RadioBanter - View Single Post

November 28th 03, 06:24 AM

(Len Over 21) wrote in
:

In article ,
(N2EY) writes:

In article k.net,
"KØHB" writes:

..... it's about the qualifications.

The incessant arguments here on rrap surround the question of whether
or not there should be a Morse TEST for access to HF.

Well, that's the wrong question.

The real question is whether or not you should be Morse qualified for
access to HF.

If there is no regulatory need for Morse qualification, then there is
no need for Morse testing.

The need for Morse qualification, as clearly stated in the 1913 radio
regulations was "The applicant must be able to transmit and receive in
Continental Morse, at a speed sufficient to enable him to recognize
distress calls or the official "keep-out" signals." Since that
qualification need has long since disappeared, then so has the need
for the qualification test.

Hans,

If you want people to quit making fun of you, quit posting such
laughable reductio ad absurdum arguments.

Incorrect. The necessity for tested demonstration of morsemanship
FOR LICENSING of any radio operator, any radio service, has
disappeared in the 90 years of time since 1913.

That stated 1913 need for Morse code qualifications is not the only
reason such qualifications were kept in the rules all these years.
There are lots more.

Not to the FCC.

In 1913 (or 1912) there was ONLY on-off keying of so-called CW
RF sources. Despite the Fessenden demonstration of 1906 on
Christmas Eve (done with an ALTERNATOR RF source, NOT a
"spark" transmitter),

The alternator was driving a spark gap, so it was a spark transmitter. Not
only that, but there was a circuit known before that to keep a spark gap
continuously energised without using an alternator, and that had actually
been used by Duddell to transmit voice, although originally invented by
someone else for arc lights (much the same thing as spark tansmitters in
many ways, anyway!).

Fessenden's innovation was to run the alternator at 80 kHz, i.e. well
above audio. Before that, only telegraphy transmitters could use
alternators, which enabled you to run kilowatts instead of just a few
watts, amplifiers having yet to be invented and detectors of the day being
very 'deaf'.

there was no great rush for establishment
of sound/voice transmissions. TTY was just getting started in
replacing landline manual telegraphy, no facsimile or other "data"
sources. Vacuum tubes were barely out of the laboratory after
5 years from invention...makers were still trying to get good QC in
the "tube factories."

The original 1913 reason for technical qualifications was to prevent
interference to nonamateurs caused by improper adjustment of amateur
transmitters.

Baloney. IMPROPER OPERATION, not "adjustment," and not
just "by amateurs."

Were there bandplans in 1913? I don't think so. Were there any
specific frequencies (wavelengths) assigned then for everyone in
radio? I think not, but you will no doubt explain away "how it was"
from personal experience in 1913. :-)

The exile of U.S. radio amateurs to the "short waves" (shorter
than 200 m) came AFTER World War 1, not before.

How much interference to nonamateurs is caused by improper adjustment
of amateur transmitters today? Reading the FCC enforcement letters,
such interference today seems to be more a case of intentional
modification of amateur equipment by a lawless few to operate on
nonamateur frequencies.

In 1913 there was NO Internet to contact the FCC. There wasn't any
FCC until 1934. There was very little landline long-distance
telephony to contact the three different radio regulatory agencies
that existed between 1912 and 1934. "Communications" with any radio
regulatory agency in 1913 was by surface mail...or the "telegram" (a
new term for the mostly-manual-telegraphic message sent via
landlines).

So, in the world of today (if you can tear yourself away from the
beloved past), HOW is a continuing requirement of a morse code test
going to "stop" all that improper radio operation?

Answer: It won't. Improper operation isn't due to the mode. It
isn't due to the presence or absence of a code test.

LHA