Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#161
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Landshark" . wrote in message m... "Keith" wrote in message ... On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 03:30:49 GMT, "Phil Kane" wrote: Useless cross post deleted Is there some reason the you cross posted this troll fodder to rec.radio.cb? Landshark Why don't you ask Scott why he continues to do so as well as yourself. if you don't like it don't read it Fagshark. Simple Concept |
#162
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Michael Black" wrote in message ... 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. 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. At the very least, with people spending so much time at their computers, I'd suggest running a CW practice program, sending random letters, while you do something else at your computer. Set the volume relatively low, and don't even bother trying to copy it; just use it to get used to the sounds. 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. Michael VE2BVW I like that..sounds plausable. Oh....when I was learning it and I was riding in the car with mom I would sound out the Morse on all the roadsigns I could see. Drove mom nuts, but it helped. Not dot dash.....di dah. Dan/W4NTI |
#163
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 03:44:17 GMT, D. Stussy wrote:
But until the FCC acts to remove such a reference, that doesn't mean that it's not operative in the meantime. How does one comply with a requirement that doesn't exist? Carefully..... ggg -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
#164
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Dick Carroll;" wrote in message ...
Brian wrote: "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. If they don't pay any more attention than you, that is likely. And a part of the learning process that you have always missed. DICK, I pay attention to what the FCC has published in Part 97. It tends to be the guide book of amateur radio. Your petty little jabs, half-baked thoughts and incomplete sentences don't rule the ARS. They merely distract and annoy. |
#165
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, JJ wrote:
D. Stussy wrote: 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 compliance was met when it was required by international regulation (and it is still required by FCC regulations). According to your logic then no license class has any HF privileges since we met the compliance of an international regulation that no longer exists. So all license classes that took a code test are now non-compliant, so looks like we are all off HF until the FCC changes the rules. GEEEEESSSSHHHH!! Wrong with respect to the General, Advanced, and Extra license classes. Their ability to operate on HF is dictated SOLELY by license class, and for these classes, 47 CFR 97.501 indicates the credits (including element 1). These classes have NO REFERENCE to any international requirement as necessary to be met. You need to re-read the operating frequency privilege rules in 47 CFR 97.301. |
#166
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, JJ wrote:
D. Stussy wrote: On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, Jim Hampton wrote: Please re-read Phil's reply again. You missed the point as to each administration is free to do as they please. So far, the FCC has not seen to eliminate the Morse requirement. Period. If any entity has a choice, then how can it be called a requirement? The international requirement meant that all entities had to require a code test for HF privileges. Now the international requirement has been dropped, now each entity can decided for itself if it wants to require a code test for HF privileges, and until the FCC changes the rules, it is still required for U.S. hams. What is so hard to understand about that? That means that there is no international requirement (in your words, "has been dropped"). I agree exactly: "Until the FCC changes the rules, it is still required ...." How do you show compliance with a non-existent requirement? Please demonstrate your proof. |
#167
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, GM wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 04:50:19 GMT, D. Stussy wrote: I disagree to as what it says. I state that what the FCC wrote is that the licensee is to meet a requirement that is now impossible to meet because it no longer exists. You are a troll. You post from ampr.org and easynews.com. You aren't fooling anyone. We are taking this newsgroup back and nothing you can do will stop that. 1) I am not a troll, nor have I ever posted from easynews.com. I don't even have an account at easynews.com. 2) I have asked a legitimate question. 47 CFR 97.301(e) bases the HF operating privileges for the novice and technician license classes on a requirement that now no longer exists, but the FCC hasn't removed the requirement for those licensees to comply with the external requirement. How are these licensees to show compliance with a[n international] requirement that no longer exists? If they can't demonstrate compliance, then they don't have the privilege. Is that beyond your comprehension? These are the handles you have used in the past couple of months including but not limited to-- D. Stussy This top one is NOT a handle but my name. So what if it's an "ampr.org" address. It's one of the few that actually WORKS because I know what I'm doing. None of the rest are mine nor under my control. Most I've never even seen before. 666 Anon Anon Anus On Line Aunt Bea Barabbas BARF Big Al Bob Badblood Bubba Bojangles Claude Dave Allan David DimmyDimwitt Dobbie Don Souter Doug Martin eaxxyz3 Ed Norton Enrique Sanchez Erasmo Hernandez Firebottle Floppy Disk Fwankie Goodfellows Rule Goodie Two Shoes Groan! Guffaw!!! Harley1200 Henry Herb Ho Ho Howie Itell On4zzabc Itell OnU I Zorg Joe Partlan King Creole Lloyd Lloyd Lloyd/AB4NW mmmm Llyod mmmm L Rod Hubbard Mark Mansfield Miami Bob Momma Moron nookie Nutcase Bobby Onxyzzy Pabst Smear Pappy Pat Carter Patrick C PCarter Petey Arnett Poo Bear Q ywhere QRM Billy QRP Queenie Randy Thomas Rasheed Ray Dude Reactance Richard W Rob Roger Roger Ron \"Stompin\" James Sadiq Akhbar Sammie Adams Sammy Davis Sr. Savant Scammer SLee Stagger Lee Stu Parker The Moron List _ Timmie TwoShoes Trash Radio Troll Virgil Voila! What A HOOT!!! Wrong Way Zippo zzabc |
#168
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Alun Palmer wrote:
"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. Please define "optional requirement." If it's optional, it's not a requirement. If it's required, it's not an option. 47 CFR 97.301(e) is defined in terms of a requirement. That requirement, having been turned into an option, no longer exists - but the appropriate licenseholders, in order to execute the privilege, still must demonstrate compliance with the non-existent requirement. How do they do this? If they can't, then they don't have the privilege. I say that demonstrating compliance with a non-existent requirement is an impossible act. 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. |
#169
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Floyd Davidson wrote in message ...
"Pal I can receive CW at 18 WPM and I even have a fancy certificate from the US government to prove it." Keith Case dismissed, with prejudice. He's just another idiot, and a code test didn't keep him or you out of ham radio, and is unnecessary (indeed ineffective) as a filter. Ah, yes. The "Code as a Filter" myth. I think that was #19 on the Aaron Jones Morse Myths list. bb "Code gets thru when everything else will." |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Response to "21st Century" Part One (Code Test) | Policy | |||
NCVEC NPRM for elimination of horse and buggy morse code requirement. | Policy | |||
Tech Licensee USA Morse Code Freedom Day is August 1st | CB | |||
ATTN: Tech Licensee USA Morse Code Freedom Day is August 1st | Policy | |||
ATTN: Tech Licensee USA Morse Code Freedom Day is August 1st | CB |