On 28 Jul 2003 20:12:07 GMT, (Michael Black) wrote:

Over the 31 years since I've been licensed, my impression is that
amateur radio has increasingly disappeared from public view.

I agree with you 100%. The reason in my opinion is that the ARRL kept the
morse code requirement for HF access and that kept a lot of my teenage friends
out of ham radio way back in 1982 and through the present day.
Today kids now have instant voice communications via the Internet and cell
phones and can even send pictures and text messages with their phones. Now that
the Internet is here and advanced digital cellphone is in every middle class
kids pocket technology has passed by ham radio.
Hams are the now the old technology brushed aside by technology advances. The
ARRL just couldn't let code die and now it is too late. IMHO.

--
The Radio Page Ham, Police Scanner, Shortwave and more.
http://www.kilowatt-radio.org/

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
y.com...

"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....


The test is given at 5 words per minute. They use a faster character
speed
but make the letters further apart. It is actually easier this way
because
the brain has more time to react to the character before it has to go on
to
the next one.

Why not tell it like it is.... Those giving the test do not want to make
it easy for anyone who has a learning disability or not. I have never
been able to memorize anything easily when in school, and was accused of
being from lazy to stupid. My father told me that I was ignorant because
I was partly colorblind. I do not want sympathy, just after studying for
almost a year to pass the 5 word per minute test for what it is suppose
to be not what someone who is more proficient with the code wants it to
be.....


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


What you just described, about memorizing the code, happened to me. I
started to try to learn the code at 12 years old. My mom bought me a
record...yeah thats right A RECORD..hi. And I thought I was hot stuff...but
when I actually tried to receive CW off the air, at a very slow rate.
Listened in the Novice bands. I found I didn't know a thing.

A local ham told me I had memorized the record. And that is exactly what
happened. He then gave me the ARRL license manual with the proper method
and helped when he could.

I eventually RE-LEARNED Morse and got it right. I passed the Novice and in
3 months passed the 13WPM General in front of the FCC.

I am not solid at 40 or so.

So Dee's advice is right on target.

Dan/W4NTI

I asked why it seemed so fast. I was told by the VE that he gives all
code test at least 13 words per minute if not faster.....

I have sent out a couple of e-mails requesting imformation of how tests
are given ie, speed and if fonsworth method was used. I do not wnat to
know the test iteslf as that would defeat the purpose of the testing
session. I have yet to receive an answer from any VE...

All I ask for is to know what speed I need to be studying as it all
sounds different to me at each speed....



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

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

"Jim Hampton" wrote in
:

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.

73 from Rochester, NY
Jim



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.504 / Virus Database: 302 - Release Date: 7/24/03




No I am well aware of that point. However, the FCCs implementation of
requiring a code test is different for Techs than it is for Generals and
Extras. Generals and Extras are required to pass Element 1, and Techs are
not. Access for Techs to the Novice HF subbands is __not__ conditioned on
passing Element 1, but only upon having "received credit for proficiency
in telegraphy in accordance with the international requirements" (from
rule 97.301(e)).

Given that s25.5 leaves it open for each administration to determine if a
code test is required, with no mention of any specific frequencies, the
only rule the FCC chooses to make for Tech HF access is 97.301(e), which
in turn includes the words "in accordance with international
requirements", i.e. in accordance with s25.5.

So, the FCC rule implies that a code test is required if s25.5 requires
it, and s25.5 says that a code test is required if the administration (the
FCC) requires it! This is a circular process, in fact one that could go
around in ever decreasing circles! Each rule appears to be conditional
upon the other! Obviously those who drafted the rules did not intend this,
but the ITU rule has changed in a way that was not anticipated.

It would seem to me that if two rules each require that a specific
condition must be met only if the other rule requires it, then in fact
that condition does not have to be met.

"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.

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.

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.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, Phil Kane wrote:
On 26 Jul 2003 04:49:22 GMT, Alun Palmer wrote:

OK Phil, read 97.301(e) and let us know how you understand it, parsing
each part carefully.

OK - I presume that you mean the following text, not the frequency
table:

(e) For a station having a control operator who has been
granted an operator license of Novice Class or Technician Class

This is self-explanatory.

and who has received credit for proficiency in telegraphy in
accordance with the international requirements.

The key to this discussion is, or course, "what are the
international requirements".

Up until the 2003 revision of S25.5 of the IRR, each Administration
was required to determine the proficiency of each applicant for a
license valid for operation below 30 MHz. In the US, this was done
by requiring the applicant to pass Element 1.

Upon the 2003 revision of S25.5 of the IRR, the requirement to
determine proficiency was made optional for each Administration.

That is the only change in the "international requirement" - each
Administration can now decide by its own rules/regulations whether
to require a code test. The code test is no longer mandatory for
each Administration. Each Administration's requirement for code
testing has not been automatically "dropped" or "eliminated" solely
by the revision of S25.5.

If it's OPTIONAL (on a country-by-country basis, but that doesn't matter; any
basis will do), then it's NOT A REQUIREMENT. One cannot comply with a
requirement that doesn't exist - and that's the problem.

Until the FCC changes the rules concering Element 1, the
requirement in the US remains that Element 1 must be passed.

But that's not the requirement. 47 CFR 97.301(e) made DIRECT REFERENCE to the
international requirement, not to "element 1 credit." Certainly, there's no
need to cite "element 1 credit" for the novice license!

If it had cited "element 1 credit" as the second requirement for technican
licenseholders (novice licenseholders already have it by definition in .501),
then I would agree that nothing had changed. But that's not how the FCC wrote
..301(e) and you know it! ;-)

The question of -when- and -how- the FCC Rules will be changed is a
separate item from -what- the rule requirement is up until they
-are- changed. Ditto for how the FCC will handle the issue of
giving -what- privileges to folks who hold a Technician license
but have never passed the code test.

I don't believe that's the correct question. It's not a matter of no-code
technicians now having HF privileges. It's a question of "coded techs" and
Novices having their HF privileges STRIPPED on account of one of the two
requirements now being untenable.

On Sun, 27 Jul 2003, Bill Sohl wrote:
"Keith" wrote in message
...
On 25 Jul 2003 22:56:38 GMT, (Michael Black)
wrote:

No, the rules are what counts, not some preamble.

The FCC rules are based on that international requirement.
Now the FCC could have said you must pass the 5 wpm test to operate on HF
frequencies. But they said based on the international proficiency
requirements
a tech can operate on HF.

Today there are no international proficiency requirements for morse code.

Actually, the new treaty sez each country can decide for itself.

....And that means that it is an OPTION, not a requirement.

A requirement cannot be bypassed like an option can.

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, Phil Kane wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 10:16:05 -0500, Kim W5TIT wrote:
See?! I knew the argument would get very interesting! I wonder if
it will ever get debated in a court of law...man that would be good!

Nah...this will be short-circuited by the FCC changing the Rules
long before it could ever be brought to trial, and any competent
regulatory attorney in or out of the government service knows just
how to thusly delay such things.

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?

On Sun, 27 Jul 2003, JJ wrote:
D. Stussy wrote:
The FCC, as a government agency, is bound by international treaty and law, and
here, the international law HAS CHANGED, so any regulation that refers to it
CAN (and in this case, HAS) been affected.

It's not "element 1 credit" by itself that determines a Technician class
licensee's operating privilege on HF. If it were, then I would agree that
nothing has changed - but that's simply not the situation here.

Suggest you read Phil Kane's posting on the subject. As he states, the
law has changed only in respect that each Administration can choose
themselves about the requirement for a code test. It does not mean that
the FCC has to abolish a code test. So like Phil says, nothing has
changed yet.

But if it's an OPTION for each country, it's NOT an international REQUIREMENT.

Words have definitions. These terms are self-evident.

How does one show compliance with a REQUIREMENT that does not exist?