|
New to Ham Radio?
My Profile
Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Speak Out
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
|
|
1-8 of 8 messages
|
Page 1 of 1
|
|
Keeping CW As an HF Req.
|
Reply
|
|
by KC8TAD on March 3, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I am doing a paper for my college english class..
Basically its a persuasive paragraph and I want to argue that CW should be kept as a requirment for HF... However im having a heck of a time trying to find articles to support this claim..
Besides that i think every ham should at least know about it i mean look at what it does.. what would happen if a ham heard an SOS one time in cw on hf and he didnt know how to respond?.... That could be a consequence of dropping the code for general..
Ahh any help would be GREATLY appreciated.
73 DE KC8TAD
|
| |
|
RE: Keeping CW As an HF Req.
|
Reply
|
|
by KB0NLY on March 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Talk about opening up a can of worms on Eham yet again. This CW or Non-CW debate will fire up on this posting i'm sure.
Search around on the Forums, you could read through them and have many hams opinions in no time. Also there was some recent survey questions dealing with keeping or removing the requirement that might be useful for you. You also might want to read into both sides of the story elsewhere, a good place for the Pro-CW crowd is all the recent articles and letters available on the ARRL web page, a good place for the Anti-CW crowd is the No-Code web site, although they havent done any recent updates in a while for some reason.
My two cents worth, keep the code, just not as a testing requirement. If you remove the code from being a testing requirement it doesn't mean that nobody will want to learn, or that clubs will remove it from there classes. A local club near me has made it a policy to teach CW no matter what. What it does do is create a more laid back and unstressful environment for learning CW, after all if you have to be forced to learn it to pass the test and then forget what you learned and never use it what benefit is that? But on the other hand if it becomes a mode of choice like all the various digital methods in use then it becomes a another fun thing to try.
Just my opinion on the subject, good luck on your writing.
73,
Scott, KB0NLY
|
| |
|
RE: Keeping CW As an HF Req.
|
Reply
|
|
by KC8TAD on March 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Yes thanks for the reply.. I rewrote everything..
I guess im for getting rid of it but yet it should stay..wow i dont know i just wrote that they should drop it as a req. more people will experiment with it if it is NOT required and forced onto you..
Personally i think cw has GREAT potential of making it when nothing else will..etc.. I am going to learn cw and i will enjoy it...Thats all their is about it.
Then on the other side i keep thinking that if you want the privs. you should be dedicated to the hobby and put that time toward the hobby and pass it...its only 5wpm lol.. could be MUCH worse.
But then again i am entitled to my own opinion haha..
73 DE KC8TAD
Paper is done.. final is printed and all is well.. =D
Thanks for the reply
|
| |
|
RE: Keeping CW As an HF Req.
|
Reply
|
|
by K5DVW on March 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
You might have chosen an easier topic if you went with something religious or political.
|
| |
|
RE: Keeping CW As an HF Req.
|
Reply
|
|
by KD5QLK on March 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I just passed my morse code test saturday. It was my second attempt at the test (albiet within a week.) This was my third or fourth attempt at learning the code.
Although I learned the code to get HF priveleges, I AM going to continue to learn it. I find the issue of communications reliability to be quite compelling. But then one of the main motivations for me to even get into ham radio (after being marginally interested for nearly 20 years) was for emergency communications - AKA September 11th. The usefulness of CW to communcate when nothing else will work is fairly clear. I WANT to be able to communicate QRP, or via satellite, or whatever else I may need to do. In this respect, it is obviously a good idea to keep the code requirement.
Another compelling reason is to keep the bands free of people who are not motivated. Obviously the code requirement does not limit HF to "nice" people, but someone has to make an effort to learn the code, and in the process gain at least some form of indoctrination into the reasoning behind it's continued use.
The Amateur Radio license gives an indivdual a substantial amount of power - the ability to run a 1000W transmitter is unique without the help of an engineer. Obviously the General and Extra tests check for this knowledge, but the code requirement emphasizes a different aspect of the HF priveleges - that it is the communication itself that is important, and that certain priveleges DO require some effort.
On the other hand, I could see a modification of the code requirements, like 5wpm with no farnsworth for general, and 5wpm in the current code test config for extra. The slower speed would help make the code test that much easier - after all, even the current one is just checking for your ability to recognise code, not send it.
So my vote is, keep the code, it means you have to work for HF priveleges, and that you are a more useful ham. I would add no-code priveleges (10m?) before getting rid of the code - the public service aspect of this "hobby" should not be taken lightly, and from my immediate experience, it's just not that hard to do.
|
| |
|
RE: Keeping CW As an HF Req.
|
Reply
|
|
by KB0NLY on March 4, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Another compelling reason is to keep the bands free of people who are not motivated. Obviously the code requirement does not limit HF to "nice" people, but someone has to make an effort to learn the code, and in the process gain at least some form of indoctrination into the reasoning behind it's continued use."
How many times have i heard this excuse, hmm i can't count that high. Seriously, i hear more abusive and foul mouthed hams on HF then i ever hear above 50Mhz. In my opinion though let HF have them, that way where i operate it is friendly and useful.
"On the other hand, I could see a modification of the code requirements, like 5wpm with no farnsworth for general, and 5wpm in the current code test config for extra. The slower speed would help make the code test that much easier - after all, even the current one is just checking for your ability to recognise code, not send it."
That's right, testing to see if you can copy. Does that mean we should also include testing to see if someone can copy SSB, or AM, or PSK or RTTY?? Doesn't make sense to test on one mode of operation and leave out the most used ones on the radio today.
"So my vote is, keep the code, it means you have to work for HF priveleges, and that you are a more useful ham. I would add no-code priveleges (10m?) before getting rid of the code - the public service aspect of this "hobby" should not be taken lightly, and from my immediate experience, it's just not that hard to do."
So your saying that i'm a less useful ham than anyone else because i don't know the code?? I agree that the public service aspect should not be taken lightly, but when was the last time you used CW to accomplish your goals in a emergency situation?? Yes it can be good at getting through when other things can't, but i have seen demonstrations of many more useful methods that send a whole page of text in a matter of minutes. And i doubt we will ever have to resort to hiding in the hills with CW setups run from a car battery, but then again the gloom and doom crowd will suggest that.
I take offense to the crowd that calls any Ham less useful because he does not know CW, and those that think that are responsible for the hobby being stuck in the mud and on the decline in areas. Where i live clubs are dying, and so are the older hams without anyone to replace them. I talk to the same crowd of about a dozen hams each day, but thats not to say that it's boring in anyway. I also like 6m, 2m, and 70cm SSB and digital modes, i started working satellites to add to my enjoyment, and look forward to the launching of Project Eagle and Project Echo if they receive the funding necessary to be built and put into space.
If you think HF is difficult at times try 6m or 2m SSB, there is not always a lot of people listening, band openings are short and with sometimes months inbetween. But i love the challenge of VHF weak signal work, and with the latest antenna project in the shop i will be better prepared for UHF weak signal work. I like building antennas, i like taking old radios and repairing them, i help others fix there equipment, and i even have a college diploma in computer hardware. I can honestly say that i know more about electronics and items of an electrical nature, not to mention my mechanical experience in the field of automotive repair, than some hams. And i have been involved with getting many hams a good start on the hobby, as well as helping them with the all important first radio and antenna consideration. And even though i don't know CW i have built many a dipole for HF, and J-Poles for VHF and UHF.
Well anyway i just needed to vent.
73,
Scott, KB0NLY
|
| |
|
RE: Keeping CW As an HF Req.
|
Reply
|
|
by K7IHC on March 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hmmm. Interesting topic for a paper. Anyways, *my* opinion is to drop the Morse code requirement for the General license and access to most of the HF bands.
Reasons to follow:
(to address your situation where a *non-code* ham heard an SOS call in Morse... I think most laypeople know SOS in Morse. I know I learned it when I was a pre-teen.)
Some background:
I am a recent Technician ham. Even though I've been a professional user of two-way radio and used receiving equipment for over two decades, only recently did I earn my Tech ticket. I mainly use the 2m and 70cm bands and I'm just getting into the 23 cm (1.2 GHz) and 6m bands. I've built an APRS tracker and begun to get into packet radio. I've fabricated equipment installations in my vehicles and home (base), built and tested a few antennas, tuned and tweaked a few radios. I also *run around* with several repeater builders/operators and try to assist them as much as I can. At work (fire dept), I do most of the installing, maintaining, troubleshooting, and programming of the 2-way equipment. Some stuff is left to the commercial service techs, as I don't have a service monitor or an applicable license to fully work on the equipment.
Between all this *above 50 MHz* work, job work, and raising a 9 month-old, I haven't found much time to study Morse code.
All I'd like to be able to do is take the General written and try a little 10m phone or 20m ops. I don't think I'll become a big operator on the HF bands.
I would like to see the Morse code requirement become optional or something similar to what Great Britain has proposed (or has it actually been enacted there?).
I don't see any reason why the code should be a requirement for HF ham operation and *not* VHF/UHF/SHF operation. I find operations in the 23cm band to be quite unique and fun, and you don't need anything but a Tech license to do it! Even if I get around to taking the tests before the requirement is dropped, I don't see myself working much, if any CW.
|
| |
|
RE: Keeping CW As an HF Req.
|
Reply
|
|
by RobertKoernerExAE7G on March 5, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
A "no-code" HF ticket doesn’t mean you will get ssb or AM privileges. You might just get CW privileges in the old novice sub bands using a computer, or FM in the 10 meter sub band. You might wind up with 100 watt input AM in the 10 meter band?
Bob
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to this topic.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Check our help page for help using
Forum, or send questions, comments, or suggestions to the
Forum Manager.
|
|
|
