Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#151
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"D. Stussy" wrote in
. org: On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, Keith wrote: On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 00:52:54 GMT, "Phil Kane" wrote: Until the FCC changes the rules concering Element 1, the requirement in the US remains that Element 1 must be passed. That is NOT what 97.301(e) says. 97.301(e) does not require a tech to possess element 1, it requires the tech licensee to meet the international standards set down in s25.5 to transmit on HF. I agree with the above as to what 47 CFR 97.301(e) says. I disagree that what is left means that any Technician or Novice has any HF privilege at all. The FCC rule still says that these licensees must show compliance with a non-existent regulation. Since they CANNOT COMPLY with a non-existent [international] regulation, they LACK the privilege. The reason 97.301(e) was written that way is because the FCC expected the s25.5 reference to be deleted, but it was changed. The fact that it was changed does not mean a tech licensee is not meeting the requirements set down in 97.301(e). I disagree. There is a [U.S.] requirement for these licenseholders to meet the international requirement. Show me how they can do this if the international requirement doesn't exist.... It's impossible for them to demonstrate compliance, and therefore, they cannot meet all of the U.S. requirements (one of which is to meet the non-existent international requirement), and thus have no such privilege. You have posted this in lots of places, so I will reply only once. The international requirement is that code testing is optional, hence it can be met either with or without passing a code test, i.e. veryone meets it all the time. It doesn't mean a tech can get on 20 meters, it should mean he can operate on HF in the allocated tech bands according to the FCC rules. What you think it should mean and what it does mean are as clear as night and day. |
#152
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Landshark" . wrote in
.com: "D. Stussy" wrote in message . org...\ Why don't you people pay attention that your cross posting this troll fodder? Landshark I beleive that the word you are searching for is drivel, not dribble |
#153
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
snip
Call me anything that you want but don't call me late for dinner or a juicy pile-up on 20m. snip That's what my grandad always said (without the bit about 20m)! |
#154
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Michael Black wrote:
Mike Coslo ) writes: C wrote: No I am not doing a memorizing of each dit and dah and converting method. My problem is my brain does not react fast enough to decide what each character is before the next one is sent. I just get further behind. I practice at least 20 to 30 minutes usually twice a day if not more. I use computer programs and ARRL training CDs. I will check "The Art and Skill of Radiotelegraphy". Thanks for the encouragement. Ahh, that training CD! I used it, and failed miserably at it. Turns out I memorized the darn thing. You might try a program that sends out random groups or even makes up QSO's. - Mike KB3EIA - With most people having computers, learning CW should be so much easier nowadays. Not like when I was ten, and bought a telegraph set so I could learn Morse Code, not realizing that sending is not he same thing as receiving. Big time! I can send at twice the speed I can recieve at. One of the things I've wondered about is whether one could get used to the sounds of the letters subconciously via a program that sends the morse letter everytime you press a key on your keyboard. You wouldn't really being paying attention, but it would be a positive reinforcement of what sounds go with what letters. I'm not sure it would be a completely painless method, but it would either help get someone used to the sounds, or reinforce the learning already done. But I'm not sure anyone has cooked up such a program. That would be interesting to have running in the background while typing int the newsgroups. 8^) I suspect some of the problem some people have is that they are trying way too hard. They see the code as an obstacle, and are fighting it all the way. "Now I'm going to do my hour of code practice". In the old days, that would mean going to a code practice course, or buying one of those records (I had one to start, and I think it did help), or listening to a receiver where the code might not be optimal or under the best conditions. You sit there with your pen and paper, and struggle to get it all right. But moving it into the background makes it less important, and perhaps by simply getting used to the sounds before struggling to get it all, it might all come easier. My bigget problem was missing a letter, and getting hung up on it. By then 3 or 4 more letters would go by, and then the real frustration would set in. It ended up that I needed to just relax and let the mistakes roll by. Then the mistakes went away. - mike KB3EIA - |
#155
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
C wrote in message .. .
My only gripe with the code is the testing. It is stated as a 5 word per minute test. When I challenged the test a few weeks ago I found that it is actually anywhere from 13 to 18 words per minute, not 5 words per minute. The 5 words per minute is a lie.... You are correct, sir. The exam administered by the various VEC's is called Farnsworth. If you look at Part 97, you will see that it specifies Morse. Farnsworth is mentioned nowhere in Part 97. Furthermore, the specification of Morse Code is defined nowhere in Part 97, nor in all of Title 47. We on RRAP have been down this road before. Basically, if you are a Pro-Code Test Agenda type, you agree to allow the VEC's to break the law, even encourage it because the examinee may eventually want to actually use Code at a higher speed. But if you can read, you see that Morse is specified, not Farnsworth. If you happen to know enough about all this to ask for the real Morse Exam at a test session, then the VE must accomodate you. But the aren't likely to mention it unless you do. If you've been studying the Morse training tapes, you are likely to fail the Farnsworth exam. Farnsworth is fairly well agreed to be the better METHOD to learning faster code. By the time one gets to about 20WPM, there is supposed to be no difference between Farnsworth and Morse, but with the various code tutor programs, anything is possible. Anyway, the VEC's are administering a code exam not specified in Part 97. Hopefully it will all be over with soon. Good luck, Brian |
#156
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Dan/W4NTI" wrote in message ...
"C" wrote in message ... My only gripe with the code is the testing. It is stated as a 5 word per minute test. When I challenged the test a few weeks ago I found that it is actually anywhere from 13 to 18 words per minute, not 5 words per minute. The 5 words per minute is a lie.... snip Not trying to be a smart ass here...but...how do you know it was 13 if you say you can't copy 13???. Could it be he was sending the characters fast and making the spacing long. I.E. Farnsworth method, which is the recomended way to conduct a test? If you want to quit. Thats your choice. I would suggest you go to a different test place with different folks instead. Dan/W4NTI Dan, he probably finished failing the exam again and said to one of the VE's, "Sheesh, that code seemed awfully fast." Whereas the VE replied, "Sure, we're sending it at 13-18wpm with long spaces in between. It all evens out in the end. By the way, we are denying you access to HF." That's what happens to people who study Morse Code tapes at 5wpm then take the Farnsworth exam. If they don't have a high level understanding of all of this, then they are just as likely to get a hold of real Morse study material as opposed to Farnsworth study material. Brian |
#157
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Landshark" . wrote in message y.com...
"D. Stussy" wrote in message . org...\ Why don't you people pay attention that your cross posting this troll fodder? Landshark shark, can you imagine what would happen if the shoe was on the other foot.?? |
#158
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
From: spade#abc.com (IP=A0Daily)
"gw" wrote in message om... Dwight Stewart wrote in message ... "Bill Sohl" wrote: The FCC could, however, make rules changes which are based on the new treaty because the OLD treaty is gone, done, defunct, over...even if the US never ratified the new treaty. No nation is now bound by the old treaty at all. =A0=A0=A0=A0I asked Phil about something similar a few weeks ago, and he seemed to think it was not possible. After further research, I tend to agree with him. It does look like the changes to that treaty will have to be ratified first. Dwight Stewart =A0 (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ _ hey look twistie .......its aaaron h voobner..........hey numbnutts i thought you were supposed to move to europe..... I thought I was aaaron h voobner? One can see how you would believe such, but alas, you're nothing more than a poor imitation. One understands your repeated need to be another,,,,,you've already destroyed your reputation, name and call.,,pretending tobe another is al you have left, nothing more.,,LOL. |
#159
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Not being a medical expert...but...it sounds to me like a happening when one
is trying to bust through a certain word per minute barrier. Where you must learn to copy BEHIND. Try this. Listen at a rate of sending that you ARE NOT COMFORTABLE with. In this case TEN or 13 WPM. ONLY RIGHT DOWN a character that you copy. Forget about ALL the others. Keep doing this. Do not drop down to the 5 wpm at all. Forget that is the goal. As time goes on you will start getting more and more of the characters. This technique forces the brain to copy BEHIND. This should allow you that split second of time needed. It works for getting the speed up. Like I said, it may be what will help you. Just a thought. Dan/W4NTI "C" wrote in message ... No I am not doing a memorizing of each dit and dah and converting method. My problem is my brain does not react fast enough to decide what each character is before the next one is sent. I just get further behind. I practice at least 20 to 30 minutes usually twice a day if not more. I use computer programs and ARRL training CDs. I will check "The Art and Skill of Radiotelegraphy". Thanks for the encouragement. C. In article m, "Dee D. Flint" wrote: If you were memorizing the code, that was the problem. That's not the right way to learn it. There's quite a bit of material out there on the internet on the right way to learn code. For starters, work towards a reflex reaction. i.e. Hear the sound, write the letter. Don't think about the dots and dashes. Practice every day for 30 mintues per day EVERY day or almost everyday. There are lots of computer programs out there you can download from the internet and every person has their favorite. Set it for an 18wpm character speed but 5wpm word speed. Try the G4FON program. It's available for free on the internet. I apologize for not posting the website but I don't happen to have it anymore. Practicing once or twice a week won't get it. You fall too far backwards between sessions. Memorizing dots and dashes and then trying to write the letter slows you down so that you can't keep up. Read "The Art and Skill of Radiotelegraphy". It's available for free on the internet. The author did extensive research on how code should be studied. The biggest problem is that too many people are told to use study methods that hold a person back rather than move them forward. Another problem is unrealistic expections. They see the whiz kids get it in a week and think they should be able to do the same. They're the exception not the rule. The code is far easier than most things that you have learned in life if you find the correct way to study it and put in the amount of time needed. If my General CSCE expires again (this will be #2) I will never take it again and will have lost desire in a hobby that I grew up working in for the last 39 years....... C. Don't give up. Work with modern training methods and you can do it. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
#160
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Twistedhed" wrote in message ... _ hey look twistie .......its aaaron h voobner..........hey numbnutts i thought you were supposed to move to europe..... I thought I was aaaron h voobner? One can see how you would believe such, but alas, you're nothing more than a poor imitation. One understands your repeated need to be another,,,,,you've already destroyed your reputation, name and call.,,pretending tobe another is al you have left, nothing more.,,LOL. DickFace, I never said nor ever attempted to be aaron voobner, your heathen from the NG who have no clue bestowed that honor upon me. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|