Survey Comments
Yep, Sure
Hey, whatever you gotta tell yourself . . .
Posted by
KE4RWS on 2002-09-22
Morse code is digital
Question E8C01 of the Extra Class test pool: What digital code consists of elements having unequal length?
Answer: Morse code
Posted by
K1RDD on 2002-09-20
Why no comments on written test
I have never understood why people want to eliminate the code test for licensing, or for certain class of licenses, but do not want to eliminate the written test. Taking a written test is the equilivant of passing a code test for several reasons: 1. Both require you to learn something new. 2. Both involve information which you may not ever desire to use on the ham bands. 3. Both are used to screen out potential hams. To me, it seems that learning CW should be easier than learning the written material. For the CW test, I have to learn 36 items (26 letters and 10 numbers). For the written test, There are literally hundreds or thousands of questions to learn the answer to. It is just interesting that we meet people who belive that CW should not be a part of the licensing procedure, but you rarely meet someone who believes that the written test should not be a part-or that the written test should be limited to FCC regulations only.
Posted by
NE0P on 2002-09-09
To W4MGY
Steve, before you post something, make sure you know what you're saying and don't assume things by calling some of us non-achievers. I passed my Technician exam with 100% in April. If you read my post, you know that I passed my General written exam (in June with 100%) and yes, I am currently studying hard for the CW exam and intend to pass it, even though I disagree with it being a requirement. And after I pass the CW test, I am going after my Extra ticket.
I hold a degree in Computer Science, have graduated with honors, received an academic commendation from then President Reagan in grade school, work as a computer/network engineer, advance SKYWARN trained, will be joining ARES, and serving my community as an amateur radio operator who will give back to the community for the priviliges of these frequencies. So before you call anyone a non-achiever or insult anyone with your comments, try to find out as much information as possible and read carefully what people are saying. Apparently you misconstrued my post as being a CW hater...but I am not. I just disagree with it being a requirement, that is all.
Posted by
KG4TDM on 2002-09-08
maybe code is lost
When I went for my Novice Licence 46 years ago I had to pound out 5WPM and my lisence was only good for 2 years. One year later I went for my General Class I pounded out 16WPM without a speed key.What will be nice is the newbie's will have to build a circut(or buy one)to understand what the people who started some time ago are talking about and all it cost us was some internal memory called Brain cells and a good Ear.
Posted by
W9SZO on 2002-09-07
Outlaw cw
I think it would be great if cw was outlawed . I used to think that if someone wanted to use cw, fine then use it. But cw types want to continue to force it on everyone else. By totally killing the use of cw, nobody would have to listen to another round of arguing about a dead and totally abandoned comm method that is no longer used by anyone else in the universe.
Posted by
KG5FTK on 2002-09-07
CW
I passed the General element 3 test in June and I'm currently studying for the CW test, even though I do not agree that CW testing shows operating skill proficiency necessary to work the HF bands, especially if you do not intend to use CW, which is one of many digital modes used. For those of you that want to do something about getting the CW requirement removed, go to www.nocode.org
and join for free so that your voice is heard.
Posted by
KG4TDM on 2002-09-07
CW Forever
It is unfortunate that this discussion has deteriorated into another code vs no-code diatribe. To KG4TDM, WA8KJP, KE4RWS and all the other non-acheiver types out there...The CW requirement is not going to be eliminated just because you feel it is too old fashioned, or too cumbersome for your liking. It seems that we have in our midsts a group of people who want ham radio dumbed down, and accessable to everyone; no matter what the cost. My wife and I both hold Extra class tickets. Not only did we work hard to EARN them, but it is justifiable to have a strong sense of personal pride in such an accomplishment. To you non-acheiver types who might feel that we Extras are a Elitist bunch, so be it! Ham radio is not a right, nor a democracy. To take part, you have to earn the privilage. Yes, there is a feeling that we in the upper eschelon of ham radio share. The serious HF operators want the code requirement retained to help keep the Lazy, non-acheiver CB types off our DX bands. We have contempt for those who would tear-down the institutions of amateur radio that took nearly 100 years of tradition to bring it to where it is today.
Posted by
W4MGY on 2002-09-07
Hey Kids
Children, children! Lets quit the bickering,least we forget that this is a hobby and is suposed to be fun. I do cw. It's one of the few modes afordable to many and lends its self to home brew. PSK is cool, haven't tried it yet but I intend to as soon as I can cough up a few buck for the equipment. I do like cw being a requirement as much as I like haveing a technical knowledge of other modes being a requirement I'm just very thankfull that good spelling isn't tested.
Posted by
K4WAL on 2002-09-07
Digital CW
1110101110100010111
Posted by
K4WAL on 2002-09-07
charles whiskey
Gentlemen:
I am a cw op. Change the tense and you can stamp it on my tombstone. I suspect, however, that the 839 or whatever votes for this mode probably (knowing hams) reflects that many different opinions. Lumping us all together as "cw-gods" and "all you cw ops.." as ke4rws has done in some recent posts, just isn't very accurate. I don't know...it's a rich and varied hobby..and has been for me since 1968 when I flunked (not the cw potion) my first novice test.hihi.
I'd need more data to support a postion that cw "keeps the riff-raff out"; I witnessed poor op practices 35 years ago and still do.
Having said that, if anyone ever let me vote on it, I'd consider a vote for a 20wpm minimum cw requirement for all license classes. Code just isn't that difficult; I learned it in one night with a flashlight. Cheers, WU0H.
Posted by
KH6ES on 2002-09-07
cw types???????????
here we go again, now someone is pointing the finger at the cw ops
and saying they want to force themselves upon everyone. But then again
look at the other side of the coin the ssb boys and the no coders want
to force ssb down everybodies throats. if you guys spent half as much time and
effort learning the code as you spend peeing and moaning you could
be up to 20 wpm plus by now. its a sad world when two 6 year olds learn
to send and receive cw for a science fair project and the grown ups just sit back
and cry. give us a break good buddies
Posted by
W8OB on 2002-09-07
All In One Basket
Gentlemen, I didn't start out putting all cw ops in one basket, but if any of you took the time to read through this entire thread you would see, without question, where I simply stated that I didn't agree with the cw requirement. It was that plain and simple. Immediately following my first post I was attacked by cw operators. Many of them implied that I was stupid, lazy, ignorant, and many other irrelevant issues. It was at that point I decided that I will never even attempt to go for HF, but cw hit the bottom of my list from that point on. If you took the time to read these posts you'll notice it was the cw ops as I call them, who started all the crap. Just made the original comment that I didn't agree with the cw requirement. After that all hell broke loose and the cw ops began all the "I'm better than you" bullshit. And it goes on and on from there. So of course I came back in rebuttal because I'm just sick of all these cw ops who think their better than other people because they know cw. I mean c'mon man, you know cw so that makes you better than other amateur operators? Big whoop-dee-do!! I'm fluent in the German lanquage, but you don't see me saying I'm better than all you people out there who only know english. Good God man, give me a break! And when you get down to it that's all cw is . . . just another type of language. All this bullshit go started by all the goody-goody cw ops out there who decided they were better than all the other human beings out there, hence, the term bigot arose. Most of these cw ops are bigots through and through because of their attitudes towards other people. I'm no better than any other human being just because I understand packet AX.25 protocol, or because I speak German, but the cw ops think their shit don't stink. So the only people their fooling are themselves, and they demonstrate to the world what alpha-hotels they are with their bigot attitudes. So if you want to point a finger at someone for stirring the shit here, point it at the cw ops. And if you read this entire thread you'll see that everything I've stated here is supported in what you'll read. Now we can keep this crap going till the end of time because it doesn't matter to me. You people can think of me what you will because at the end of the day I could care less about what a bigot thinks about me. So once again, point the finger where it belongs . . . cw ops. The lesson here is that you can't comment on cw if you don't agree with it and it's requirements. Because if you do all the goody-goody cw ops out the will start in with this hitler crap about how their better than you because they know cw. Like I said before, big hairy ding-dong. You know cw. Who cares. All this can stop very easily if all the little cw ops would cease with the "You ain't shit if you don't know cw" attitude. That ain't gonna happen though because they've demonstrated that in order to learn cw you have to become an alpha-hotel who thinks their better than everyone else. So, in the end, there is no resolve, There is no compromise. There is no reasoning with these . . . people (to use the word loosely). So the fight goes on, and in the process everyone who reads this post sees what bigots these guys are. Sure, I may appear to be the bad guy to some, but it exposes cw ops for who and what they are. And more importantly, what cw ops stand for. So if you don't stand for what these guys stand for then don't hammer on people because they don't share the same views as you do, or because they're happy with being a Technician class licensee. No wonder why so many are pushed away from amateur radio. When they see all the prejudiced attitudes out there about their own kind, it would turn anyone away. So we'll keep this going as long as it takes to allow everyone to see the real cw attitude out there. And if that really isn't the cw attitude out there than it's up to the cw ops to stop stiring the pot, and stop trying to elevate themselves above other human beings. Stop trying to make other people look inferior because they don't have an interest in "your mode". There are a lot of modes out there, and YOU are NOT the center of the universe. So, it's up to the cw ops to turn this general attitude issue around.
Posted by
KE4RWS on 2002-09-07
W8OB
Here's another guy who thinks we should HAVE to learn cw! Sorry, but I ain't learning cw so I can operate with Technician class privileges! Ain't gonna happen, so keep pissing and moaning about wanting everyone to learn cw because it'll NEVER happen. Why don't you go learn packet or something? And I don't mean learn how to hook up a TNC to a radio and computer. I mean learn to write AX.25 protocol. It'll never happen. And you know why? Because your prejudiced against all other modes except cw. Your prejudiced plain and simple, like most of the other cw ops on this thread. And your statement shows everybody that you too think everyone should learn your little mode of operation. That's the only reason why I mention that you should learn MY mode, because I know you don't want to learn it, so why the hell would anyone else learn a mode their not interested in? You guys always say, "Well we wouldn't want anyone to learn something that takes a little effort now would we". That same statement could be used for any other mode, but you don't see those guys spouting that crap to you or anyone else. Not until the cw ops start in with their holy'er-than-thou bullcrap do all the other people chime in and ask what your problem is. The plain and simple fact is that some people don't want to learn cw because they have no interest in it, which is the same reason why you didn't learn other people's favorite mode. It didn't interest you so you passed it up. That's your choice. And passing up cw is my choice. It has nothing to do with someone wanting to operate HF because I don't want HF privileges, but all the cw ops who respond to my postings do everything in their power to make it look like I'm saying I want HF privileges without learning cw. I don't want HF privileges. I operate from 50 MHz on up so I damn sure ain't gonna learn cw for that, nor do I have to. You like cw then do it. I don't like it thanks to you guys so I'm not going to learn it, nor do I have to. So when you start in moaning that everyone should learn cw, why don't you look at the other side of the coin and ask yourself why you don't learn another mode of operation other than your beloved cw?
Posted by
KE4RWS on 2002-09-07
round and round
hey! you did not see in my post the push as you call it for people to learn cw.
frankly i dont give a rats rear end if you guys learn it or not. I merely stated a fact
that two 6 year olds had no trouble learning cw. ax25 and packet is a dead horse.
gone with the dino's yes i used to write software and quit just before the window 95
days i found it boring . thing i want to know is why your getting so excited over a
few postings here, if you happy with what you do then ta hell with whatever anybody
else thinks. If they should ever do away with c.w. for hf big deal we still have a few
thousand people out there who swear by the mode myself included. bet you wont see
a real cw op loose his/her cool in front of a few hundred onlookers. Take it easy man you will
live longer
Posted by
W8OB on 2002-09-07
W8OB
So you didn't push for people to learn cw? Part of your last post stated, "if you guys spent half as much time and effort learning the code as you spend peeing and moaning you could be up to 20 wpm plus by now". If that wasn't a push to learn cw then I don't know what is! Like I said before, you guys will never just let those who want to learn cw learn it, and those who don't give a rats-ass about it go their own way. But no, that's too easy for cw ops to live by. It's, "learn cw or your nothing". That's the only thing non-cw users see from you guys. Then you wrote, " bet you wont see a real cw op loose his/her cool in front of a few hundred onlookers". Nope, you don't see cw ops losing their cool in front of a few hundred onlookers, but you damn sure try to elevate yourself in front of the same few hundred onlookers. So what's the difference? You too are part of the problem when you fail to recognize the problem here. That is, when cw ops think their better than everyone else. So it's not okay to lose your cool in front of someone, but it's okay for cw ops to put other people down because their not interested in your prefered mode? Somebody needs to remove their head out of their . . . sand. And the fact that you find AX.25 boring is fine with me. You see, it doesn't stir me up to hear that someone doesn't care for the mode I prefer. But for whatever the reason, cw ops just can't let that be the case if someone doesn't like cw, or further, if they actually say that it's boring to them. That's when they come off with this "Man's Mode" bullshit, and the "I'm better than you" mindgame. I happen to respect that fact that you don't care for packet, but cw ops just can't handle someone who doesn't like their mode. And as far as living longer, do yourself a favor and lay off the chicken wings.
Posted by
KE4RWS on 2002-09-07
Uh-Huh
NEXT !!
Posted by
KE4RWS on 2002-09-07
Let's just get rid of ham radio altogether....
I don't want to be a part of it anymore if this is representative of the attitudes of the people involved.....this is humanity at its worst.
Posted by
KE4MOB on 2002-09-07
Gentlemen...It's only a hobby..But guess now u can add "Ham Rage" to all the other "Rages" out there Hi...If people would just grow up and get on with it..this hobby like everything else in life would be a pretty good place to live in..But like so many other aspects in today's society..some people want everything handed to them for nothing..Sorry but if u want something u got to work for it..that simple! If its too hard for u then just go away and find another hobby!
As for cw or the other modes..that is one's choice..I dont care what mode or bands or whatever that someone operates as long they enjoy the hobby..But going on the rag about cw ops well borders on illness mate! Who Cares! As stated in my other posting of September 3rd..If that is part of the deal learning the morse..then learn it and get on with it..If some of the guys who are doing the must moaning were around 30/40/50 years ago u would have something to moan about then...it was bloody hard to get a license back then..But it was a great feeling when u did pass and recieve your ticket and others didnt put u down because of the mode u liked or prefer (ssb/am was exception Hi). I guess too if some people had to live in countries where one has to pay for a license u be moaning too...try paying 50 bucks a year and there is not a darn thing u can do about it mate..Thats life..like everything else..u want something unfortunely u got to work for it...As far as the manners (for the most part) on cw and other digital modes...just listen in on a pile up on 14.200 ssb sometimes..I never thought in 36 years as a ham that this hobby could get to such a low point...At last on cw Its not as bad..I wonder why?
For the record I do not precieve myself to be above anyone because I like CW..its just that I enjoy it and its been the lest expensive way for me to enjoy chasing DX..To me it's a hobby! The family comes first mate!
cu on the band cw/ssb de Bill ZL3NB
Posted by
ZL3NB on 2002-09-07
CW-Learn it !
CW - Just learn it! If you don't like it, don't use it. "Where's the beef"? You have to learn to paralell park to get your driver's lic., but to you dont have to park that way.
Just a thought
73 -.- -.. ..... -. --.. ....
Posted by
KD5NZH on 2002-09-07
Oh Boy . . .
Oh yeah, there's another "I'm Special" attitude out there. Obviously you didn't read all the posts that got this crap started either, so I wouldn't expect you to understand what the real deal is here. Just to clarify, for the fourth time now, the problem isn't that we're moaning about having or not having to learn cw. The problem is that apparently no one can even comment about their view of cw without certain cw bigots jumping all over your ass, making you appear inferior because they know cw and you don't. At this point people could care less about cw. It's absolutely nothing in terms of subject matter. It's now an issue of cw ops thinking their special, or higher in the food chain so to speak. Get real people! Read the postings before commenting. Don't just read one or two previous posts and assume the rest! If this thread has done anything, it has shown everyone (those who aren't blinded by the BS) that many, many cw ops are some of the most prejudiced people I've EVER SEEN.
Posted by
KE4RWS on 2002-09-07
Definition of Digital
I suppose whether CW is digital depends on which definition of digital you use. Here is the one I am familiar with:
digital
A description of data which is stored or transmitted as a sequence of discrete symbols from a finite set, most commonly this means binary data represented using electronic or electromagnetic signals.
You can, of course, use one of the other definitions to the opposite effect.
Posted by NY4T on 2002-09-07To NY7Q
Your right. I do have a chip on my shoulder, and cw operators put it there. If you took the time to read through this entire thread you would have noticed I didn't start out this way. I originally stated my position on cw requirements (after many others had stated their position on it). But because cw isn't my mode I was attacked by all the perfect cw ops out there. And why? Just because cw isn't my preferred mode. It goes back to that little cw clique I've been talking about. You see, if someone doesn't like your little mode then they're your enemy. So apparently it is you and those like you that have a chip on their shoulders. People like you are bigots when it comes to recognizing other modes of operation. One mode or the other, doesn't matter which. If it makes you happy then do it. If you don't care for a certain mode then don't do it. But cw ops think learning cw is the end-all, be-all in the universe. You think your above other people because you know cw. You think your special. You have an elevated opinion about yourself, and in the process of all your arrogance you tell people more than ever what an idiot you really are. No wonder cw has died out over the years. You too, like the dinosaur, have your days numbered.
Posted by
KE4RWS on 2002-09-06
Impression
Randy, you would probably come across
a little better if you would use the
contraction you're rather than the possesive
pronoun your when you're tryin' to say
you are.
Don't know if it would help your cause,
as you're kinda an anti-cw nut.
(example of how to use those words)
No, I'm not an English teacher, just an
ole retired flatfoot.
73 de Ronnie
Posted by
WA4MJF on 2002-09-06
ke4rws
Well, you do have some pent up hate. It looks to me like your hate comes from the fact you are really mad at yourself for not being to accomplish what you want in your way. Yes, we extras are above all. We CW ops are a cut above all because we worked for a skill. WHY DO YOU THINK CW IS GOING AWAY??? There as many CW ops as SSB, and if you could get into the system and copy code, you would know the real truth. Vent your hate on your auto mechanic for putting tail lights on your car, or the cafe' for putting butter on your toast, or cream in your coffee, you know?? things you know about, not things you have no idea about like copying code or learning it, or upgrading by working and study. Part your hair on the other side in the morning, maybe it will start a change in the right direction for your attitude (which by the way, is worse than a bucket of cow shit)My milking cows have a better attitude than you. They give something to better anothers life each day.
Posted by
K7NNG on 2002-09-06
psk vs cw
I love cw and psk31. CW is a digital mode, it uses long and short bursts as encoding. It is the only digital mode that we humans can copy. If you don't think so look at the UPS units in your office or computer store, most of them beep out their warnings in good old morse.
Some of you old cw people should go thrugh the trouble of monitoring a PSK31 QSO, you would be surprised to see that it looks alot like your average CW QSO. I was!
Maybe we should spend less time fighting and name-calling and more time trying to get along and advance our-selves and the hobby.
I think some of you should read the post about the amatuer code.
Jerry AE9L
Posted by
AE9L on 2002-09-06
psk vs cw
I love cw and psk31. CW is a digital mode, it uses long and short bursts as encoding. It is the only digital mode that we humans can copy. If you don't think so look at the UPS units in your office or computer store, most of them beep out their warnings in good old morse.
Some of you old cw people should go thrugh the trouble of monitoring a PSK31 QSO, you would be surprised to see that it looks alot like your average CW QSO. I was!
Maybe we should spend less time fighting and name-calling and more time trying to get along and advance our-selves and the hobby.
I think some of you should read the post about the amatuer code.
Jerry AE9L
Posted by
AE9L on 2002-09-06
NY7Q
Ah yes, another fine example of a true bigot you are! So your a cut above the rest, eh? Wow! Your my hero! I have the license class that I'm happy with, and I have all the privileges I need. So I'm actually fine with my current level. Now that I know you have to become a bigot the learn cw I'll shy away from that mode. Maybe one day you'll realize your little cw activities don't mean shit in the grand scheme of things. Funny, you don't see any other modes represented here trying to put everyone else down because YOU don't like their mode. But you damn sure see cw ops slamming everybody else here. Yep, your a bigot plain and simple. And anyone else who thinks their a "cut above" any other licensed operator here is a bigot as well. Oh yeah, and have fun milking yer . . uh . . . cows.
Posted by
KE4RWS on 2002-09-06
NY7Q
Oh yeah, as for the pent-up hate, that's due to cw ops like you who are bigots. That's the reaction people like you bring out of normal people. Your "I'm better than you" attitude would piss off the pope, so don't think for a second I'm alone out here. Most people feel this way when they see you doing everything in your power to elevate yourself above another human being. No wonder you have cows. Bigots find them easy to control.
Posted by
KE4RWS on 2002-09-06
PSK and ragchewing
I have run PSK for about a year, and I have found that it is probably one of the best ragchewing modes out there. My PSK QSOs on average are much longer than CW or SSB QSOs, especially when it comes to dxing. I guess it is partially due to the differences in language, and since you can type before sending in PSK, it gives non-native English speaking hams a chance to get their thoughts put into English a little easier. PSK also works very well with low power. I have had several very successful QSOs at 5 watts, include one with a station from Spain. I have even been in a few PSK pileups for dx, which are pretty interesting. It is nice to see more DXPeditions working PSK. I worked both the TI9M and K1B on PSK, and believe that several other major dxpeditions have been active on the mode also-including D68C. With the invention of soundcard based software digital modes, it is a great time to be a ham. Getting on a new mode is easier than ever, and requires a lot less equipment and expense. Once you are set up for PSK, you just have to download the software for the other modes, and find someone to talk to. Wonder what the next new digital mode will be??
Posted by
NE0P on 2002-09-06
SOS
So, anyway, who's the DX???
Posted by
W8FAX on 2002-09-06
To EN0P
John Geiger, if your going to open your mouth and say something about me then at least be accurate about what your talking about. No one said anything about "wanting something for nothing". And there may be packet related questions on your little amateur radio test, but you didn't have to learn the mode, did you? Nope, you sure didn't. So it appears your the one who's whining. Just like all you CW people . . . you think your something but your at the bottom of the pile as far as I'm concerned. If someone doesn't like your little mode of operation then their not in your little clique. I think you know what you can do with your inaccurate statements about me John Geiger. And all you CW operators out there wonder why people don't like you? When you stir up crap about people and try to elevate yourself above other operators just because you know cw you turn people away from the hobby, period. So keep it up and your mode will continue to dwindle as it has over the years because no one will want to have to adopt the cw-god attitude that all of you have. I know this isn't the topic of discussion anymore, but the cw ops stirred the crap so here we go.
Posted by
KE4RWS on 2002-09-05
To EN0P
John Geiger, if your going to open your mouth and say something about me then at least be accurate about what your talking about. No one said anything about "wanting something for nothing". And there may be packet related questions on your little amateur radio test, but you didn't have to learn the mode, did you? Nope, you sure didn't. So it appears your the one who's whining. Just like all you CW people . . . you think your something but your at the bottom of the pile as far as I'm concerned. If someone doesn't like your little mode of operation then their not in your little clique. I think you know what you can do with your inaccurate statements about me John Geiger. And all you CW operators out there wonder why people don't like you? When you stir up crap about people and try to elevate yourself above other operators just because you know cw you turn people away from the hobby, period. So keep it up and your mode will continue to dwindle as it has over the years because no one will want to have to adopt the cw-god attitude that all of you have. I know this isn't the topic of discussion anymore, but the cw ops stirred the crap so here we go.
Posted by
KE4RWS on 2002-09-05
To EN0P
John Geiger, if your going to open your mouth and say something about me then at least be accurate about what your talking about. No one said anything about "wanting something for nothing". And there may be packet related questions on your little amateur radio test, but you didn't have to learn the mode, did you? Nope, you sure didn't. So it appears your the one who's whining. Just like all you CW people . . . you think your something but your at the bottom of the pile as far as I'm concerned. If someone doesn't like your little mode of operation then their not in your little clique. I think you know what you can do with your inaccurate statements about me John Geiger. And all you CW operators out there wonder why people don't like you? When you stir up crap about people and try to elevate yourself above other operators just because you know cw you turn people away from the hobby, period. So keep it up and your mode will continue to dwindle as it has over the years because no one will want to have to adopt the cw-god attitude that all of you have. I know this isn't the topic of discussion anymore, but the cw ops stirred the crap so here we go.
Posted by
KE4RWS on 2002-09-05
Re Modes
Gentlemen ! Let's not allow the ' means ' to an end ( which is
to communicate with our fellow humans ) become the end !
You are free to choose your mode ! Period !
Posted by
G3SEA on 2002-09-05
packet on exam
How am I supposed to pass a question about packet if I don't learn the mode? When you get down to it, 99% of the questions on the written exam are unfair, because they ask about modes, types of propogation, equipment, or electronic theory that not everyone intends to use. In KE4RWS's dream world, you would have to tell the VE ahead of time exactly what modes, bands, and interests you will have in amateur radio, so they can make up a special exam with questions that only cover those topics. Asking about anything else would be unfair, clique-ish, and used to exclude everyone from the ranks.
I don't look down on anyone who doesn't have a general or extra class license. There is plenty of fun to be had on VHF, UHF, and the microwaves. In fact, we need more people on those frequencies. If someone doesn't want to learn morse code, that is perfectly fine by me, and by most other hams also. Just understand that it will place limitations on your operating. THe same holds true for those who don't want to take the time to study for the extra class exam. There are frequencies that they are not allowed to operate on, and most seem perfectly fine with that. I should know, I was not born an extra. I was a novice for 2 years, a general for several months, and an advanced class for a year. That meant that I could not operate everywhere that I wanted to. Did I complain that they system was unfair? Did I believe that a bunch of old-timers were setting up a clique to purposly exclude me from the extra class subbands? NO-when I realize that I wanted to operate there, I studied material that I really had no use for, and learned something new! WOW! What a concept. Imagine having to expend effort and learn something.
If people would spend as much time studying the code as they do complaining about how unfair it is to have to learn it, and how as CW operators we are closed minded bigots, etc, most of them would already be extra class operators.
Posted by
NE0P on 2002-09-05
KE4RWS
sounds like you have a chip on your shoulder about everything in general. before you hack extras, you ought to get some experience at it yourself. all it takes is dedication, work and just a little desire to be a wee bit better at something, rather than being a whiner. (not winner) better yet, just go away, we don't need you in the ranks.
Posted by
K7NNG on 2002-09-05
An apology to KE4RWS
I would like to use this space to issue an apology to Randy, KE4RWS. I was wrong to attack him or his beliefs in stating my own beliefs. In the future, I will simply state my opinion, without any personal attacks or insults towards others. Again, sorry Randy, and everyone have a good weekend using FM, Packet, RTTY, SSB, AM, CW, Hellschreiber, PSK31, MFSK16, MT63, Pactor, Amtor, or whatever else gets through.
Posted by
NE0P on 2002-09-05
CW is Digital
Digital is not to be confused with binary. There can be digital without using a pure binary number system. When it comes down to it, CW gives you three choices: Dah, dit, and space. Sure, you use different amounts of space for different things, but it's the ORIGINAL digital mode. I know there are those old timers out there who are big-time CW fans who talk about ease of setup in the field, et cetera, but come on guys. Sure, you can throw up a cw setup in the field during an emergency, and carry on emergency communications on five watts around the world, and that's fine. But I can also throw up a packet setup in the field in the same amount of time, or less (read: open my briefcase and hook up my j-pole) and I now have a valuable tool for command and control of search and rescue units, monitoring weather, and all sorts of other good stuff... Everything has it's place...
Posted by
KB5SXH on 2002-09-04
Other digital modes
I don't really consider CW a digital mode, but it is my main form of communication. I for one am glad that KE4RWS will not be on CW, so I know I can go to the CW subbands and not have to listen to his incessant whining and crying about how everything should be given him. I know that there are packet questions on the written exam. I have no interest in packet or APRS, so why should they question me on it?
Posted by
NE0P on 2002-09-04
Other digital modes
Now for the rest of my comments. I really like WSJT, and have been having great success with it so far. It allows me, as a little pistol, to make some of the VHF dx contacts that used to be limited to the big guns. I also like Hellschreiber! It is just a cool mode, and wish there were more people on it. I also run RTTY, PSK, MFSK, and have found that RTTY works very well for DXing. I think that people use PSK more than MFSK because PSK signals are easier tune, but I agree with others who say that MFSK gets through much better. Surprised that no one cited MT63 yet. I have installed that software, but have had no luck with it yet.
Posted by
NE0P on 2002-09-04
surprised
I really am surprised at how many replies think cw isn't digital, and I would guess some people are extras! Not that it's the most important thing to know about, but geez it's on the test!
Rick
Posted by
KA1EZE on 2002-09-04
SSTV A DIGITAL MODE????
I thought SSTV was analog....
Posted by
WD9CYI on 2002-09-04
CW
I love CW. You're missing something if you don't consider it as an option.
Posted by
WD8OKN on 2002-09-04
CW
I love CW. You're missing something if you don't consider it as an option.
Posted by
WD8OKN on 2002-09-04
sstv
Good catch WD9CYI! we all missed that one!
rick
Posted by
KA1EZE on 2002-09-04
CW For Me
To VK5LA: Give em hell, Andy! Your comments were right on the money! Also, Thank You for doing this. I doubt that you get many but we do appreciate it!To W4MGY: Well said, Steve! I don't begrudge another ham his or her thing in this wide wonderful hobby, but my own opinion closely paralells yours with regard to hooking a computer up to a radio. If I wanna get on a computer, I'll hook into the internet and not be restricted on what I can say, what I can see, and all that. If I want to get on the radio, I use voice or CW. I know a lot of neat things have come from mating radio and computers like APRS (no, it's not one of my interests) and IRLP (yeah, this can be fun and generate interest), but I just don't see (speaking for myself) hooking a computer into a radio and making your contacts dependent on not one, but two, complicated pieces of gear that are dependent on one another for the message to get through. Say, in an emergency, when power is scarce and you're running off of batteries, the computer is an extra drain on what power resources you do have. Also, most computer equipment is of a delicate nature, so if you're having to operate in excessive heat, humidity, cold, or whatever, this looks like another chance for Murphy to make a grand entrance. Again, not saying that the digital (other than CW) ops shouldn't be able to do their thing, just expressing that it ain't mine. When doing radio, I'll take the mic or the straight key, please. 73, Ray KV4BL
Posted by
KV4BL on 2002-09-03
CW For Me
To VK5LA: Give em hell, Andy! Your comments were right on the money! Also, Thank You for doing this. I doubt that you get many but we do appreciate it!To W4MGY: Well said, Steve! I don't begrudge another ham his or her thing in this wide wonderful hobby, but my own opinion closely paralells yours with regard to hooking a computer up to a radio. If I wanna get on a computer, I'll hook into the internet and not be restricted on what I can say, what I can see, and all that. If I want to get on the radio, I use voice or CW. I know a lot of neat things have come from mating radio and computers like APRS (no, it's not one of my interests) and IRLP (yeah, this can be fun and generate interest), but I just don't see (speaking for myself) hooking a computer into a radio and making your contacts dependent on not one, but two, complicated pieces of gear that are dependent on one another for the message to get through. Say, in an emergency, when power is scarce and you're running off of batteries, the computer is an extra drain on what power resources you do have. Also, most computer equipment is of a delicate nature, so if you're having to operate in excessive heat, humidity, cold, or whatever, this looks like another chance for Murphy to make a grand entrance. Again, not saying that the digital (other than CW) ops shouldn't be able to do their thing, just expressing that it ain't mine. When doing radio, I'll take the mic or the straight key, please. 73, Ray KV4BL
Posted by
KV4BL on 2002-09-03
Next question!!
(With tongue planted firmly in cheek!!) Hey Andy, for a real bash-fest, let the next question be "Do you think there are too many digital modes?" Of course, how do you make seven answers? "Yes" "No" "Maybe" "Ask again later" "Definitely possible" "I don't care" and "Ask my wife"....of course, you would probably get blasted because you left off "Ask my psychic advisor"!! Give it up folks, THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE FUN!!!
Posted by
KE4MOB on 2002-09-03
Digital
those of us with dipoles and 100 watts need to use the more efficient modes. I would like to see a list showing their ability to get through. CW, MFSK 8, MFSk-16 and PSK-31 should be at the top. Hellschreiber should be up there too as it has about a 21% duty cycle and we can run full bore. Of course the voice modes are at the bottom.
Posted by
W5UX on 2002-09-03
Could Not Vote
I couldnot vote since I have never tried the digital modes. I would like to give them a try but I don't know when I will have the chance..
73
-Steve,KD5OWO
Posted by
KD5OWO on 2002-09-03
cw the winner
cw wins hands tied behind the back as the best mode, passes
info in the form of digi, does not need any expensive or bulky
gear to drag along to work it and with the op's brain being the
only interface it runs circles around the other modes in weak sig
work. I tried out the digital modes and found them lacking, first of
all if i want to do computer i connect to the internet. Yep CW is the
real man's mode ( womens too sorry ladies). You can get on this
mode and actually carry on a conversation with someone who really
knows something about radio and you never have to listen to whinners
who want something for nothing..... who sez cw is dying? look at the
votes the numbers dont lie..cw forever
Posted by
W8OB on 2002-09-03
More CW!
Wow, at the time of this writing there are a whopping 839 votes for CW! Does this mean there are only 839 people worldwide who use CW? Or, could it be these numbers are skewed due to the fact that the survey only reaches a certain percentage of those who frequent this site, and among those only a percentage who take the time to actually vote on the subject. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but this survey is highly skewed. And your only fooling yourself if you think CW is the final winner of all the modes because this doesn't give an insight to the real concensus out there. I mean really, only 839 people worldwide use CW out of the millions who are licensed amateurs worldwide? Gimme a break!
Posted by
KE4RWS on 2002-09-03
Digital
To KE4RWS
I suggest that you take your favorite mode and challenge a CW operator to some field tests. Then there won't be any need for debate. I have a H.F. rig in my auto and when I hit the key, I have a 16db gain over SSB. That amounts to a lot of power. Do the math.
Posted by
W5UX on 2002-09-03
To W5UX
So what does that have to do with my last statement? Sounds like your debating over who's mode is best now? I originally said I had great respect for CW and it's operators. That's now changed. I have no respect for you or your kind. Congratulations. You've managed to push another amateur away from YOUR preferred mode.
Posted by
KE4RWS on 2002-09-03
CW Digital?
I picked CW because I do not operate ANY digital modes. CW is not a digital mode since it has three elements, dah, dit and space. In other words, sending the letters KN is not the same thing as sending the prosign KN. The space between letters is also different from the space between words. I guess whoever included CW in digital modes must have thought that it was digital since you send it with your digits (fingers). SSB is actually my favorite mode but I still operate CW about 10% of the time.
Posted by
NY4T on 2002-09-03
I HATE Digital Modes
To be honest, digital communications (AMTOR, PACTOR, PSK31, RTTY, SSTV, and APRS) which all require the use of a computer is just simply not my type of ham radio. Those that are into the digital modes have my blessing. Being the boat anchor luddite that I am; I prefer SSB 99.9% of the time, and listen to the origional 'digital' code, CW once in a while. Considering that like most hams, I spend 3-4 hours a day at this computer surfing the internet, and reading e-mails; why in blue blazes would you think I would enjoy sitting another 3-4 hours looking at a computer monitor in order to have a QSO over the air?? Besides, I am legaly blind, and a slow typer; the digital modes would be a bit counter productive in my book. There are times I hate the very idea that we had let computers get into ham radio. Could it be that one of the major reasons the ham bands often seem so quiet and empty is simply because we are spending more of our time on the computer, rather than picking up the old mike and getting on the air?
Posted by
W4MGY on 2002-09-02
Re: MFSK16?
To N1YRK
If you had read the answers provided you would have seen the "other" choice.
It's right there with the Packet and APRS choices.
Give me a break man, I only have 7 choices to work with when setting up answers to a survey question.
I'm terribly sorry that I left out some obscure little mode that you and 29 other people worldwide enjoy.
As for the question being poorly reseached,
1000 apologies once again. Next time I set up a survey question, i'll spent a week researching it so I don't offend anyone and every answer will be exactly what everyone wants to see. Heck, I'll even email it to you so you can approve it before I post it.
I won't even think about my family, Job or life as I VOLUNTEER MY TIME to do this...
Shame on me...
Posted by
VK5LA on 2002-09-02
CW BUBBLE
Rather amusing to see cw at the top of the list..considering all the "Get rid of it" attitudes etc etc...When I was licensed back in the 60's you had to learn it..that simple.so you learned it to get a ticket.Much the same when I became a Electrician there were many aspects of the trade one had to learn in school..full knowing that you would probably never use it but in order to advance and recieve your regristration..Once again..you had to learn it..that simple. Actually I hated cw with a passion and once upgraded I said "no more cw"..that lasted 6 months..Been a steady cw op and dx'er for 36 years and Love it...to each their own I guess! But listening to some of the ham ops currently on the air one would have to wonder if they got their license from inside a Cracker Jack Box Hi..Those doing the most moaning about cw ops or other aspects of this great hobby can not even figured out how to build a simple dipole for 40 meters let alone solder a connector onto the coax. I rest my case!
See you on the bands CW/SSB
73's and Cheers
Bill ZL3NB
Posted by
ZL3NB on 2002-09-02
W8FAX
No, I spend my time learning things that I'm interested in. Like digital photography. My ham radio is for ragchewing on phone and cw. And emergency assistance in the same modes. I respectfully disagree with your comment above.
Posted by
N4VNV on 2002-09-01
See What I Mean!
W8FAX's comment demonstrates exactly what I was talking about. He wrote, "We SURE wouldn't want ANYONE to learn something in ham radio that takes a little extra effort now would we??????????????". This comment refered to people not wanting to learn CW as part of thier licensing. It clearly demonstrates the group of people who think everyone else HAS to learn their preferred mode vs all the other modes out there. I mean, you don't see RTTY users griping that everyone should have to learn their mode before being licensed. And you don't see Packet users demanding you learn their mode. I think there has to be a reality check here. No one's ever presented this age-old argument in this way before, but CW is a MODE plain and simple. Some people gain a lot of enjoyment from using it, but it is just another mode among all the other modes out there. But for some reason certain people think everyone else just HAS to learn the mode they like (CW) but don't recognize the importance of all the other modes of operation out there, nor do they feel them worthy enough of having to learn them before being granted a license. Somewhere along the line some sort of "CW GOD" syndrome has developed, and all the other modes don't hold a candle to CW in that respect. That's precisely the perceived attitude that people like W8FAX give off. YOU WILL LEARN CW IN ORDER TO TALK ON THE RADIO, BUT ALL OTHER MODES AREN'T IMPORTANT ENOUGH SO WE DON'T THINK YOU SHOULD HAVE TO LEARN THEM. Somehow that's what your saying, and your trying to cram it down everyone elses throats. But thankfully we're seeing the CW attitude for what it is, and the FCC agrees that it's rediculous to make people learn a MODE for licensing if they don't intend to use it. Gone are the days of making people learn one specific MODE of amateur radio just to get a license. If you don't intend to use it there's no point in learning it. DEAL WITH IT.
Posted by
KE4RWS on 2002-09-01
Re: See What I Mean!
You just don't get it !
CW *is* ham radio, the last common bond that radio amateurs share. Everything else is just Push-to-talk (just like CB radio) or computer "chat" with a radio in the middle.
Posted by
HFAMATEUR on 2002-09-01
Don't Think So . . .
If CW "were ham radio" as Mr. Anonymous puts it, then why is it not even a part of certain licensing requirements anymore? It must not be that important for it to be simply stricken from licensing requirements. Man, I'm losing any respect I had for CW operators when this kind of attitude is imposed on other people. Good thing I don't go on a crusade to make everyone learn to read and write AX.25 packet protocol. That would undoubtfully change all the high-and-mighty attitudes out there. On second thought it wouldn't. The cw gods would just continue living in their little bubble. Oh well, ignorance is bliss . . .
Posted by
KE4RWS on 2002-09-01
not the right thread, but
I see that this is degrading into a code vs. no-code argument.
Unfortunately, neither of the two preponderant opinions:
"I shouldn't have to learn Morse if I only want to talk"
and
"because I had to, so should you"
are just emotional responses to a often-misunderstood scientific/legal issue.
First: "because I had to" is a perfectly understandable response. This person feels that the camaraderie and fraternalism of the hobby is built upon the common knowledge of Morse. He's right, of course, but many newer hams don't have any idea of the value of that fraternalism. All they hear is the "because I had to" part of the argument, and afterwards, shut out all other reason.
Second: "why should I have to ... all I want to do is talk" needs to be addressed, as well. Here's the science and law of it:
Radio frequency emissions between roughly 3 and 30 MHz are classified as HF because they share similar propagation characteristics. One can reasonably expect that, if one transmits on those frequencies, one's signals will leave the jurisdictional boundaries of one's own license authority. Therefore, a world body must be called in for oversight. This is the ITU, part of the UN, which governs what the minimum requirements should be for people whose signals will end up in somebody else's country.
That is why the FCC has to maintain the Morse requirement for HF station licensure. It's a basic requirement, and frankly, it's a good one. Morse skills map fairly directly to good operating practice, add a dimension of resilient comminications capability, and foster international goodwill.
One more technical point ... there are only two 'modes' of communications on amateur radio, radiotelegraphy and radiotelephony. The ham who mentioned "packet APRS" as a mode is not correct. VHF packet is an APPLICATION of radiotelephony; specifically, alternating-tone NBFM, not a mode. In order for adequate licensure, one must test for at least some level of capability of operating equipment in the two modes available. (Same reason why one has to learn to park when desiring to drive a car.)
Now, back to the original thread: CW is a digital mode, and is very popular because it can be decoded using "wetware" which is always a good thing.
The guy who can't understand why he "should learn Morse if he only wants to talk" isn't looking at the big picture, possibly because nobody bothered to expain it to him as was done in years past. It isn't his fault. Our hobby has reacted to the potential loss of frequencies (due to low user base) by increasing the user base without the proper training. The FCC hasn't helped, either.
Also, the guys who insist on saying "because I had to" aren't really helping, despite the fact that what they are essentially saying is right ... they've simply chosen the wrong words. A more reasoned approach will do wonders to teach new hams about the "whys" of things.
Posted by
KZ1X on 2002-09-01
CW Requirements?
I've read several posts where people think CW should be a requirement for all classes of licensure, and even those who feel other classes should be brought back in order to facilitate their preferred mode.
Personally, I don't operate CW. It never did anything for me. I know plenty of people who absolutely love it though, and more power to them. My preferred digital mode is packet & APRS. I know a lot of licensed operators who just don't get in to it though. And again, more power to them. But I'm not on the bandwagon to MAKE them learn it just to get their license. I don't believe anyone should have to learn packet in every intricate detail just to get an amateur radio license. I see no need in making someone learn a mode which they never intend to use. I mean really, if you only intend to use phone as your primary mode, then why learn packet (or CW for that matter). I know this is an old debate, but that's why the licensing requirements have eased up over the years. It simply doesn't make sense for some to have to learn something they never intend to use, and all so they can pick up a microphone and talk on it. That's like making some get their drivers license to drive an 18-wheeler when they only want to drive a car. That's why there's different class licenses.
I have great respect for those who love CW, but this would be like the vast majority of people who think everyone should have to learn to operate packet, and even learn the AX.25 protocol just so they can use a 2-meter radio to talk to other people. Guess I just don't see the point in making people learn something they'll never use. That's not to say no one will learn or use CW because many, many operators do. But if you want to operate CW there's a specific license class that allows CW operation. And again, I have great respect for all modes of operation. But for some reason CW is the only mode whereby people feel as if EVRYONE else has to learn it before being worthy of using an amateur radio. Very puzzling . . .
Randy Evans
KE4RWS
Posted by
KE4RWS on 2002-08-31
CW IS digital
Some people have posted that CW is not digital. If you have passed the General written test or higher, this was one of the questions in the question pool you had to study:
Question G8B09
What do RTTY, Morse Code, AMTOR and Packet communications have in common?
Correct answer: B. They are all digital communications.
Posted by
KG4TDM on 2002-08-31
S.O.S.
I guess this is the problem these days as one post said "It simply doesn't make sense for some to have to learn something they never intend to use, and all so they can pick up a microphone and talk on it."
We SURE wouldn't want ANYONE to learn something in ham radio that takes a little extra effort now would we??????????????
Posted by
W8FAX on 2002-08-31
MFSK16?
Where's MFSK16? Where are the other modes? Anyone who creates a survey should do research on the topic beforehand. Also, CW is not digital, because it is NOT Binary! (dit, dah, short space, long space = 4)
Posted by
N1YRK on 2002-08-30
digital vs CW
the votes speak for themselves. it was mentioned to bring back Novice and requirement of one year before upgrade. ONE YEAR OF CW PERIOD. I would agree that is a plan. CW TODAY, CW TOMORROW, CW FOREVER.
Posted by
K7NNG on 2002-08-30
Digital describes the binary nature of the states, not the timing! Standard rs232 signals would appear as variable length, it's the time division that counts (1dah=3dih length etc).
Anyway, better get it right before you go for your extra!
-----------------------------------------E8C01 (D) What digital code consists of elements having unequal length? A. ASCII B. AX.25 C. Baudot D. Morse code
----------------------------------------- E8C04 (B) What digital communications system is well suited for meteor-scatter Communications at times other than during meteor showers? A. ACSSB B. Computerized high speed CW (HSCW) C. AMTOR rick ka1eze D. Spread spectrum
Rick ka1eze
Posted by
KA1EZE on 2002-08-30
CW
The only mode that cuts thru the "gunk"..and is the easiast to build a xmtr for!.
Posted by
WA1MIU on 2002-08-29
PSK31 vs. MFSK16
I'm not sure why MFSK31 isn't used more for DXing than PSK31, except maybe because of the wider bandwidth requirement. I've been able to copy every MFSK signal I've every received with a 90% accuracy or better. Even signals that I can't hear with my own two ears copy beautifully on the computer. Maybe it's because your rig produces it's full output on MFSK just like RTTY.
On the other hand, PSK seems more prone to error with fading and multipath. I think I would probably enjoy PSK a lot more if a significant number of operators would use the QPSK error correcting mode. Nothing is more frustrating than receiving 14 different callsigns from one QSO, and trying to guess which one is the right one. If you haven't tried MFSK16, download HAMSCOPE for free, it's a great mode, not as frustrating.
http://www.qsl.net/hamscope/
Hamscope also does RTTY,packet,CW,PSK,ASCII, and interfaces wonderfully with a variety of logging programs and your rig control software.
Posted by
AB0TA on 2002-08-29
CW is king for me
Simple, very effective and with practice... a joy to use. CW is ham radio to me. I've tried other digital modes, but always go back to CW. I can use it while backpacking with lightweight, homebrew equipment. Rig, key, battery and antenna is all I need... simple.
73
Marco, W7WIK
Posted by
AA5ET on 2002-08-29
Digital Modes
I'm also a fairly frequent flyer on the
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PSK_VHF_UHF_HAMRADIO/ group. We've had lots of fun trying to work each other over long distances on 6 and 2 meters running generally low power and simple antennas. One night, I copied both ends of a QSO between Nebraska and New York on WSJT - pretty fantastic on 2 meters. The groups meets informally every night at 9 p.m. Central time - check out the Chat at the website, above, or the board at http://www.functionalfuture.com/kd4fnb/qsoboard.pl
After that, I like PSK31 on HF. I haven't had an MFSK QSO yet, but recently acquired new software that works better, so I should soon.
Next comes old, faithful CW. If I don't have a computer, CW is great.
Posted by
K0RGR on 2002-08-29
Digital Modes
I want to vote again dammit. I said I hate digital modes before I realized CW was a digital choice. Guess I best slow down and read the answers a little more closely next time around.
Don
Posted by
W3WW on 2002-08-29
CW
Bring back the code requirements. Require 1 year on the novice bands before upgrading to HF prviilages......
Posted by
W6IQ on 2002-08-29
Amtor/Pactor
I am an Amtor and Pactor digital operator. With error correction and error free copy what's not to like about these modes? Amtor is included with multimode tnc's like the PK-232 and kantronics even on old one's that have never had a software upgrade and even on ebay you can get them cheap if they don't include Pactor mode, they cost less than a Rigblaster box! I also hang out around 14.075 to 14.080. I even CQ in RTTY mode with my Amtor selcall listed in the text of the message and ask for Amtor or Pactor links. It's very easy to switch from RTTY mode to Amtor or Pactor as you can't miss the distinctive "Chirp chirp chirp" of an Amtor or Pactor station trying to link up. This way not only do I make RTTY contacts but also get to make Amtor and Pactor contacts as well. I do have an interface for PSK-31 and all the other sound card modes but that set up is no where near as good as a "real" tnc.
Posted by
N4ZOU on 2002-08-29
Re CW Not Fuzzy
WA4DOU - then computers are not digital. Many people believe that a computer represents bits as voltage applied = 1, no voltage = 0. Actually, it is higher voltage and lower voltage.
Look at it this way - the number 4 is represented binary as 100. In CW it is represented as 00001. In the first case the 1's and 0's are voltages. In the second case, they are tones (or light or voltages or etc.) If the information can be represented in two states, it is binary.
Posted by
KB1FLR on 2002-08-28
Digital Modes
Wish I could have picked two modes..
RTTY for contesting - great fun!
..and PSK for rag chewing..
73s.. Dick.. G3URA..
Posted by
G3URA on 2002-08-27
CW Not Fuzzy
Decoding method (organic vs. inorganic) does not have anything to do with a mode being digital or not. Digital means that the information is represented using only two states (the di in digital). Morse code fits the description.
73 de KB1FLR
Posted by
KB1FLR on 2002-08-27
CW Not Fuzzy
CW doesn't fit the two state definition of digital in a strict sense. A dot is one "on" state and a dash is another "on" state. Not to even mention the variable nature of the use of the two, plus timing as spaces.
Posted by
WA4DOU on 2002-08-27
EI5FK...
Congratulation for your interesting job.
Please send to the others HSCW and WSJT experimenters my 73.
We will spread your site here in SA via our web site.
Alberto LU1DZ/AY1DZ
Posted by
LU1DZ on 2002-08-27
what I do for a living
... as a data communications R&D engineer and venture-capital consultant ... Morse code as used by hams is an OOK (bi-state, non-binary, on-off keyed) monosynchronous variable-duty-cycle modulation scheme ... since it can be plesiochronously referenced (the scheme actually contains an imputed clock) it is therefore a digital communications mechanism ... now, for that professional analysis, I will bill you all at my standard rate ;-)
Posted by
KZ1X on 2002-08-27
Digital modes
Get rid of it.
Posted by
KF4DEW on 2002-08-27
It's own class...
I think CW is in a class all by itself,
one reason, is- CW can be accomplished via flash-light, car horn, whatever-
Any other digital mode- requires other peripherial equipment, unless it's like a PRO/PROII or Jupiter.
CW is the one "digital" mode than can be done with a simple tone or what have you- but try doing any other digital mode with only your ears. So, CW can be done via keyboard, or straight key, or electronic keyer, mechanical bug, you know...two bare wires.
Not so with ANY other digital mode.
But I'm sure other modes are great, no bashing here- I can't wait to do PSK31-
My point is simply, that CW should be in a class by itself, no matter how one feels about it (love, hate, ambivalent, etc).
Posted by
W3DCG on 2002-08-27
digit
CW is digital..... You got to use your fingers to make it......
Posted by
VK2GWK on 2002-08-27
I am curious as to how many CW ops that don't use keyboards consider themselves as digital ops? The vast majority of CW sigs on HF are of the "monosynchronous variable-duty-cycle modulation scheme" (left foot keying ;-) type that are poorly decoded by a digital algorithm or even a descrete code reader. The Morse Code as it is used by hams is best decoded by the human brain. No digital equipment is needed. We need digital equipment to decode RTTY, PSK31 and all the others...
I note that SSTV is on this list, even though it is an analog transmittion. We still need digital (or at least high speed electronic) equipment to use SSTV/FAX modes.
Posted by
NB6Z on 2002-08-27
CW
Digital is 0 off state and 1 on state.
When you send code it is on and off
combinations, just as is digital.
That is why it is considered
a digital mode and why
the other digital modes operate in
the CW segments of the bands.
73 de Ronnie
Posted by
WA4MJF on 2002-08-26
DIGITAL
CW IS NOT DIGITAL
CW IS NOT DIGITAL
CW IS NOT DIGITAL
CW IS NOT DIGITAL
CW IS NOT DIGITAL
CW IS NOT DIGITAL
CW IS NOT DIGITAL
and if you think it is....WHY???????
Posted by
K7NNG on 2002-08-26
PSK & CW
I get on PSK and play around with the other digital modes and yes good old RTTY is still going strong these days. I get on cw and still like getting into a rag chew on 40 meters in the evening with my new to me old classic Speed-X hand key. I only use Iambic for contesting and enough to keep my fist in shape for contesting. I think with the arrival of sound card digital modes more op's are using the keyboard and less using mikes. SSB is either a HiFi contest or aera were ops grossely over drive their rigs. I spend a lot less time on SSB these days.
73 Gerry
Posted by
VE7BGP on 2002-08-26
I can't vote!
First of all (as noted) CW is not a digital mode! It is a digital language but it is considerred a "fuzzy" mode becuase it uses the human hand/brain for encoding and the ear/brain for decoding. (The brain part could explain why voice modes are so popular ;-)
Second, my favorite digi mode and one of the most popular and best non-ARQ mode is not on this list! MFSK16 will out perform PSK31 under multipath HF conditions and it makes weak signal DXing easy. (The "fuzzy" modes like CW and Feld Hell are also good for weak conditions.)
I vote for MFSK16 ;-)
Posted by
NB6Z on 2002-08-26
Wow for CW
Great to see "CW" leading this pack, whether it is truly a digital mode or not. I think it actually is, as "digital" is intended to mean modes not analog; using this definition, CW is digital. But it matters not, I'm just glad to see 40% (thus far) choosing it! (I did, too.) WB2WIK/6
Posted by
WB2WIK on 2002-08-26
CW digital or analog?
Let's see ... it's a variable length text code that shifts between two known states. I may choose to decode and encode it with my computer soundcard and keyboard, using software such as MixW, and use CAT to control the rig. Sounds as digital as any other mode... On the other hand, if I use a brass straight key, headphones, and a pencil, it clearly resembles an analog, "fuzzy" mode... No matter, it is all great stuff, regardless of what your perspective is!!
Posted by
KV7X on 2002-08-26
hi guys;
lets hope that each of us can play on the radio with his own preferances and let us respect the one another becouse i, think thats the best way to do...
so 73's to all es hope to see you on one of the bands...Pierre...ON4ADP....
Posted by
ON4ADP on 2002-08-25
Digital modes
What about High speed cw (hscw) and FSK441 (wsjt) & JT44 These modes are excellent and used a lot on 144mhz, JT44 can detect signals that u will not detect normally and is good for EME
CHARLES
http://www.qsl.net/ei5fk/
Posted by
EI5FK on 2002-08-25
PW8KO
Hi boys,
I'm preparing myself to return to "ham ways"
after long time QRT, but all is very confuse and different from "old times" (valve old rigs) but I'll get sucess I hope.See you soon
Posted by
PW8KO on 2002-08-25
New Digital Experimenters group
How about WSJT?
I just joined a group to learn more about
digital modes on VHF/UHF. Check out:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PSK_VHF_UHF_HAMRADIO/
73
Dan
Dan Evans N9RLA
Scottsburg, IN 47170
{EM78}
QRP-l #1269
1/2 of the N9RLA /R no budget Rover Team
Check out the Rover Resource Page at:
http://www.qsl.net/n9rla
Posted by
N9RLA on 2002-08-25
ARRL is anti-VHF????
I find it curious that anyone could ever accuse the ARRL of being, in effect, pro-HF. Completely the opposite of my impression.
Posted by
N2MG on 2002-08-25
PSk31
running a 250hz narrow filter and psk31 has scored many a contact for me. I love it.
Posted by
KE1MB on 2002-08-25
Packet BBS's
Just 7 years ago the packet freqs on 2 meters in my area where full of packet racket. Now it is hard to find a packet station to connect to. Even though APRS is going strong, I miss the days when we would log on to the FBB packet BBS's and check our e-mail or enter the chatroom and have a packet round table. I still check my packet mail each day on one of the few remaining BBS's in my area. The SYSOP tells me he has 3 users. If you would like to packet mail me there the address is ke4htm@kd4gca.#gas.nc.usa.na
Keep packet alive,
Jamie R. Dean - KE4HTM
Posted by
KE4HTM on 2002-08-25
PSK31 is fun
I love CW, I like RTTY, but PSK31 is very good too and very interactive. I don't consider CW a 'digital' mode either (as NY7Q does not).
Posted by
JJ1BDX on 2002-08-25
PSK
I don't even know were my microphone is anymore!
Posted by
K8YS on 2002-08-24
favorite digital
I put PSK 31, because I like it very much when I am not on CW. I dont consider CW digital, because a TNC and computer are not required. I am CW 90% Psk 100% and SSB 10%, and for those of you who don't get it, I have Psk on all the time. Again, CW is not digital
Posted by
K7NNG on 2002-08-24
Packet ignored?
Why no packet question? Granted packet is not as popular as it once was, but neither is RTTY.
Yes, I know I'm being negative, but this question looks like it was written by the ARRL, without any consideration towards VHF users.
Posted by
KC7LSP on 2002-08-24
Give me a break!
What kind of survey is this when you ask about digital modes but only include about a third of them. What about packet??? Packet is not dead, I don't care what lame ass doomsdayer you talk to. What about APRS??? This is the mode that put packet back on the INTERNATIONAL map. Come on, we can do better than this for surveys, make them more complete.
and to KC7LSP, it's not being negative, it's stating fact!
You'ins caught me on a bad day for me to see this one.
73's
Jason KE4NYV
www.ke4nyv.com
Posted by
KE4NYV on 2002-08-24
OK, OK, I hear Ya...
I only have 7 choice boxes to work with...
I have made a change to "other" to include a packet/aprs choice...sheesh!
Posted by
VK5LA on 2002-08-24
ok
OK, thank you, at least you cared enough to listen.
73's
Jason KE4NYV
www.ke4nyv.com
Posted by
KE4NYV on 2002-08-24
I guess I'm just strange....
I picked Pactor/Amtor..I spend probably 75% of my time between 14.075 and 14.080 looking for contacts using these modes.
I'm surprised there are not more RTTY operators, though. The other 25% of my time is spent there.
Posted by
KE4MOB on 2002-08-24