Phil - N1KI wrote:
Out of curiosity, and to help the rest of us avoid this problem, what software
turns off the split function? Admittedly, with the TS2K, I usually use XIT
instead of split, but I would like to know what software to avoid.

____________________

LogWindows does it, and there was another which I used once but have since
abandoned (don't remember which). The problem occurs when you do not have the
program running, the radio is already in split mode, and you start the program.
When the program starts, it turns off split and if you don't notice it...
you're a *lid*. :-)

--
Bill W6WRT

Is the concept of split operation really that difficult to grasp
for people who have presumably passed a relatively difficult exam
in order to get their license?

There is no test of operating on the exams. It's like giving
out driver's licenses based on a multiple-choice test only. It
would be nice if the license exams included making a real QSO,
copying some signals on the air, figuring out DX prefixes, and
busting a CW pile-up. Dream on!

Take a squint at the vanity HQ website sometimes and look at the
vanity calls that even some Extra class hams have applied for -
people ask for their names, they ask for A4, A5 prefixes, all
sorts of crazy stuff. There's an Extra class person asking for
A5NM, someone asked for an RM7 prefix, someone applied for
SARK9S, others wants DA5246, DVRDWN, SARLAB and so on.

It's no wonder that when such ops get on HF and start to try to
work DX, they are completely lost. I suppose many (some) of
them figure it out eventually, but the exams could include some
very basic stuff like this, esp. the ones for license classes
that allow HF access.

Oh well,

Derek aa5bt (perhaps I should apply for A5BT, it's shorter...)

Is the concept of split operation really that difficult to grasp
for people who have presumably passed a relatively difficult exam
in order to get their license?

There is no test of operating on the exams. It's like giving
out driver's licenses based on a multiple-choice test only. It
would be nice if the license exams included making a real QSO,
copying some signals on the air, figuring out DX prefixes, and
busting a CW pile-up. Dream on!

Take a squint at the vanity HQ website sometimes and look at the
vanity calls that even some Extra class hams have applied for -
people ask for their names, they ask for A4, A5 prefixes, all
sorts of crazy stuff. There's an Extra class person asking for
A5NM, someone asked for an RM7 prefix, someone applied for
SARK9S, others wants DA5246, DVRDWN, SARLAB and so on.

It's no wonder that when such ops get on HF and start to try to
work DX, they are completely lost. I suppose many (some) of
them figure it out eventually, but the exams could include some
very basic stuff like this, esp. the ones for license classes
that allow HF access.

Oh well,

Derek aa5bt (perhaps I should apply for A5BT, it's shorter...)

Derek, you have done an excellent job of enhancing the point I was trying to
make. It seems that since licensing has become a matter of downloading or
buying a copy of the question pool and memorizing the answers, that developing
an understanding of the underlying principles and concepts has suffered.
Unfortunately, courtesy and pride in operating skills has also suffered.
Stupidity on a local level is annoying, but HF propagation makes it a
world-wide problem.


In article ,
(Derek Wills) wrote:
Is the concept of split operation really that difficult to grasp
for people who have presumably passed a relatively difficult exam
in order to get their license?

There is no test of operating on the exams. It's like giving
out driver's licenses based on a multiple-choice test only. It
would be nice if the license exams included making a real QSO,
copying some signals on the air, figuring out DX prefixes, and
busting a CW pile-up. Dream on!

Take a squint at the vanity HQ website sometimes and look at the
vanity calls that even some Extra class hams have applied for -
people ask for their names, they ask for A4, A5 prefixes, all
sorts of crazy stuff. There's an Extra class person asking for
A5NM, someone asked for an RM7 prefix, someone applied for
SARK9S, others wants DA5246, DVRDWN, SARLAB and so on.

It's no wonder that when such ops get on HF and start to try to
work DX, they are completely lost. I suppose many (some) of
them figure it out eventually, but the exams could include some
very basic stuff like this, esp. the ones for license classes
that allow HF access.

Oh well,

Derek aa5bt (perhaps I should apply for A5BT, it's shorter...)

Spammers - reply freely and often to my e-mail address
Everyone else - look me up on qrz.com

Peace - Those rare moments in history when everyone is rearming....

Derek, you have done an excellent job of enhancing the point I was trying to
make. It seems that since licensing has become a matter of downloading or
buying a copy of the question pool and memorizing the answers, that developing
an understanding of the underlying principles and concepts has suffered.
Unfortunately, courtesy and pride in operating skills has also suffered.
Stupidity on a local level is annoying, but HF propagation makes it a
world-wide problem.


In article ,
(Derek Wills) wrote:
Is the concept of split operation really that difficult to grasp
for people who have presumably passed a relatively difficult exam
in order to get their license?

There is no test of operating on the exams. It's like giving
out driver's licenses based on a multiple-choice test only. It
would be nice if the license exams included making a real QSO,
copying some signals on the air, figuring out DX prefixes, and
busting a CW pile-up. Dream on!

Take a squint at the vanity HQ website sometimes and look at the
vanity calls that even some Extra class hams have applied for -
people ask for their names, they ask for A4, A5 prefixes, all
sorts of crazy stuff. There's an Extra class person asking for
A5NM, someone asked for an RM7 prefix, someone applied for
SARK9S, others wants DA5246, DVRDWN, SARLAB and so on.

It's no wonder that when such ops get on HF and start to try to
work DX, they are completely lost. I suppose many (some) of
them figure it out eventually, but the exams could include some
very basic stuff like this, esp. the ones for license classes
that allow HF access.

Oh well,

Derek aa5bt (perhaps I should apply for A5BT, it's shorter...)

Spammers - reply freely and often to my e-mail address
Everyone else - look me up on qrz.com

Peace - Those rare moments in history when everyone is rearming....

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 09:36:25 -0800, Bill Turner
wrote:

Agreed, but my point was that the above is non-obvious. Once you figure out
what's happening, you can control it. As I said, the real "lid" in this case is
poorly written software.

--
Bill W6WRT

I guess we can let you slide on the software. If you're blind and
can't read the frequency on the VFO......

73, Jim KH2D

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 09:36:25 -0800, Bill Turner
wrote:

Agreed, but my point was that the above is non-obvious. Once you figure out
what's happening, you can control it. As I said, the real "lid" in this case is
poorly written software.

--
Bill W6WRT

I guess we can let you slide on the software. If you're blind and
can't read the frequency on the VFO......

73, Jim KH2D

wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 09:36:25 -0800, Bill Turner
wrote:

Agreed, but my point was that the above is non-obvious. Once you figure
out
what's happening, you can control it. As I said, the real "lid" in this
case is
poorly written software.

--
Bill W6WRT

I guess we can let you slide on the software. If you're blind and
can't read the frequency on the VFO......

I wonder who the FCC would cite as the operator in charge of the transmitter
if the software "caused" out-of-band operation... the licensed operator of
the transmitter, or the software that the licensee claimed was in charge of
his transmitter ?

73, Jerry
--
Jerry Bransford
To email, remove 'me' from my email address
KC6TAY/AG, PP-ASEL
See the Geezer Jeep at
http://members.cox.net/jerrypb/

wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 09:36:25 -0800, Bill Turner
wrote:

Agreed, but my point was that the above is non-obvious. Once you figure
out
what's happening, you can control it. As I said, the real "lid" in this
case is
poorly written software.

--
Bill W6WRT

I guess we can let you slide on the software. If you're blind and
can't read the frequency on the VFO......

I wonder who the FCC would cite as the operator in charge of the transmitter
if the software "caused" out-of-band operation... the licensed operator of
the transmitter, or the software that the licensee claimed was in charge of
his transmitter ?

73, Jerry
--
Jerry Bransford
To email, remove 'me' from my email address
KC6TAY/AG, PP-ASEL
See the Geezer Jeep at
http://members.cox.net/jerrypb/

Now, now, guys. You know nothing is ever *their* fault. And people have been
blaming their screw-ups on computers for over thirty years now.

Just a passing thought, I wonder if these people go around bragging about how
their computer worked a rare DX? It seems only fair.....



In article sysFb.23793$gN.11372@fed1read05, "Jerry Bransford"
wrote:
wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 09:36:25 -0800, Bill Turner
wrote:

Agreed, but my point was that the above is non-obvious. Once you figure
out
what's happening, you can control it. As I said, the real "lid" in this
case is
poorly written software.

--
Bill W6WRT

I guess we can let you slide on the software. If you're blind and
can't read the frequency on the VFO......

I wonder who the FCC would cite as the operator in charge of the transmitter
if the software "caused" out-of-band operation... the licensed operator of
the transmitter, or the software that the licensee claimed was in charge of
his transmitter ?

73, Jerry

Spammers - reply freely and often to my e-mail address
Everyone else - look me up on qrz.com

Peace - Those rare moments in history when everyone is rearming....