Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net

donate to eham
   Home   Help Search  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: CW Dead per ARRL?  (Read 1837 times)
K4KOR
Member

Posts: 8




Ignore
« on: December 09, 2004, 02:56:48 PM »

The ARRL has tried to get rid of CW for years now. That's why I don't buy their magazines or join their organization. I don't want to help them get rid of my mode.
The most obvious move was years ago when they had an article in QST about 7.040 being the RTTY calling frequency. Everyone knows, including them, that 7.040 has been the QRP CW calling frequency for decades. But from that day forward the 40 meter CW band is a mess with RTTY guys. Just like what the ARRL intended their article to do. A source I know on the inside confirmed this to me.  
Emails to them about things like this are never answered.
CW is still the most efficient mode because it will get through when nothing else will. Therefore it will never be outdated.
Some people don't like CW because they can't do it. It takes timing, tallent and rhythm. The people who don't like it can't chew gum and walk at the same time.
It also takes work to learn it. People who don't like it don't like to apply themselves.  
If you like CW stop funding the ARRL which is using your money to do away with your mode. And let them know you're doing so.
Logged
TORESTEEN
Member

Posts: 21


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #1 on: November 01, 2004, 10:40:30 AM »

I just bought the latest copy of the ARRL Operating Manual.  Unless I'm blind and missed it, there's no section on operating CW.

Does this mean that the ARRL thiks CW is dead?

My 1995 ARRL Operating Manual has a section on CW.

Just currious as to why the ARRL dropped the CW section from the latest version.

Tony
KG4SPA
Logged
W5HTW
Member

Posts: 729


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #2 on: November 02, 2004, 08:40:34 PM »

The ARRL "desperately" wants to expand digital bands.  I have no idea why, but they appear to want all hams on digital operation, which they believe links to their "hinternet"  "Winlink" and other such.

Ed
Logged
N3ZKP
Member

Posts: 2008




Ignore
« Reply #3 on: November 02, 2004, 09:05:36 PM »

My 7th Edition has two pages concerning abbreviations, nothing more.
Logged
N8UZE
Member

Posts: 1524




Ignore
« Reply #4 on: November 03, 2004, 05:46:37 AM »

I suspect that there is a wide variety of info missing from the latest ARRL Operating Manual.  It is less than half the thickness of the 3rd edition.
Logged
N0IU
Member

Posts: 2005


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #5 on: November 03, 2004, 10:27:00 AM »

Even though the Operating Manual is published by the ARRL, I don't know if anyone there actually reads it!

One of my favorite modes (other than CW) is RTTY. I would listen faithfully to the ARRL RTTY bulletins and before every transmission, they would send the typical long string of RY's. I didn't think anything about this until I bought a copy of what was then the current edition of the Operating Manual (this was some time in the early 90's). There was a pretty comprehensive section on the digital modes (pre-soundcard modes of course) plus a "sidebar" commenting on the fact that since RTTY was almost entirely a PC-based mode, sending strings of RY's was no longer necessary as they once were to align the mechanical units.

I immediately sent an email to whomever was in charge of W1AW at the time. I told him I was confused since their officially sanctioned publication says that sending strings of RY's is a "waste of bandwidth", but yet the officially sanctioned ARRL station was still using them.

The next day, they were no longer preceding their bulletins with that string of RY's!

73,
de Scott NØIU
Logged
W4YA
Member

Posts: 317




Ignore
« Reply #6 on: November 03, 2004, 07:20:54 PM »

Why don't you address your question to ARRL?
Logged
TORESTEEN
Member

Posts: 21


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #7 on: November 03, 2004, 07:53:53 PM »

I did send the ARRL an email.  No reply.  That's why I posted it here.

Thanks for all the replies!

Tony
KG4SPA
Logged
NJ0E
Member

Posts: 48




Ignore
« Reply #8 on: November 04, 2004, 06:39:55 AM »

consider sending a comment to your arrl division
director.

their job is to represent you.

73
scott nj0e
Logged
WN3R
Member

Posts: 17


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #9 on: November 22, 2004, 07:10:21 PM »

As I recall, the invention of photography was going to replace painting. The motor boat was going to replace the sail boat.  The car was going to replace the horse.  The plane was going to replace the train.  The microwave was going to replace the oven.  The TV was going to replace the radio.  For hams: phone was going to replace CW.

These are just a few examples of progress.  How about some others?

I can think of a few more: typewriter (paper and pen), computer (typewriter), cell phone (pager), ...

My point: Dead is a relative term.  A better term: more choices.
Logged
N0IU
Member

Posts: 2005


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #10 on: November 23, 2004, 05:35:44 AM »

WN3R makes an excellent point. So many hams consider CW to be an antiquated mode and therefore a waste of time and bandwidth. I was thinking about this the other day. For whatever reason, the area where I live happens to have the right combination of factors for hot air balloons. While this was once "cutting edge technology", it is now just a hobby. Granted, it is not a poor man's hobby, but it is still a thriving sport none-the-less.

There have been comments all over eHam from folks who have difficulty believing that Icom and Yaesu now have rigs that are in the $10,000 plus range and that there are hams who will actually spend that much money on a hobby. Well I did some checking. A good used balloon can cost from $15,000 - $20,000 and a new one from $25,000 - $30,000 and up! With ham radio, once you spend $10,000 for a bleeding edge rig, all you have to do is turn it on and start making contacts on your mode of choice. Once it is paid for, you own it and it costs nothing to operate. With a balloon, there is the expense of the tanks of propane for every flight. You also need a ground crew. You will also need a vehicle capable of hauling the deflated balloon or a vehicle/trailer combination. This will probably set you back another $20,000 - $30,000.

Also, with ballooning, unless you live in a temperate climate, it is not a year round hobby. With ham radio, I look forward to having a hot cup of coffee on my desk in the dead of winter while I tune around on 80 and 160 meters.

Just because a mode of communication or transportation is no longer the most efficient or cost effective method, it can still be an extremely enjoyable hobby.

73,
de Scott NØIU
Logged
W5ESE
Member

Posts: 550


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #11 on: November 23, 2004, 01:30:03 PM »

> So many hams consider CW to be an antiquated mode
> and therefore a waste of time and bandwidth.

when i'm on a backpacking trip, lying in my sleeping
bag at night, with my earphones on and manipulating
my keyer paddles, i ask myself what other mode is
there that would enable me to do this?

o communicate over distances of thousands of miles
when transmitting with less than a watt.
o draw less than 20 ma from the 12v battery when
receiving
o weigh less than a pound
o allow me to operate without waking up the others
in my tent

cw is not obsolete. there is no other mode that
comes close for certain applications.

73
scott w5ese
Logged
KC7JTY
Member

Posts: 2




Ignore
« Reply #12 on: December 22, 2004, 05:58:17 PM »

I'm not interested in learning or using Morse. I don't care to chew gum either but am sure I could do it and walk at the same time if there was some money in it. Ya got $100?
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!