|
"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 |
"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 |
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 |
"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. |
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. |
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. |
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 |
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. |
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." |
|
You know, perhaps Technician class amateurs DO have HF privileges due to
the reference to the old International requirement. However, where in the Schedule are the specific frequency bands allocated. I would need to rereat Pt97, but, my guess is that they either have NO specific allocated frequency bands, or, they would be the same as the Novice class licence. -- Chris Cox, N0UK/G4JEC NIC Handle: CC345 UnitedHealthGroup, Inc., MN10-W116, UNIX Services & Consulting 6300 Olson Memorial Highway, Golden Valley, MN 55427 email: (work) (home) |
"Dan/W4NTI" wrote in message ...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message y.com... "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. At 5 wpm with Farnsworth spacing, you have around 1.5-2 seconds between characters. That should be plenty. Are you using Farnsworth spacing? Try this experiment: Have someone read a random sequence of standard phonetics ("Hotel, Sierra, Alfa, Yankee..." at a rate of about one word every two seconds while you write down the first letter of each word. If you can do that, it's a good bet you can learn to copy 5 wpm code. Are you block printing or writing cursive? I found block printing avoided a lot of problems because each letter stands alone. 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. Try this: Set the computer to send just two unrelated characters - say, R and Z. Practice copying those two until you get 95% or better copy. Then add just one more letter and practice until you can get 95% or better with those three. The trick is to not add any new ones until you know the old ones almost perfectly. None of us could react fast enough at first. You are not alone. When you are copying and miss a letter, just skip it and catch the next one. If you let your mind focus on what you missed, you will then miss several others that come after. DON'T TRY TO GET THE MISSED LETTER AT THAT TIME. Just write an underscore and go on so that you don't miss following letters. This takes a little practice by the way as we all want to be perfect so we sit there and try to figure it out while falling further behind. If you get a lot of blanks at first, that's OK. Just keep working on it. Good advice. But don;t be afraid to backtrack as above, to find what letters are giving you trouble. When you take the test, you are allowed time to go back over your paper and fill in what you think the missing material might be. Here is an example (using an underscore for characters that you miss on the copy). What you originally copied: NAM_ IS JO_N. Now if you look back over your copy, fill in what you believe the missing letters should be. In this case, the text sent was most likely: NAME IS JOHN. Then on the test questions, you will probably be asked the name and there you have it right there on your paper. When I took my extra code test (20wpm), I had a lot of underscores on my paper but despite that I was able to successfully answer the country question (it was Switzerland) even though I only had about half the letters copied on my sheet. That works fine unless the text sent was "NAME IS JOAN" Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Yeah its tough now Dee. When I took mine is was solid copy at 20 wpm for one solid minute out of five. Oh well. Me too. And no time was allowed for going back - when the code stopped, they took the paper away. Plus, if the examiner could not read your writing, you flunked. Also you had to send 20 per to the examiner's satisfaction. But all that has been gone for over 20 years now. Ancient history. Yet many hams licensed since those days could easily meet that standard. Note that today's test can be passed by answering the questions OR finding one minute (25 characters) of solid copy. 73 es GL de Jim, N2EY |
wrote in message ... "Dan/W4NTI" wrote: 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 Do you want to impress me Dan? Sit shotgun in my Belvedere and tap out some portable CW in a quarter mile launch! You cross posting fart. ;) -- GO# 40 I didn't initiate this thread. Track it down moron. Dan/W4NTI |
wrote in message ... "Dan/W4NTI" wrote: I didn't initiate this thread. Track it down moron. Dan/W4NTI Just keep hitting send, you ****ing asshole. -- GO# 40 OK. Just for you I will keep doing it. Over and Over again. Everytime I damn well want. Dan/W4NTI |
(Brian Kelly) wrote in message om...
(Brian) wrote in message . com... "Dan/W4NTI" wrote in message ... Yeah its tough now Dee. When I took mine is was solid copy at 20 wpm for one solid minute out of five. Oh well. Dan/W4NTI And uphill both ways in 6 foot of snow... And you couldn't pass it in Miami even if the VE provided you with a limo both ways. w3rv I don't think VE's are permitted to provide limousine service to examinees anymore. Boy have the times changed for the better! |
wrote in message ... "Dan/W4NTI" wrote: 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 Do you want to impress me Dan? Sit shotgun in my Belvedere and tap out some portable CW in a quarter mile launch! You cross posting fart. ;) Cross posting fart you continue to chase him and do the same thing your crying to him about ......Loser |
wrote in message ... "Dan/W4NTI" wrote: wrote in message ... "Dan/W4NTI" wrote: I didn't initiate this thread. Track it down moron. Dan/W4NTI Just keep hitting send, you ****ing asshole. -- GO# 40 OK. Just for you I will keep doing it. Over and Over again. Everytime I damn well want. Dan/W4NTI You act like a 9 year old punk. -- GO# 40 Let me try and help you moron. I don't give a rats ass what you think. Clear? Dan/W4NTI |
|
The training CD's aren't bad for practicing the code if you know the code
and just want to get better. The real situation is that a person needs to still learn the code in the beginning. It would the same as if I was listening to Chinese language and didn't know a word of the Chinese language versus knowing the language on a basic level and listening to Radio China or something like that...... -- Ryan, KC8PMX FF1-FF2-MFR-(pending NREMT-B!) --. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-. ... --. .... - . .-. ... "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... 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 - |
Definitely a problem if you do not have a HF reciever at all. And those Rat
Shack ones suck for that too. There used to be publication of VHF rebroadcasts of the w1aw transmissions, but I have yet to hear any around here in Michigan. Where the hell is the so-called field organization they are so proud of on this one? Even if it is a members-only thing, still you would think that the local (state-wise) field organizations would think that was important enough to rebroadcast......... -- Ryan, KC8PMX FF1-FF2-MFR-(pending NREMT-B!) --. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-. ... --. .... - . .-. ... (snippage) I still recommend W1AW over any of the "canned" aids. Two downsides of course are that W1AW does not send Farnsworth and one needs a half-decent HF rcvr. http://www.arrl.org/w1aw.html#w1awsked 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. w3rv Michael VE2BVW |
I would actually have to agree with Kim on this one. I have many times
asked (tactfully and politely) certain questions of blind hams as to their experiences as hams dealing with the loss of sight as it relates to the hobby. They were definitely helpful and supportive in "educating" me to their circumstances. A definite thank you at the end of the questions with an explanation that I was trying to understand what it is like to be in their shoes definitely helped. -- Ryan, KC8PMX FF1-FF2-MFR-(pending NREMT-B!) --. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-. ... --. .... - . .-. ... Keith, why don't you solicit the opinions of some deaf hams? There is a group called HandiHams that you could ask--if they would respond. You could also get on eHam.net, and qrz.com and pose the question in the forums. The question, I suppose, would be: Do you, as a deaf ham, agree that the government should require that you pass a minimum CW requirement for amateur radio privileges at that level? My guess is most deaf hams are not going to mind a bit. Note that I said *most.* I am sure there are some out there that may object. Kim W5TIT --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net Complaints to |
A completely different issue I had and/or have is not the speed as much as
the audio pitch of the code being sent. It's hard as hell to get a VE team to adjust the pitch/tone sound at all if they even bother to send with a key. Hell, a couple of them are only using premade CD's, which are played a fixed rate and since most VE's are not frivolous (at all), they usually only have a "basic" cd player, and would not have equipment capable of code at a lower tone but keeping the same speed. I say this because my hearing loss makes me hear "normally" sent code at its "proper" pitch rate as one long solid tone, as if you placed a finger on a straight key and never lifted up at all while sending. In other words, if there was a 2 minute QSO in morse code being sent at its "normal" pitch, it sounds like a 2 minute long T to me. If I lower the frequency of the tone of the amount of at least 200-250hz less, to where it starts becoming a more rich, bass(y) sounding tone, then I can distinguish the difference between a dit and a dah. On a lighter note, I think my ex-wife had a voice in the same range as being sent at most VE sessions...... she said I never listened to her! -- Ryan, KC8PMX FF1-FF2-MFR-(pending NREMT-B!) --. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-. ... --. .... - . .-. ... All I ask for is to know what speed I need to be studying as it all sounds different to me at each speed.... Don't email. TELEPHONE them. Ask them what is the character speed and what is the overall word speed. They can have the character speed at 13 (or faster), but the spacing must be adjusted to end up at 5wpm overall. It is not proper test procedure to have the test at an actual 13wpm when it is supposed to be 5wpm. Talk to the VE team leader that you will eventually be testing under so that you do get the correct character speed for the test that you will be planning to take. Finally try to find someone who is knowledgeable in correct training methods to "Elmer" you if at all possible. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"Dan/W4NTI" wrote in message ...
"Brian" wrote in message om... "Dan/W4NTI" wrote in message ... Yeah its tough now Dee. When I took mine is was solid copy at 20 wpm for one solid minute out of five. Oh well. Dan/W4NTI And uphill both ways in 6 foot of snow... You know Brian I don't give a rats ass if you believe me or not. Ask ANYBODY that took it in the 70s and earlier. Dan/W4NTI Dan, sob stories can be true or false, really doesn't matter. But if the exam is unnecessary, why tell your sob story? Do you want sympathy? |
wrote in message ... Which group is he in? I know it's not rec.radio.cb, and I know his drivel has no purpose here. Leg humper. -- GO# 40 I am not sure cross post to all of them so you can be more of a hypocrite... assclown |
wrote in message ... "Cool Breeze" WA3MOJ Georgeie wrote: wrote in message ... It's clear that you don't care about anything but yourself, and you're still a cross-posting idiot. -- GO# 40 So are you assclown. Here's for you and Dan. http://amishrakefight.org/gfy/ Yawn, your still a cross posting queer. |
"Ryan, KC8PMX" wrote in message ...
Definitely a problem if you do not have a HF reciever at all. And those Rat Shack ones suck for that too. Amen, don't even think about one of those turkeys. One advantage I/we had back then was a profusion of quite inexpensive but usable HF rcvrs which are not available today. Mostly military surplus gear and some commercial cheapies like the Hallicrafters S-38. In this respect maybe we had it much easier than the newbies today have. There used to be publication of VHF rebroadcasts of the w1aw transmissions, but I have yet to hear any around here in Michigan. Where the hell is the so-called field organization they are so proud of on this one? Even if it is a members-only thing, still you would think that the local (state-wise) field organizations would think that was important enough to rebroadcast......... Too much work. Plus once VHF comes into play CW becomes a no-interest thing. We've had sporadic attempts around here to get 2M code practice sessions going but they didn't last very long. Ryan, KC8PMX w3rv |
"Dick Carroll;" wrote in message ...
Brian Kelly wrote: When I studied for my earliest tests there were no consumer-level recording methods let alone computers. My only options for practicing Morse were having somebody hand-send it or copying it off the air. Which, as a practical matter, meant copying it with a rcvr or forget it. Exactly, and with my old ARC 5 receiver you NEVER heard only one signal, the thing was wide open and you had to pick out which signal you wanted to copy and learn to ignor ethe rest. Sure was good training, I developed a very good 'internal filter' at the outset and still retain that skill. Yessir. Ya had to learn operating skills along with learning just the code. Whether ya wanted to or not. There was no "pause" button on W1AW and ya couldn't replay it either. I saw some *really* off-the-wall Novice rcvrs. One buddy of mine comandeered an old wooden case Philco BC/SW rcvr which didn't have a BFO. Musta had a 15 Khz "bandwidth". So he copied the thumps the speaker cranked out. Some time later he managed to pick up a half-working grid-dipper and tuned the dipper just off the sides of the incoming signals and viola, hetrodynes he could copy. As long as he had his mitts on both tuning knobs. I came along and had a brainfart. I fished an insulated wire down inside the last IF can and wound the other end loosely around the GDO coil and tuned the GDO to 455 kHz. Instant BFO. He took it one step further yet and added a gawdawful narrow passive surplus audio filter and cruised all over 40M with that lashup. The homebrewed TX was another Rube Golberg gem, some xtal oscillator tube driving a 6146, all of it in a cigar box. Imagine any nocode even considering jumping thru those hoops just to get on the air. The upside was that the Novice bands were absolutely packed with slowspeed code and finding lots of practice was no problem. You also learned to copy the many and varied 'fists', it was all hand sent, no one had a keyer, though some used bugs. That provided another experience which developed lifetime skills that no one today gets. I still enjoy copying hand sent or bug sent code, unless it's *really* butchered. Absolutely correct. It goes farther than that though. As much as a pain in the butt as those days were in a number of respects that regime had a number of huge advantages over what is available today to newbies. The Novice bands were actually a very successful "support group", we had no options but to clump together and work with each other toward the same objectives. We climbed all over each other trying to get our speeds up and beat the one-year clock on our drop-dead tickets. Boy there was the incentive licensing move from Hell! But it worked and the only bitching I ever heard was from a few of the OFs who turned their noses up at the mere thought of allowing newbies to get on the HF bands with a lousy 5wpm code test. Turned out to be a non-sequeter for them 'cause the FCC tossed us into our isolated playpens 'way up the 80 & 40M bands where they didn't have to put up with us. We *had* to work each other. Clever arrangement in retrospect. And in many if not most cases getting a Novice station took a bunch of self-taught knowledge and work just to get on the air. All of which were more learning experiences. One did not use a rubber-duckie or any otjer catalog antennas on 80 . . autotuners . . as if . . digital *nothing* . . No doubt a dumb-down proponent or two will scan this diatribe and get some giggles out of the ramblings of another stuck-in-the-past grouchy OF. But in the end who will be the **real** losers? Yeah, there's a "cultural gap", fuggem all, I hope they get just exactly they want. I'm still a very strong supporter of learning Morse via the W1AW code practice sessions. It's probaby the best training resource around if one owns a receiver, especially after one has learned basic Morse. Yup. Lotta newbies have used zero-cost borrowed rcvrs. I'd loan one of my "spares" to anybody who was genuinely interested in copying W1AW. I "loaned" my old HQ-120 to the kid accross the street, he then loaned it some other kid . . . I have no idea wher it finally landed. Today they transmit computer-generated code and back then I believe they used tape-generated code so it has always been quite precise. I'll concede that I'm only around 150 miles from the station so they boom here on 80M and QRM wasn't/isn't a problem. Might be more difficult from the west coasts but I don't know. I've heard them one one band or another everywhere in the USA that I've listened for them including out on the west coast. Good. Then they do have big coverage. w3rv |
"Dan/W4NTI" wrote in message ...
Since were on a trip down memory lane. This is how I received my FIRST HAM SIGNAL. I had a 6 transistor jap radio. I started 'tweeking' the coils and heard this booming CQ CQ CQ this is W*xx.....He was down the street on the next block. There ya go! How many variations on that theme do ya wanna guess have been played out? I got my first dose by landing on 75M with one of the old floor-mounted living room multiband wooden console radios owned by a couple of old maid aunts. Was around the time of the broadcast of the atom bomb tests on Bikini atoll. Its been downhill eversince As if! Dan/W4NTI w3rv |
"Ryan, KC8PMX" wrote in message ... Yep, As I was aware of that. And I never expected them to change for me at the last minute. BUT, I do believe that with enough warning ahead of time it should be considered more than fair for a VE team to make an adjustment. It should be no problem for a VEC to be able to send via code practice oscillator!!!!!! Wouldn't that be a shame if the VEC's have become so lazy they can't even send a code test via a key because they are relying on the code CD's and tapes. Where the hell did you think I expected to walk into a test session in the past, and at the last possible moment expect a major change? -- Ryan, KC8PMX FF1-FF2-MFR-(pending NREMT-B!) --. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-. .. --. .... - . .-. ... Arrangements for a different tone have to be made in advance so that they have time to obtain a CD or tape of the needed pitch from the VEC. You can't just drop into a test session and expect them to have anything different than the commonly used tone. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Not sure if a "code key/Oscillator" applies here, but if a person needs to have special testing done, the rules I"ve seen written state that the examinee is the one who must furnaish the equipment to the VEs in which to use to accomidate that persons handicap. Perhaps the VEs didn't have one. Not every one does. JMS |
|
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Ryan, KC8PMX wrote: Yep, As I was aware of that. And I never expected them to change for me at the last minute. BUT, I do believe that with enough warning ahead of time it should be considered more than fair for a VE team to make an adjustment. It should be no problem for a VEC to be able to send via code practice oscillator!!!!!! Wouldn't that be a shame if the VEC's have become so lazy they can't even send a code test via a key because they are relying on the code CD's and tapes. It's certainly possible, but in this day and age, I could see prospective amateur one complaining that the custom test was too easy or too hard, or complaining that he or she wanted to take the test from a CD instead of a real person, or some other such. Almost all of us can handle the standard test methods. The rest can be accomodated for. Over the course of my testing, I took tests at 4 different places: Williamsport PA, Butler PA, State College PA, and Lock Haven PA. ALL the VE teams were extremely helpful and accomodating. Those who knew of my hearing problem when I took Element 1 (twice, cuz I flunked the first time) were just great. The first time I took the test, they were more bothered by my failing it than I was, and the second time, I spoke to one of the VE's beforehand, and he outlined the different methods I might use, and explained the lengths they were capable of going to to accomodate my needs. I just want to point this out, because the tone of you letter sounds like you think that VE's are some sort of ossified "my way or the highway" people. They aren't. - Mike KB3EIA - I can say this.. I HAVE seen some VEs who were real *******s. Not wanting to help anyone. But I've seen those too, who helped all as much as they could. However, my former comment still stands, according to the rules I've read, if an applicant is handicapped and requires special equipment to use in testing, it is THEIR responsibility to provide it for the VEs to use. It is NOT the VEs place to provide it. There is a comment though I'd like to make about the My way or the Highway when it comes to testing. It is "supposed" to be required of the VEs to afford the candidates the best possible conditions in which to examine. IF someone in the waiting or even an applicant his/herself starts making it miserable for the others OR even before hand if the applicant fails to provide all required documentation, the VEs have a right to evict them from the area. JMS |
(Brian) wrote in message . com...
(Brian Kelly) wrote in message . com... I got my first dose by landing on 75M with one of the old floor-mounted living room multiband wooden console radios owned by a couple of old maid aunts. Was around the time of the broadcast of the atom bomb tests on Bikini atoll. My dad was at Eniwetok, and at several Nevada tests as well. He is what is now called an "atomic veteran." NOW we know why you turned out like you did. Sue the sumbitches. He has real military experience. |
"Ryan, KC8PMX"
wrote in message They are supposed to make those provisions. If they did not, they were in the wrong. However, I would not favor them using hand sent code with an oscillator for two reasons. 1) Oscillators are often not adjustable in pitch. 2) Some people who copy quite well have absolutely lousy fists and do not send good clean code. It takes a pretty good op to copy some of the people out there. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE And the fluctuation in CW skills is yet another reason to question its validity as a testing element. Kim W5TIT But gee Kim, if someone has "made it" as a VE, shouldn't they be proficient in the mode(s) they are testing on? At this point, it's not important or needed for morse testing has LONG AGO deleted the "sending" part of it and relied ONLY on the applicant decoding pre-recorded tapes. Seems to me that if someone is going to qualify as a VE, they should be at an extreme proficiency level...... I've helped correct tests for teachers for subjects I knew nothing about...nothing extradordinary there with multiple choice...or checking a submitted set of decoded morse text. If a VE or VE team cannot effectively send a method of communication like morse code as a required testing mode, it makes me wonder of the value of the mode in the first place. If they are relagated to only using CD's or tapes, I guess that would show the "dumbing down" of amateur radio, bringing it "one step further to extinction." The reliance on tapes and CDs is because it is NOT all that easy to be right on with sending code at any set speed (5, 13, 20 or whatever) by hand. It is far easier to "machine generate" code text at specific speeds and record them for a permanent use in testing. Seems to me it should not be a problem for the whole VE groups to have a set "pre-scripted" QSO's. There could be as many as needed, 10, 20, 30 or more pre-made QSO's to send. Far better to have the 20-30 or 40 prescripted QSOs recorded and simply play back one. I initially learned morse for the 5 wpm test using 78 rpm record set from (I think) AMECO. But, for all this speculation, the code test is soon to be just a historic footnote, so what's all the fuss? Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:11 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com