's why we are required to use a compatiible mode of communication--USB. These agencies are not going to spend money on CW capable radios or telegraphy training for operators because we have a hobby interest in a piece of the spectrum where we are secondary users.
BTW, the initial reason hams had to know Morse code was so the Navy could order us off the air if we were causing interference. 90 years ago the Navy used telegraphy on all bands. Now, the DoD uses USB on 60 m
There's 3.5 MHz of HF spectrum available for CW. Use it.
|
| |
|
RE: Let's Have CW on 60 Meters
|
|
|
by N6AJR on May 14, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Remember, CW'ers can operate in any portion of almost any band, not just the CW part.. so why the need for this little bit ?? lets not get greedy, and yes I am an old fart ham who thinks cw is just another mode. So What
|
| |
|
Let's Have CW on 60 Meters
|
|
|
by KE2IV on May 14, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hal,
I'd like to think of witty reasons why not - but there aren't any really.
If you want to work CW on the band - do as one fellow suggested and whistle into your mike.
We accepted the first (and hopefully only) channelized band with 60M; and all the restrictions that go with it.
When you make a deal with the Mike Powell Devil - don't expect more than your bargain and be prepared to accept much less!
Oh, besides, get over it, CW is dead. In a few more years the only jurisdiction still requiring it will be the US, because of hams like you.
But - who ya' gonna CW with OM?
They ain't requiring that mode anywhere else anymore...
--... ...--
--. . --- .-. --. .
|
| |
|
Let's Have CW on 60 Meters
|
|
|
by KE2IV on May 14, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hal,
I'd like to think of witty reasons why not - but there aren't any really.
If you want to work CW on the band - do as one fellow suggested and whistle into your mike.
We accepted the first (and hopefully only) channelized band with 60M; and all the restrictions that go with it.
When you make a deal with the Mike Powell Devil - don't expect more than your bargain and be prepared to accept much less!
Oh, besides, get over it, CW is dead. In a few more years the only jurisdiction still requiring it will be the US, because of hams like you.
But - who ya' gonna CW with OM?
They ain't requiring that mode anywhere else anymore...
--... ...--
--. . --- .-. --. .
|
| |
|
RE: Let's Have CW on 60 Meters
|
|
|
by K6BBC on May 14, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It well enough time we got back to a good code v no code fight. BRING THEM ON!
K6BBC
|
| |
|
RE: Let's Have CW on 60 Meters
|
|
|
by FMRN5ELV on May 14, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
OK Grandpa... Time to take your prozac.
Amateur radio is for everyone! One of the stated goals of the hobby is to "maintain a pool of people trained in electronics..." RADIO is the key point to this hobby - NOT code. It is NOT your (and other extras) private domain. Deriding someone as a useless "CBer" with "no right to express an opinion" just lends weight to the no-coders contention that ham radio is where the wierd, grey-headed old curmudgeons go to "hang out". The airwaves DO NOT belong to you!
You wanna CW???? GO for it! Wanna force me to go code? Don't hold your breath.
In the early days, you HAD to use code to communicate - the young wippersnapers want to TALK to people, and may use their internet-generation savvy to push this hobby into the 21st century.
You and your ilk want to live in the early 1900's. CW is a dying skill among operators (why else call them SK's), and is an archaic technology to boot. It's only value today is to provide "advanced" amateurs such as yourself more exclusive bandwidth.
You may have noticed my forum ID - fmrN5ELV. I am an old general (when the CW requirement was 13wpm). I let my license lapse years ago, but am about to take my test(s) again. I'll brush up on my code skills to pass the test, and then I'll upgrade to extra as quickly as I can. But I'll tell you this - The test will be the LAST time I have anything to do with CW. You want to use it, fine, but don't expect all of us to share your enthusiasm for dits and dahs.
|
| |
|
RE: Let's Have CW on 60 Meters
|
|
|
by KT0DD on May 14, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Geez, CW / digital only is allowed on 30 meters at 200 watts, and on all the other bands up to the legal limit. It's time we had a SSB only section. I was not too lazy to learn CW, I actually passed 13 wpm. It was a necessary evil, but I have not touched a key since. I have no CW interest. Leave 60 meters alone for USB as the FCC has stated. 73.
|
| |
|
Let's Have CW on 60 Meters
|
|
|
by WS4Y on May 14, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Yes, let's have cw on 60 meters. To me this
band is useless. On the other hand 30 meters
is one of my favorite bands. Hal I think it is
a waste of time to try to convince the ARRL to
take action to support this. Just draft the
petition and file it with the FCC yourself. If
you get the job done I would then have my first
60 meter qso. Good luck.
Bill, WS4Y
|
| |
|
Let's Have CW on 60 Meters
|
|
|
by K0RGR on May 14, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
There's a lot of carping about 60 M, and frankly, with the current summertime thunderstorm static conditions on that band, I don't care what modes they allow.
It would seem logical to allow narrowband modes on 60, but we got what we got, and unless the NTIA, not FCC, changes its opinion, I doubt that will change.
What I'm waiting for is one of our entrepreneurs out there to come up with a small, channelized 60M XCVR kit. I'm adverse to modifying my commercial gear to transmit outside the ham bands - there's no guarrantee that the rig will work properly on 60M. And, I haven't got the time to design and build one from scratch - though if there was a good design and a circuit board out there, I'd strongly consider it.
I think it would be fun in the winter to have it monitoring for casual QSO's. This could also become part of our HF arsenal for emergencies - it's hard to cover our state in the daytime with either 40 or 80 meters - 60 might help fill the gaps.
|
| |
|
RE: Let's Have CW on 60 Meters
|
|
|
by AE3J on May 14, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
In reply to K2LES CW is only dead for hams like you who can not learn it. If you wait till the rules change maybe you can get a free general ticket no work requierd.
|
| |
|
BAD ATTITUDES AND NO CODE
|
|
|
by KI6YN on May 14, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I agree with Hal; if the band is dead, what difference is there if it is used for CW. Besides, CW is still important when conditions are bad. The real problem I'm seeing is one of attitude. I happen to have gotten my Extra the hard way and I'm an avid fan of CW. However, I don't berate 'no coders' nor do I look down on digital types. I am an engineer and happen to prefer the archaic mode of CW just like tens of thousands of other hams all over the world. There are a lot of new hams working CW. CW is just another mode that has captivated a lot of us. If using SSB makes you happy, then by all means, use SSB, just stay out of the CW portion of the bands. I'm sick and tired of all this hoopla about code and no code. There is something for everybody. It is true that it is much easier to get a ticket these days without the higher code requirements, but so what. The testing has always been stupid. They should test for operating skills and etiquette, not a bunch of disjointed theory that most amateurs memorize and have no idea what it all means. Notice the ridiculous claims in ads; those companies would be bankrupt in no time if all amateurs were sufficently sophisticated in the radio arts.
Hal, don't take the negative comments and attacks personally, those people have no life; they probably are stating opinions on modes and things they know nothing about nor have any experience with.
|
| |
|
RE: Let's Have CW on 60 Meters
|
|
|
by WU7X on May 14, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Several of you have commented that you scanned 60 meters and didn't hear anyone using it. That reminds me of my first contacts on HF as a Novice over 20 years ago. With trembling hands I sent out my first CQ and was answered by a ham in California. Talk about being scared and excited at the same time! I had lots of Novice QSOs after that, and can remember my first DX contact when a ham in OZ came back to my CQ.
The point of this story is that I didn't wait to hear a CQ back then, I sent CQ out from my QTH. Why in the world if you didn't hear anything didn't you send out a CQ on each frequency to see if anyone else was listening? Ham radio is like fishing, you can't catch anything unless you throw out some bait!
Let's leave 60 meters for SSB for now. I'll be happy to work any of you on 10-40 meters CW. I'm trying to get past 20 wpm in my head and can use some "air" time.
Dale WU7X
|
| |
|
Let's Have CW on 60 Meters
|
|
|
by WM5Z on May 14, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hi all. I think you all miss the point about CW. To ME CW is fun. It is no longer a requirement, and that is how it should be. I use CW because it is fun. I am not what you would call proficient. I can't copy much faster than 20 WPM. But I have fun when I work it. I choose to work CW.
Now for 60 meters, we have been given a chance to use this band that propagates half way between the characteristics of 40 and 80 meters. The gift has been given to us with the restriction of SSB use only, and low power only. I appreciate the gift, and I agree to use it the way it was intended.
Let us stop all the bickering about CW. Those of us that choose to operate CW, do it because it is fun. Those of you that don't want to use CW, please don't put us down because you don't find CW fun. I personally find CW more fun than FM, SSB or PSK. Yes, I operate all the other modes once in a while, but CW is fun for me, so that is where you will find me most of the time. Not because I have to, but because it is fun.
|
| |
|
RE: Let's Have CW on 60 Meters
|
|
|
by K1VSR on May 14, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well said!
I'm a no-code tech and I don't really have any interest in working CW but I certainly don't begrudge anyone who does have an interest. If you have fun on CW, by all means do it! I would never harp on someone for loving CW so long as they never harp on me for not loving it. I can copy CW at about 20 WPM (believe it or not, repeater IDs are a wonderful way to test your CW copying ability) and I'll use it on the high bands where it's necessary to make a QSO.
That said, I don't see why techs can't at least work FM voice on 10 meters in the appopriate parts of the band, but that's beyond the scope of this discussion.
My interest is amateur radio is purely VHF, UHF, SHF and EHF probably because I got into ham radio through my interest in DXing the FM broadcast band 88-108 MHz. I come from high-band land and that's where I'm comfortable. I'm mainly active on 1.25m, but I'm also starting to experiment with the upper UHF bands like 33cm and 23cm, and hopefully I'll soon be able to experiment with the SHF (microwave) bands like 13cm and higher.
Also keep in mind that people actually do CW on 6m and 2m regularly, some of whom are "no-code" techs! During contests I hear people working CW on 1.25m and 70cm as well.
To me, a 1,500 mile contact on VHF is more impressive than a 4,000 mile contact on HF.
Heck, sometimes I dream of being the first ham to successfully make a 2-way trans-atlantic QSO between North America and Europe on 2m. I know that Europe has heard our signal beacons and we've heard their beacons, but there has never been a 2-way trans-atlantic QSO. How cool would that be???? And yes, I admit that a QSO like that would have to be done on something very spectrally efficient like CW or PSK.
Just because us no-coders don't want to work CW doesn't mean we should be put down for it. Heck, you'd be amazed how many techs can copy code, but they don't really have an interest in HF and thus, they don't really see a need to upgrade their license!
Some of us actually have a genuine interest in being pioneers on these bands that haven't got a lot of exploration by hams yet. The high bands are there, someone's gotta play with them, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that!
One thing that makes us all equal is that we're hams. What modes we work is purely details. The bottom line is, we're all hams. We all share a common interest in the airwaves and radio in general. That's what's important!
|
| |
|
Let's Have CW on 60 Meters
|
|
|
by W3DCG on May 14, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I love it, we need a bit of friction every once in a while to be stronger.
RE TOMATOES:
SOME SAY TU-MAY-TO, SOME SAY TO-MAH-TO, AND it all sounds the same in CW, with variances in speed and tone.
Actually, unless USDA Certified Organic, apples pose a greater threat than tomatos (which are also a wonderful source of vitamin C; Italians got that right, as well with Code). Honestly, I don't know if Italy dropped all CW requirements (for HF). But I'm thinking, it is important to their wireless heritage and tradition, certainly.
Final comment here- the notion that Know Code hams, are all OLD farts (not to be confused with our pseudo-entity OLDFART here on eHam), do not embrace technology, is not only arrogant, it is completely untrue.
I've said before, I'm no engineer, but I know some, they happen to all know code, and practice it.
I had an hour long QSO with a gent on 7.0415xx Mhz. He was at his secondery residence. He was running 5 watts, on his K2. Then he switched to his other K2 hooked to his homebrew amp+homebrew TR switch. It was one of the most interesting conversations I've had. The keying on his amp was as good as the K2 barefoot (fast QSK). He kept chatting...turned out it had been several weeks before he could get on the air, he was overtaken by work. What work? Designing, and overseeing from scratch, a new microwave antenna system for some big player. He put it this way, the equivalent 40m antenna would have a diameter of about 35 miles I think it was.
Not exactly someone stricken by obsolescence. Seems like a cutting edge personality to me.
Seems like at least two or more Pro Coders on this thread are Engineers and/or professionals in the computer fields. Actually, I've run into several programmers on CW. I believe some of the most intelligent, knowledgable people, happen to be Amateur radio operators, and also happen to know code (Morse, at least). I believe they wouldn't have it any other way, required or not.
I am not saying, that if you know CW at a practically useful speed, you're automatically a genius.
I am not saying one mode is better than the other, either. I'm not trying to create division.
I am saying, if one's personal convictions are Know Code, then it DOES NOT EQUATE to them being old, set in their ways, and unwilling to embrace new technology.
|
| |
|
RE: Let's Have CW on 60 Meters
|
|
|
by K0RFD on May 14, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
FRMN5ELV Wrote:
>Amateur radio is for everyone!
No, FRS and CB are for everyone.
Amateur Radio is for people who have passed certain licensing requirements, and the FCC conveys different privileges according to which requirements were met.
|
| |
|
RE: Let's Have CW on 60 Meters
|
|
|
by N3EVL on May 14, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W3DCG wrote:
"...I am saying, if one's personal convictions are Know Code, then it DOES NOT EQUATE to them being old, set in their ways, and unwilling to embrace new technology..."
Your observation is valid but, as so often happens in these debates, it is easy to confuse semantics: when you say your convictions are 'Know Code' does this mean that you support retention of a code test or that you support continued existence of the mode or both?
My observation is that the majority support retention of the mode and are pro elimination of the test requirement (or at least ambivalent in this regard).
My gut feel on 60m is to leave it alone for a while until we see how things develop regarding this novel chanelized approach.
73, Pete, N3EVL
|
| |
|
RE: Let's Have CW on 60 Meters
|
|
|
by WA5MKA on May 14, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Steve---WM5Z Very well said, sir ! If you like code use it. If you don't like it, don't use it ! Even if you are no code, you can still use it with a code reader or code reading computer program & keyboard, so what is the big deal ! So what if you can't copy 5 wpm or 13wpm on paper or 20wpm or 90 wpm in your head, you can still use CW & who's to know which way you're copying it ! At one time I could hand copy 20wpm, but I never got beyond that stage, because I didn't have the time then to devote to the practice. Therefore CW wasn't fun to me, so I quit using it(SSB exclusively now). But now that I have more time to devote to CW, I'd like to get back into it, learn to copy in my head, & do some high speed CW QRP! Not because I have to, but because I want to ! Even if I went the Code Reader/Keyboard route(which I don't want to do),what's the matter with that ! No code/know code,who cares ! There should be more rules, regs., operating procedures & operating practices questions on the written exams than there are now. Then some of the newbies might know better how to operate than they do now. Knowing CW has nothing to do with that, unless you're wanting to join a high speed CW traffic net(then you do have to know the correct CW operating procedures)!
Any way back to CW on 60 Meters. Leave it SSB for now, until it becomes Ham only, then make it all CW/Digital & 1/2 or 2/3 SSB (can anybody say "BAND PLAN"), after it becomes a band & not channels ! Also give SSB some space on 30 Meters(the more users this band has the less chance we have of losing it in the future) !
Of coure BPL noise could make all the arguments moot for any type of operation on any HF band, anyway !
Let's see ! Are there any more "Ham" issues I can load in here ?!!!!!!!! .... ..! .... ..!
Just my HO & $.01 + $.01 = $.02 WORTH !
Tnx es 73,
George---W7KCU, ex: WA5MKA ......................
_._ 2 U GUD BUDDY ! C U ON THE FLIP,IF NOT THE FLOP ! I BE WEST BOUND WITH THE HAMMER DOWN ! MY HANDLE IS THE "MISSISSIPPI FLASH" !
THE 20 IS: "YADA !" "YADA !" "YADA !" etc.,etc.,etc. !(OOPS THERE'S ANOTHER ISSUE !) !
P.S. A lot of you other guys on here need to: "LIGHTEN UP" ! It's not "Life or Death" for "Pete's Sake" ! It's a "HOBBY" !
|
| |
|
RE: Let's Have CW on 60 Meters
|
|
|
by N3EVL on May 14, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
FRMN5ELV Wrote:
"...Amateur radio is for everyone!..."
and K0RFD replied:
"...No, FRS and CB are for everyone.
Amateur Radio is for people who have passed certain licensing requirements, and the FCC conveys different privileges according to which requirements were met..."
I think FRMN5ELV was clearly suggesting that Amateur Radio is for anyone with an genuine interest in radio - a category in which I include myself and which is sufficiently distinguished from FRS and CB where radio is simply a means to an end (IMHO). It is entirely reasonable that such persons may have this genuine interest *without* a pre-disposition to a certain much-discussed mode and yet be in a position to benefit from and contribute to the hobby. I see no error in permitting such persons to participate fully.
73, N3EVL
|
| |
|
RE: 30 Meters
|
|
|
by WA5MKA on May 14, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
And not just Generals,Advanced,& Extras on 30 Meters. All classes of licenses. A "Melting Pot" or "Training Ground", so to speak ! What a novel concept ! Maybe not so novel, since we have this on 10 meters(28.3 Mhz to 28.5 Mhz) already & everyone seems to get along pretty well ! This way the "OT'S" can train the "newbies" in proper operating habits & procedures on CW & SSB, since it looks like they're going to do away with the Novice/Tech.+ CW subbands.
Ya'll come back now ! Ya hear !
73 Agn,
George---W7KCU,(I was WA5MKA for 39 1/2 years & have been one of the "Silent Majority" for almost all of that time ! But NO MORE will I be Silent, I say ! Tnx to eHam.net for allowing HO's !
|
| |
|
RE: 30 Meters
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on May 14, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I wouldn’t want to make noise or rock the boat on any issue regarding 60m. The 60m “channels” were authorized for amateur use under NTIA guidelines, not the FCC’s. We received privileges on 60m for its usefulness in emergency communications, not merely as an expansion of our hobby. We are secondary users. We must adhere to the same rules as the primary users and cease transmissions if we’re told we’re interfering with primary users. Primary users must be able to communicate with us to let us know when to vacate a frequency. The standard on all of HF under NTIA’s administration is USB, not CW or PSK31. I don’t feel that we should try to kick in any doors by asking permission to use other modes that aren’t compatible with the primary users of those frequencies.
Like someone else posted, if 60m is ever vacated by NTIA and their primary users, and we get a real band for exclusive amateur use, then we can ask for other modes and we will probably be granted permission.
Regarding SSB usage on 30m, isn’t that band restricted to CW and digital with no phone by international treaty? No hams from any country work SSB on 30m. The only SSB activity I hear on 30m is from the illegals.
As for the usual mudslinging that broke out between the pro-coders and the no-coders, I guess that was inevitable. Post an article that mentions CW and it will happen every time! As for who is a real ham and who is not, I think that the more modes you can use, the less restricted you are and the better ham you will be for it. Those who don’t do CW are missing out on half the action. There are stations that they will never work because they don’t do CW. Now that we are approaching the solar minimum, those who do CW will have a definite edge over those who don’t.
My hat is off to K1VSR. He is using his Technician class license for exactly what the Technician license was originally designed for before it became no-code and the default entry-level license. He is using his privileges to experiment on VHF, UHF and SHF. To my knowledge, frequencies beyond 1.2 GHz are still considered the frontier. Experiment till your heart’s content! That is the true spirit of amateur radio! However, my advice to you as long as you know Morse code is to upgrade to at least General. You never know when you might get the urge to tinker with HF. You will already have the license and won’t have to worry about waiting for a test session.
N3EVL stated:
“I think FRMN5ELV was clearly suggesting that Amateur Radio is for anyone with an genuine interest in radio - a category in which I include myself and which is sufficiently distinguished from FRS and CB where radio is simply a means to an end (IMHO). It is entirely reasonable that such persons may have this genuine interest *without* a pre-disposition to a certain much-discussed mode and yet be in a position to benefit from and contribute to the hobby. I see no error in permitting such persons to participate fully.”
Amateur radio is not for anyone with a genuine interest in radio. In case you didn’t know, CB has been a hobby for decades. There are many CBers who have a genuine interest in radio. I hate to tell you this, but there are CBers who know more about electronics and radio than a lot of hams do. What sets hams apart from CBers is the willingness to study for and pass exams for a license. CBers never had to do that. Back in the days when CB was a licensed service, all that was necessary was to fill out and sign the application and mail it with a check to the FCC, and viola! You were granted a license by the Commission. Many of these radio-savvy CBers became hams, while others just never wanted to study for the exams and remained on CB. I am one of the radio-savvy CBers from the seventies that became a ham. So, I speak from experience. I’ve been on both sides of the fence.
|
| |
|
RE: 30 Meters
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on May 14, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Oh, and by the way, N3EVL who wrote "It is entirely reasonable that such persons may have this genuine interest *without* a pre-disposition to a certain much-discussed mode and yet be in a position to benefit from and contribute to the hobby. I see no error in permitting such persons to participate fully.", you are just as guilty as the others for dragging the Morse code licensing issue into this thread. This thread has nothing to do with code as a licensing requirement. It has to do with whether we should request CW privileges on 60m or not. If you notice, I never addressed the issue of code as a licensing requirement. I don't intend to debate that issue with you. Both of us know where the other stands.
|
| |
|
RE: 30 Meters
|
|
|
by W5HTW on May 14, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K1VSR _ Ah, the memories! You mention DXing on the FMBC band. Back in the early sixties I found that to be a lot of fun, though it was not my 'hobby' exactly. I had two small towers up, one for my triband beam, and the other to support a Winegard VHF/UHF/FM antenna - the biggest they made at the time for "deep fringe" areas. I had a rotator and a pre-amp, and I was regularly watching, not just receiving, tv stations from 120 miles away. Located in the basement was my father's old Silvertone console radio, and I hooked it up to the antenna. My gosh! Never knew that old monster could get those stations!
Thanks for reminding me of that time! I had forgotten the fun I had sitting at that "High Fidelity Console" and pulling in very distant FM stations. To me, it was more fun than SWL'ing, and it was sometimes a welcome break from 75 meters AM.
Ed
|
| |
|
RE: 30 Meters
|
|
|
by N3EVL on May 14, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
AG4RQ said:
"...Amateur radio is not for anyone with a genuine interest in radio..."
Totally, fundamentally, 100% disagree with this statement! Cannot even begin to fathom why any current ham would think this way wrt a person showing some interest.
"... In case you didn’t know, CB has been a hobby for decades <snip> ..."
Yes, of course, on this point you are 100% correct - I allowed myself to malign the entire CB fraternity, past and present unjustly - something which happens all too often on these threads - mea culpa.
73, Pete, N3EVL
|
| |
|
Let's Have CW on 60 Meters
|
|
|
by AETHERBURNER on May 14, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Same root commentary - different day. Code v. No Code - #1 troll topic and it always brings out a polarized crowd guaranteed to show the less that open discussion abilities of today's hams. The proposal was for a segment in the 5 MHz area. The Fed's use that segment and have primary assignment. They could have played SoCal 440 MHz repeater owners and said "Nope. Band closed." If you do not believe me about the SoCal 440 bit, contact SCRRBA or read the ARRL repeater directory. The extreme majority of repeaters are listed as closed. But the NTIA said that we will give them five of our channels to use but playing by our rules. The rules were USB, voice only, limited ERP, 2.8 kHz bandwidth/channel, and we will be listening. We are their guests and have to abide by the house rules. One commenter mentioned about the apparent lack of use of the frequencies offered but never mentioned why. I have been on the channels from home and backed down the power to meet the requirements yet I have not tried them mobile. I do not get on them much because it seems that when I listen, they are busy with someone else. In my book they are busy and there is no need for me to butt into an ongoing QSO between two or more friends. No real sense commenting on the CW proposal because it is an osmium dirigible on its face based on the initial blessing from the NTIA.
000 -0-
|
| |
|
RE: Let's Have CW on 60 Meters
|
|
|
by K0RFD on May 14, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N3EVL wrote:
>I think FRMN5ELV was clearly suggesting that Amateur
>Radio is for anyone with an genuine interest in radio
That's fine, you're welcome to use your imagination, but that is not what FMRN5ELV actually SAID. We could debate hypotheticals here all day long. I try and restrict my comments to what people actually SAY.
Amateur Radio is NOT for everybody. While "everybody" is welcome to listen in, not "everybody" may participate actively in the service. Amateur radio is a domain of rules and regulations. Holding a license requires knowing, understanding, and FOLLOWING those rules. The FCC gave us 5 channels on 60 meters as a result of objections filed by NTIA, the primary user of that spectrum. Those are the rules. Whether or NTIA is a bunch of "no-code morons" (in the opinion of some who have posted here) is not my chosen subject to debate. They ARE the primary users of the spectrum, and have as much right to assert their primary status (maybe MORE unfortunately) as we do about BPL. If somebody doesn't like the rules, let them try to get the rules changed, it's their prerogative. As far as CW on 60 meters, good luck but I don't see it happening.
As far as which bands are for "everybody" -- well, I have already said my piece about that. Ham radio is not for everybody. It is for people who who meet the requirements and follow the rules. If you want Fort Apache, your choices are CB, FRS, or 75 Meters, but we don't want to talk about that. (I hope you appreciate that my tongue is in my cheek, and that except for the rules, I try not to take ANYTHING too seriously).
|
| |
|
RE: Let's Have CW on 60 Meters
|
|
|
by VE3MFN on May 15, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The pitiful ad hominem attack by KC9BNY on WR8D negates any possible relevance his remarks may have had------which were none too subtantial. I think this post says it all re: the mindset of people of his ilk. Just dreadful!!
Richard. VE3MFN
|
| |
|
RE: Let's Have CW on 60 Meters
|
|
|
by N3EVL on May 15, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K0RFD:
Oh, well, I stand by my interpretation of what was said - perhaps you misunderstood my response - I was thinking (at least in part) in terms of unlicensed individuals considering entering the hobby and whether or not it's for them - obviously is does not *end up* being for everyone and there are alternatives available, but it is *potentially* for everyone within the constraints I described. However, this is not the place to debate this further. Thanks for your comments, including the licensing class 101 ;)
73, Pete, N3EVL
|
| |
|
RE: Let's Have CW on 60 Meters
|
|
|
by K0RFD on May 15, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
No problem, Paul.
My point was simply that Ham Radio has lots of rules and regulations, that amateur use of 60 meters has even MORE rules and regulations because it is somebody else's primary allocation, and that if people don't like the rules they should try to get them changed, but they still have to follow them in the meantime.
I have no opinion one way or the other about opening up 60 meters to CW or PSK-31, but I have a feeling that NTIA is not going to back off of the conditions they set with FCC for secondary users.
The original post was pretty well focused; the code-nocode debate that followed was way off topic.
|
| |
|
RE: Let's Have CW on 60 Meters
|
|
|
by WB9NJB on May 15, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I have been living in a cave for severals years now, so forgive this stupid question. What does IMHO stand for?
|
| |
|
RE: Let's Have CW on 60 Meters
|
|
|
by WB9NJB on May 15, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Thank you all. I think I get it now. Sure does give me a new perspective. 73
|
| |
|
RE: Let's Have CW on 60 Meters
|
|
|
by W6TH on May 15, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
In My Honest Opinion. "IMHO" See we disagree on most everything, don't we?
Why can't we all get along? Because we are all different, some know it all and some know nothing at all.
Some try to be men and some try to be boys.
EHAM separates the men from the boys or is it the boys from the men.
Try your skill on 80 meters and forget about 60 Mhz. There will be room for all.
The numbers to ya'll.
.:
|
| |
|
RE: Let's Have CW on 60 Meters
|
|
|
by NN6EE on May 15, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
OH OH!!!
Mentioning CW again especially on a exclusive phone band like 60m???
Ah geeezzzzh!!!
Another topic to get the "Politically correct" NO-CODERS pissed off again???
Maybe "No-Code International Inc." will sue all of us CW operators too!!!
:-)))
Jim/ee
|
| |
|
Let's Have CW on 60 Meters
|
|
|
by WA2JJH on May 15, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Even though I own 2 mil/comm. spec rigs, I do not need no stinking 5 channels!!!!!!!
|
| |
|
Let's Have CW on 60 Meters
|
|
|
by W6NNABE on May 15, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I'm a Tech no-coder, for whatever that's worth (probably not much), though I do intend to learn The Code (TM) so I can someday buy and operate a Pixie. I've read the arguments on both sides, and have an opinion of my own.
IMHO the technical arguments in favor of using CW on 60m are sensible, but the regulatory arguments against trump it. Simple fact is that no one else using that band is required to know the code, and they can't be counted on be able to tell someone to vacate the frequency when they need it if the "interloper" (i.e. us) is using a frequency that doesn't match what they're using. Simple fact: we're being offered a chance to use one lane on a restricted highway, under certain conditions. We may as well go along.
|
| |
|
RE: Let's Have CW on 60 Meters
|
|
|
by K1CJS on May 15, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"....anyone with no knowledge of CW is not a real ham, but a cheap counterfeit - a CBer."
And anyone who doesn't have the guts to identify himself by callsign isn't a real ham either, just a troublemaker. Epitaxial that.
|
| |
|
RE: Let's Have CW on 60 Meters
|
|
|
by KA4KOE on May 16, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"IMO, anyone with no knowledge of CW is not a real ham, but a cheap counterfeit - a CBer."
My wife never touched a CB in her life, just went on and got her tech.
I'm a rabid a CW man as you'll find, but you won't find me making inane sweeping comments like the one quoted above.
You can do better than that.
|
| |
|
RE: Let's Have CW on 60 Meters
|
|
|
by KA4KOE on May 16, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Also, be glad you got dem dar 5 channels. We may get more spectrum in the future, but if a lot of people make asses of themselves and start "whistling" into their microphones on 60m and pulling other stunts, you can kiss that goodbye.
Be thankful for what we have, and don't act like spoiled kiddies on Christmas morn.
I don't use 60m. My 756PRO isn't easily modified to get on that band (high SWR internally between the stages can cause heat related failures in that swath of spectrum), and I'm not keen on cracking it open just to work 5 channels (although I am capable of handling a soldering iron with the best of them).
|
| |
|
RE: Let's Have CW on 60 Meters
|
|
|
by KB9ERU on May 16, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
<W3JJH
As primary users, they have the right to operate without interference from us. They have the right to tell us that we are interfering and that we must shutdown. That's why we are required to use a compatible mode of communication--USB. These agencies are not going to spend money on CW capable radios or telegraphy training for operators because we have a hobby interest in a piece of the spectrum where we are secondary users.>
Good point. My biggest question is the digital sounds (kinda like a slow packet sound) that exist on 60 meters.
I wonder if that primary user can switch to USB if one of us were interfering?
You gotta admit, digital modes would be cool on 60 meters.
(and yes, CW IS a digital mode, on and off)
Hopefully we will be granted more access on 60 meters.
It's nice to GET freq's instead of getting them taken away, like the 220 MHz band :)
Mick KB9ERU
|
| |
|
RE: Let's Have CW on 60 Meters
|
|
|
by DUALGATEMOSFET on May 16, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K1CJS, was I addressing you? Its no-code CBers like you that needs to be kept off the real ham bands. Counterfeit parasites like you shouldn't be allowed on the real bands. K1CJS, climb up on a stepladder and kiss my butt.
73 from DUALGATEMOSFET
aka
"The Epitaxial One"
|
| |
|
Let's Have CW on 60 Meters
|
|
|
by W3DCG on May 16, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"IMHO = In My Head Only"
...hilarious. One of the reasons I keep checking into these scenes.
Sometimes informative, sometimes, perhaps often, digressing into the Jerry Springer genre.
Portions of which are entertaining, anyway.
Just a reminder to all, HAVE FUN. It's a technical sort of a *hobby* about communication.
Whatever blows your skirt up.
Anyone who can do CW can do phone, too. (barring physical imparement). And, anyone who can do phone, can do CW, too. Yeah?
IF not today, maybe some day.
The di di di, the dah dah dah, is all I want to say to you, the di di di, the dah dah dah, it's eloquence will see you through...
The di di di , the dah dah dah, it's meaningless, and,
ALL THAT IS TRUE.
|
| |
|
RE: Let's Have CW on 60 Meters
|
|
|
by NE1Z on May 17, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Ham radio is clearly not for everyone who is interested in radio or interested in radio experimenting. Hams are stuck in ancient history.
All you have to do is look at the WiFi crowd & they are clearly burning our lunch, rather than eating it!!!
|
| |
|
RE: Let's Have CW on 60 Meters
|
|
|
by AB2MH on May 17, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"The code is dead. Why do you people keep hanging onto it? "
Only codeless techs think the code is dead.
|
| |
|
RE: Let's Have CW on 60 Meters
|
|
|
by W3JJH on May 17, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KB9ERU:
Those digital signals you are hearing could be maritime weather fax broadcasts. 5.336 MHz (the next channel up from 5.332 MHz) is assigned to RBW41 in Murmansk and 5.385 MHz is assigned to HLL2 in Seoul.
73 de W3JJH
|
| |
|
RE: Let me guess: K2LES is a vanity call, right?
|
|
|
by WA3KYY on May 17, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KZ1X, better go back a read the FCC authorization, it authorizes only one mode and that is USB voice. MCW is not an authorized mode. A very specific mode code was used in the Report and Order docket that authorized 60M and that is specifc for USB voice. There is no wiggle room. The ARRL information about how to use this band was very specific about this.
Still, it wouldn't hurt to request it on one of the five channels along with PSK. It doesn't take the ARRL to petition the FCC either, we all have standing to initiate a request of this type.
73,
Mike WA3KYY
|
| |
|
RE: Let me guess: K2LES is a vanity call, right?
|
|
|
by N3ZKP on May 17, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
<< Still, it wouldn't hurt to request it on one of the five channels along with PSK. It doesn't take the ARRL to petition the FCC either, we all have standing to initiate a request of this type. >>
If these frequencies belonged to the FCC, you might have a point. But they DON'T! The belong to NTIA and they, alone, control what modes are used on their frequencies and the only mode allowed is USB SSB.
NTIA has granted the FCC permission to put hams on these five allocations under very specific technical conditions as _secondary_ users. Hams and the FCC have NO say-so in what is or is not allowed, mode wise.
Get over it, everyone.
Lon
|
| |
|
RE: 30 Meters
|
|
|
by WA3KYY on May 17, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
AG4RQ, in most countries amateurs are secondary on 30M. The primary users are Land Mobile if I recall correctly. They do use SSB so the SSB you hear is probaby not illegals but the primary users. They are the reason we are limited to 200W and CW plus digital on 30M. Also, one or two countries that do not have 30M allocated to another service as primary have authorized SSB I believe. Australia is one such unless I'm having another Senior Moment (TM).
73,
Mike WA3KYY
|
| |
|
RE: Let me guess: K2LES is a vanity call, right?
|
|
|
by WA3KYY on May 17, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
N3ZKP, while you are correct that NTIA calls the shots on 60M, we as amateurs do not petition the NTIA for frequencies because we are regulated by the FCC. Thus it is correct for us to petition the FCC for anything with respect to 60M or any other frequencies we have/might want. The FCC then takes it to the NTIA for consideration. Whom do you think it was that went to the NTIA in the first place? The FCC was all set to give us a band until the NTIA weighed in stating too much of the proposed band was frequently used by Fedral agencies but these five, lightly used channels could be made avialable on a secondary basis with the restrictions we have there.
|
| |
|
RE: Let me guess: K2LES is a vanity call, right?
|
|
|
by N3ZKP on May 17, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KKY:
You are correct to a point. However the FCC made the promise of something they had no authority to give in the first place and NTIA called them on it.
I seriously doubt there will be any increase in 5-meg allocations for our use in the foreseeable future, much less permission to use modes that NTIA doesn't authorise in the first place.
I guess my feeling is too many hams think we have some God-given right to do what we want, where we want.
Lon
|
| |
|
RE: Let's Have CW on 60 Meters
|
|
|
by AK4P on May 18, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Let's leave 60 meters for SSB for now. I'll be happy to work any of you on 10-40 meters CW. I'm trying to get past 20 wpm in my head and can use some "air" time.
Dale WU7X "
Not to comment on this subject, but there is another topic which asks "Do you know the history of your callsign?" I knew the previous holder of WU7X, William "Bill" Erkilla of Holbrook, Arizona. He loved to work with antennas. He would sometimes buy two or three to make a new one by combining parts of the others. He was a good friend. Sadly, he passed away in 1989 or 1990 from cancer. Just thought you might like to know. 73, de AK4P -- ex KF7DN.
|
| |
|
Let's Have CW on 60 Meters
|
|
|
by N2RXK on May 19, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The comments have again turned to code/no code. The question was: Is CW feasible on 60 meters?? NOT the code/no code issue.
In any case, this set of comments reminds me of the movie "THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE UGLY". And with the level of emotional tripe, I can't tell who is who or what is what??
Take the personal attacks to one another by e-mail!! Let's clean up our act...other people are watching!!
PS!! The HamVention WAS GREAT!!
Oh, CW on 60?? Look at the original reasons the FCC authorized the 5 channels...there's your answer..
73 de Bob N2RXK
|
| |
|
Let's Have CW on 60 Meters
|
|
|
by KA3POY on May 19, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I think it would be neat to have one of the 60m channels open to CW. It would be even neater to have the whole band, of course.
Maybe we could get it in trade by giving up SSB fone privileges on 7.255 - just kidding - know all you ECARS net guys would go nuts :)
Until the rules are changed I plan to obey current regulations. As time goes by the feds may continue to move away from HF use and abandon the freqs to us.
very best wishes to fellow CW ops and other moders as well.
73
N5IIT
was KA3POY
|
| |
|
Lets use CW on 60 Meters
|
|
|
by WD5DBC on May 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KZ1X
Quote:
"Back to this thread: we ARE already allowed CW on the 60m band. In fact, as soon as I get a chance, I will get on that band and key my USB rig with a 700 Hz tone, identifying only in voice. Show me where it's illegal, and I'll stop. "
How about only USB being legal:
On/off keying of a tone modulating a SSB transmitter is technically emmission type J2A and J2A is not a permitted emmission type permitted on 60m.
Part 97.303(s): '... may only transmit single sideband, supressed carrier, (emmission type 2K8J3E) upper sideband on the channels...."
WD5DBC
|
| |
|
Let's Have CW on 60 Meters
|
|
|
by W8KX on May 20, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The real question is, why have 60m at all? I'd trade it all for a 50KHz addition to the 20m or 17m band.
W8KX
|
| |
|
RE: Let's Have CW on 60 Meters
|
|
|
by K0VJ on May 29, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I can't speak for others, but I hang on to this "dead" mode because it is a heck of a lot of fun.
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Other Recent Articles
VK5RJ Still Gracing the Airwaves at Age 101:
rec.radio.amateur.moderated -- 5 Yrs. Old:
Tune-In To The World -- Amateur Radio Gets People Talking:
Student Sends MIT Letter to Space:
Amateur Radio Club Talks to Hams Worldwide on Centennial:
|
