Leo wrote in message . ..
On 28 Oct 2003 01:17:46 GMT, (N2EY) wrote:
Only problem with "200" is that it stops at 1936 and there was never
a followup book.
If you want a really good history of US amateur radio from the very beginning
to almost the present day, google up W2XOY's "Wayback Machine". Excellent
history in many chapters. Free for the download.
Great articles - thanks!
Wish there was a similar series for VE-land...
(extra bonus question: what is the significance of that callsign?)
Found this reference on Google:
Feb. 1, 1939. Broadcasting reports General Electric engineers recently
set up two experimental frequency modulation transmitters at Albany
and Schenectady, operating on the same frequency. They drove a test
car between the two cities and found almost no areas of interference
between the stations. The stations were W2XDA Schenectady and W2XOY
New Scotland
hey, this guy's GOOD!
Years ago, here in Canada, there was a special licence class required
to operate using the Digital modes (!). This was dropped after only a
few years. presumably because it was not demonstrated that there was
any real benefit gained from the additional testing of digital
proficiency. After all, the idea of a hobby is to be able to
experiment and learn those aspects that are of interest or use to the
individual!
I thought it was dropped because so few applied for it. I recall
something like 150 in 4 years.
Haven't seen those stats - but seperate testing for Digital modes died
out with it!
Years ago I suggested here that one way out of the code test argument
would be to create a new "Homebrew" class of license. No code test,
Extra class written, all privs. Just one special requirement -
amateurs with that license class could only use equipment they'd built
themselves (except in a genuine emergency). No kits, either.
You can imagine how that idea went over.
And merely because something is old doesn't make it bad. Look at the
way words are spelled...
Certainly wasn't connecting 'old' with 'bad', Jim - just an
observation that as times change, priorities tend to shift as well.
All progress requires change but all change is not progress. Newer is
not always better.
Some folks hold up "change" as some sort of mantra, saying that we
should all accept change without resistance or question. I don't buy
it.
Try telling the hams who searched for shuttle pieces, or who are right now
helping fight the wildfires in California, that it's "a hobby". They might
not agree.
It's a unique hobby - one where the skills learned and practised
within it can be taken out into the community in times of need, to
augment the 'professional' emergency services.
The emergency and public service aspects take it beyond being purely a
"hobby".
Is there any value in doing longhand math now? Why should we if we have
a calculator?
Exactly!
Not quite - longhand is still required to be understood before relying
on calculators, as it teaches the underlying principles of division
(and works without batteries!).
How does memorizing tables of addition, subtraction, multiplication
and division teach underlying principles? It's just a mechanical
skill, right?
Memorize the tables, practice the way you are shown.
Light-powered four-function calculators have been giveaway items for
many years now. Yet we still spend enormous resources teaching
children to do basic arithmetic manually - which usually requires
pencil and paper anyway.
Every single argument used against Morse code can be used against
doing basic arithmetic by hand.
It is simply a more rigorous method
of accomplishing the identical task - but without competence in it,
how would you know if the answer the calculator gave you was correct?
How often are calculators wrong?
How would you check it?
Why does it need checking? By that logic, we should resend RTTY
messages in Morse to check them.
Yes, I know more advanced TOR modes include error detection and
correction. So do more advanced calculators. If you are worried about
a human typing in the wrong numbers, the same problem occurs with any
TOR mode.
You would not really understand the mechanics of division.
Why is it necessary to do so?
CW, in this analogy, is a different animal - more like comparing an
abacus to a calculator.
I disagree!
Morse is like doing manual arithmetic. Direct interaction with the
signal, just as manual math is direct interaction with the numbers.
No difference.
Your whole argument rests on *not* allowing Morse to be analogous to
manual arithmetic calculation...yet it is.
In skilled hands, an abacus can give you the
same answer as a calculator (faster, too - watched a guy do it once!)
- but it is outmoded, in a world where calculators are cheap and
common.....one would be hard pressed to devise a compelling arguement
for teaching the abacus nowadays!
The abacus never achieved any great acceptance in western culture.
Morse did! And Morse is still widely used by hams.
73 de Jim, N2EY