On 9 Jul 2006 11:23:11 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote:


Al Klein wrote:
On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 07:25:56 -0400, "J. D. B."
wrote:

Requiring code tests and real
technical testing (the current tests are a joke) makes sure that most
of the people who get licensed are more proficient at receiving code
and with technical matters.
no it does not

most of the people that get license tody never take a code test

therfore they are not made more profeincent at Morse code even

you "facts" are well... ****ed

No, it's your ability to understand the difference between "are
licensed" and "get licensed" that is.

Al Klein wrote:
On 9 Jul 2006 11:23:11 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote:


Al Klein wrote:
On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 07:25:56 -0400, "J. D. B."
wrote:

Requiring code tests and real
technical testing (the current tests are a joke) makes sure that most
of the people who get licensed are more proficient at receiving code
and with technical matters.
no it does not

most of the people that get license tody never take a code test

therfore they are not made more profeincent at Morse code even

you "facts" are well... ****ed

No, it's your ability to understand the difference between "are
licensed" and "get licensed" that is.
all the tech got lisenced sir
nor does passing the code even ensure that most people that pass it can
operate it

J. D. B. wrote:
Al, someone who passes a code test should be more proficient in code
than someone who cannot pass the code test. That simply makes that
person proficient in code, not necessarily a more proficient operator.
should be? I beg you pardon

well I know can't pass a code test and I can use Morse code did a few
eme contacts using a spectrograph to make out the didt and dah and
feedto an pc for translation I have done the same (with code reader as
well) to see if I could do that made a sweep in a cw sweepstakes (with
aid of another hams call)

You may be able to use the code, but if you cannot use modern digital
methods, use sat communication, able to handle emergency communication,
able to set up digital networks and use them effectively, build modern
solid-state equipment, etc., then you are not a more proficient amateur
operator, you just are more proficient in code and that is not going to
help us much in the 21st Century.

As I said before, PSK31 can be copied when the human ear cannot even
hear the signal, if you cannot hear code, you cannot copy it period. So
code is no longer the be-all-end-all. Modern 21st communication methods
have replaced it.

If we are going to attract new people to the service, we need to get
into the 21st Century and get the old farts away from the old code and
tubes crap.

Al Klein wrote:

Someone who can do something is, by definition, more proficient at
doing it than someone who can't. Requiring code tests and real
technical testing (the current tests are a joke) makes sure that most
of the people who get licensed are more proficient at receiving code
and with technical matters.

"J. D. B." wrote in message
...
Al, someone who passes a code test should be more proficient in code than
someone who cannot pass the code test. That simply makes that person
proficient in code, not necessarily a more proficient operator.


If they are proficient in code as well as other modes, then they are a more
proficient operator. The more you can do, the more proficient you are.

You may be able to use the code, but if you cannot use modern digital
methods, use sat communication, able to handle emergency communication,
able to set up digital networks and use them effectively, build modern
solid-state equipment, etc., then you are not a more proficient amateur
operator, you just are more proficient in code and that is not going to
help us much in the 21st Century.


Setting up digital networks may not be particularly practical in the early
days right after a large scale disaster. Satellite passes are short and if
you don't have internet access to look up pass times, you may be up the
proverbial creek without the proverbial paddle if you rely too much on that
form of communications. Even with the pass info, the passes are too short
to be useful for handling very much emergency communication.

As I said before, PSK31 can be copied when the human ear cannot even hear
the signal, if you cannot hear code, you cannot copy it period. So code
is no longer the be-all-end-all. Modern 21st communication methods have
replaced it.


Yes it is true that PSK31 can be copied when you cannot hear it. However,
it is useless when there are ionospheric disturbances that cause phase
shifts (solar flares with the attendent aurora come to mind). This happens
on a fairly regular basis. In addition, although the signal you are putting
out is low power, PSK31 has a fairly high power consumption requirement
since a computer is essential in the system. If you have limited power
resources, it may not be a wise choice.

While code is not the end-all and be-all, it still has its place in list of
communications methods. Let us go back to the auroral activity. The
various digital modes fail first. Voice holds up a little bit longer
getting distorted but sometimes still copyable. Code holds up a bit longer,
being still copyable when voice becomes too distorted. Under auroral
conditions, both voice and code fare better than digital.

Every single method has a valid place in the list of communications methods.
Every mode has its strong points and its weak points. In my opinion, hams
should be able to use as many modes as possible and that includes code.

The major drawback to code is that it requires people to develop a skill
rather than being a matter of just slapping parts together. Heck, I don't
any skill in soldering as I've soldered only about 4 items in my life but I
built both myself and my OM PSK31 interfaces in about 1/2 hour each. They
were two of those four items.

If we are going to attract new people to the service, we need to get into
the 21st Century and get the old farts away from the old code and tubes
crap.


I find that it is the "old farts" who are doing most of the exotic
activities. When I work PSK31, I come across many seniors working this mode
with the latest radios and computers. When I work VHF/UHF contests and look
up the call signs afterwards, it is mostly the experience hams that I run
across.

You have let your disdain for the code blind you to its merits. As I stated
above, EVERY mode has its strengths and weaknesses and its place in wireless
communications.

Dee, N8UZE

Dee, the issue is that many old hams know CW, but cannot operate most
new digital modes. But if I understand what you are saying, if a 20 WPM
Extra Class ham only operates CW and maybe SSB is less proficient than a
5 WPM Technician that operates on 10 different digital modes. See the
10 modes is more than CW and SSB, that ham is more proficient. Then I
guess I agree with you.

Your comments on setting up networks, sat communication, and digital
modes show that you have little knowledge on either. For instance, it
depends on the sat orbit how long it is useful.

If PSK cannot be used due to ionospheric disturbances, well then either
can CW. Computers can be operated on battery or generator. You are
going to need something to power the radio right? Does not take much
more for a laptop and with digital modes, the power can be much less so
there is more power for the laptop.

Your comparison of voice, digital modes and CW shows you have little
knowledge of what you are talking about. I have personally used digital
modes when voice and CW were not able to be copied.

Finally, I happen to like CW a lot. But I don't think it makes anyone a
better operator for knowing it, you should not be tested on it anymore
than any other mode. Yes, there are a lot of seniors using digital, but
there are too many more hanging on to the old crap CW only and tubes.



Dee Flint wrote:


If they are proficient in code as well as other modes, then they are a more
proficient operator. The more you can do, the more proficient you are.


Setting up digital networks may not be particularly practical in the early
days right after a large scale disaster. Satellite passes are short and if
you don't have internet access to look up pass times, you may be up the
proverbial creek without the proverbial paddle if you rely too much on that
form of communications. Even with the pass info, the passes are too short
to be useful for handling very much emergency communication.


Yes it is true that PSK31 can be copied when you cannot hear it. However,
it is useless when there are ionospheric disturbances that cause phase
shifts (solar flares with the attendent aurora come to mind). This happens
on a fairly regular basis. In addition, although the signal you are putting
out is low power, PSK31 has a fairly high power consumption requirement
since a computer is essential in the system. If you have limited power
resources, it may not be a wise choice.

While code is not the end-all and be-all, it still has its place in list of
communications methods. Let us go back to the auroral activity. The
various digital modes fail first. Voice holds up a little bit longer
getting distorted but sometimes still copyable. Code holds up a bit longer,
being still copyable when voice becomes too distorted. Under auroral
conditions, both voice and code fare better than digital.

Every single method has a valid place in the list of communications methods.
Every mode has its strong points and its weak points. In my opinion, hams
should be able to use as many modes as possible and that includes code.

The major drawback to code is that it requires people to develop a skill
rather than being a matter of just slapping parts together. Heck, I don't
any skill in soldering as I've soldered only about 4 items in my life but I
built both myself and my OM PSK31 interfaces in about 1/2 hour each. They
were two of those four items.


I find that it is the "old farts" who are doing most of the exotic
activities. When I work PSK31, I come across many seniors working this mode
with the latest radios and computers. When I work VHF/UHF contests and look
up the call signs afterwards, it is mostly the experience hams that I run
across.

You have let your disdain for the code blind you to its merits. As I stated
above, EVERY mode has its strengths and weaknesses and its place in wireless
communications.

Dee, N8UZE

On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 19:15:34 -0400, "J. D. B."
wrote:

Al, someone who passes a code test should be more proficient in code
than someone who cannot pass the code test. That simply makes that
person proficient in code, not necessarily a more proficient operator.

The original claim wasn't that it makes him more proficient in
everything, just that it makes him a more proficient operator. Being
equal in everything else, but more proficient in code, makes one more
proficient.

Is logic a lost art?

You may be able to use the code, but if you cannot use modern digital
methods, use sat communication, able to handle emergency communication,
able to set up digital networks and use them effectively, build modern
solid-state equipment, etc., then you are not a more proficient amateur
operator, you just are more proficient in code and that is not going to
help us much in the 21st Century.

And, if there's effectively no testing, which is the current case, how
do you propose that we get operators who CAN "use modern digital
methods, use sat communication, able to handle emergency communication
....", etc? Wishing makes it so?

As I said before, PSK31 can be copied when the human ear cannot even
hear the signal, if you cannot hear code, you cannot copy it period.

CW can be copied below the noise. Whether it can be copied as far
below the noise as PSK31 can is a good question. With the amount of
experience I have with both modes, I think I can safely say that CW
can be copied further into the noise than PSK31 can. (You need SOME
detectable original signal for PSK31 to work - after all, you have to
be able to detect the phase shift. CW can be copied even if it's
nothing more than modulated noise. And, if there are any old sounder
operators left, even key clicks can be copied.)

So code is no longer the be-all-end-all. Modern 21st communication methods
have replaced it.

It never was all there is, but let's see you use "modern 21st
communication methods" in an emergency situation when all you have is
a source of RF - nothing to modulate it with. Going to yell at the
oscillator and hope it's microphonic enough to produce some NBFM?

If we are going to attract new people to the service, we need to get
into the 21st Century and get the old farts away from the old code and
tubes crap.

They said that in the 50s too - "we have modern communications like
SSB - who needs CW?" ... yet CW still lives. I doubt it'll be a
requirement in 100 years , but I also doubt that no one will be able
to copy it.

On Sun, 9 Jul 2006 20:20:37 -0400, "Dee Flint"
wrote:

While code is not the end-all and be-all, it still has its place in list of
communications methods. Let us go back to the auroral activity. The
various digital modes fail first. Voice holds up a little bit longer
getting distorted but sometimes still copyable. Code holds up a bit longer,
being still copyable when voice becomes too distorted. Under auroral
conditions, both voice and code fare better than digital.

Thanks for the memories. I enjoyed "the barrel" in the late '50s. No
one who works voice on aurora will ever forget what it sounds like. Or
forget working half-way across the country with 5 watts on 6 with a TV
antenna.

The major drawback to code is that it requires people to develop a skill
rather than being a matter of just slapping parts together.

The problem is that a lot of people think that all the "skill"
operating takes is being able to turn the equipment on. Even using an
appliance rig, it's easy to tell the appliance operators from those
who have developed some skill.

If we are going to attract new people to the service, we need to get into
the 21st Century and get the old farts away from the old code and tubes
crap.

I find that it is the "old farts" who are doing most of the exotic
activities. When I work PSK31, I come across many seniors working this mode
with the latest radios and computers.

I'll second that - from the old fart side.

Al - W2PMX

On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 20:46:16 -0400, "J. D. B."
wrote:

Dee, the issue is that many old hams know CW, but cannot operate most
new digital modes.

And many of us know CW, originated some digital modes (you think
teen-agers invented everything?) and can certainly operate most, if
not all, of them. We had working RTTY (that's digital) regenerating
repeaters (thanks, Norm) before most current hams were even born.

If PSK cannot be used due to ionospheric disturbances, well then either
can CW.

Not true - the human brain is a more efficient detector than a
computer sound card in some cases.

Computers can be operated on battery or generator. You are
going to need something to power the radio right? Does not take much
more for a laptop and with digital modes, the power can be much less so
there is more power for the laptop.

You can get a CW signal to anywhere in the world with a 9 volt battery
for a few hours. You can't run a pocket PC on that kind of power.

Your comparison of voice, digital modes and CW shows you have little
knowledge of what you are talking about. I have personally used digital
modes when voice and CW were not able to be copied.

And I have personally used CW when digital modes weren't even
detectable, let alone copyable. So have many people who have used CW
for extremely low signal work. Try decoding a PSK signal that's been
bounced off an aurora. (The phase is constantly rolling - there's
nothing for the detector to detect.) Aurora CW sounds weird (okay, it
makes "weird" boring), but it's easy to copy.

Finally, I happen to like CW a lot. But I don't think it makes anyone a
better operator for knowing it, you should not be tested on it anymore
than any other mode.

Okay - the same then. You're tested on your ability to understand
English, and to read the written word - that covers voice and digital.
Let's test for CW. Not "more", just "same".

Yes, there are a lot of seniors using digital, but
there are too many more hanging on to the old crap CW only and tubes.

And too many youngsters who think that it it's old it's automatically
crap.

Al Klein wrote:

The original claim wasn't that it makes him more proficient in
everything, just that it makes him a more proficient operator. Being
equal in everything else, but more proficient in code, makes one more
proficient.

Is logic a lost art?

I still hold to the belief, claim, whatever that knowing CW in itself,
does not make an operator more proficient in anything but CW. I would
even submit that some operators who only use CW are less proficient
operators than a modern ham who uses many more modes and methods,
including modern digital modes, to communicate. Follow the logic Al.
Someone who is versed in more facets of Amateur Radio than simply CW is
a more proficient operator. Yes, I guess you are correct, logic is a
lost art.



You may be able to use the code, but if you cannot use modern digital
methods, use sat communication, able to handle emergency communication,
able to set up digital networks and use them effectively, build modern
solid-state equipment, etc., then you are not a more proficient amateur
operator, you just are more proficient in code and that is not going to
help us much in the 21st Century.

And, if there's effectively no testing, which is the current case, how
do you propose that we get operators who CAN "use modern digital
methods, use sat communication, able to handle emergency communication
...", etc? Wishing makes it so?

No, desire does. Every amateur has their niche that they want to
pursue. Forcing a CW test on someone does not make them have a desire to
use it. In fact, forcing someone to test on an archaic mode of
communication may in fact keep them away from the service and therefore
they will never develop an interest in learning and using modern
communication methods.


As I said before, PSK31 can be copied when the human ear cannot even
hear the signal, if you cannot hear code, you cannot copy it period.

CW can be copied below the noise. Whether it can be copied as far
below the noise as PSK31 can is a good question. With the amount of
experience I have with both modes, I think I can safely say that CW
can be copied further into the noise than PSK31 can. (You need SOME
detectable original signal for PSK31 to work - after all, you have to
be able to detect the phase shift. CW can be copied even if it's
nothing more than modulated noise. And, if there are any old sounder
operators left, even key clicks can be copied.)

Al, you seem to have trouble reading. I never mentioned copying below
the noise level. What I said was CW cannot be copied if the human ear
cannot hear it. I have copied PSK when the audio of the signal could
not be copied by the human ear. It's just that simple. All the BS
about CW being the only true weak signal mode is well just BS. There
are superior modes to CW and PSK is one of them.


So code is no longer the be-all-end-all. Modern 21st communication methods
have replaced it.

It never was all there is, but let's see you use "modern 21st
communication methods" in an emergency situation when all you have is
a source of RF - nothing to modulate it with. Going to yell at the
oscillator and hope it's microphonic enough to produce some NBFM?

Yup, if all you have is a source of RF and nothing else, I guess you are
screwed. But that is not reality. You would have a real problem if you
did not have a source of RF, gee Al, let's call it a transmitter and use
big people words. I wonder why NASA does not have CW capability on the
Shuttle and Space Station - you know, just in case. Why have our armed
forces stopped using it? What happens in war if all they have is a
transmitter? Get real.


If we are going to attract new people to the service, we need to get
into the 21st Century and get the old farts away from the old code and
tubes crap.

They said that in the 50s too - "we have modern communications like
SSB - who needs CW?" ... yet CW still lives. I doubt it'll be a
requirement in 100 years , but I also doubt that no one will be able
to copy it.

Yup CW still lives and it will go on for quite awhile. Forcing people
to learn and use it is not the way to keep it going. It probably won't
be a requirement in 5 to 10 years. I guess that is just evolution. Out
with the old and in with the new.

On 9 Jul 2006 22:13:34 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote:

Dee Flint wrote:
"J. D. B." wrote in message
...

While code is not the end-all and be-all, it still has its place in list of
communications methods.
which is an admision that it is proper for it to be the be all and end
all of of testing for hf
It just that simple

Only if you failed Logic 101.