| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#131
July 30th 03, 01:01 AM
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Phil Kane wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 D. Stussy wrote: It does not mean that at all. It is another perfect example of FCC regulation-writer shortsightedness, just like happened with the April 2000 changes. Yeah. Monty DePont (and the rest of us who were craftsmen in rule and affidavit and opinion writing) retired before that time and it's so difficult to get "good help nowadays"...... 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.... Sure it exists. It requires each Administration to determine if a code test is necessary. It's not an "option" - each Administration MUST determine if a code test is necessary or not. If the Administration determines that it is, then any test that is ordered complies with "international requirements". If each government has a choice, then it's not an "international requirement." A requirement means that there is no choice. The replacement S25.5 means that each country has a choice to impose a NATIONAL REQUIREMENT on its licenseholders (something they could have done anyway). How does that become an international requirement when some member country to the agreement can opt out? S25.5 no longer REQUIRES anything. So how can one show that one has met the requirement? That's impossible. Having a choice (regardless of whom holds the choice) means that it is an OPTION, and options aren't requirements. A requirement means that there is no choice; no option. These are OPPOSITES. The "international requirement" (inflexible rule) is that the decision on code proficiency is now up to each Administration. This isn't an "option" - this is a fixed rule = "requirement". That statement focuses on "requirement," forgetting about "international." "Meeting the international requirement" means meeting the rule set by the FCC. The FCC cannot remove an operating privilege for an entire class of licensee without a formal rule change unless it is a temporary or emergency measure. There has not been any formal rule change, so the situation remains as is. Yes, there has. Treaties and international agreements supersede national laws. Whether or not the IRS and the Tax Court works that way, that's how the FCC works. Dieter, you've been dealing with the IRS too much to think clearly on this matter..... Perhaps so, but you will find that interpretation of rules and regulations was one of my strongest points when I worked for them. Thinking can be taxing! :-) |
|
#132
July 30th 03, 01:12 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Alun Palmer wrote:
"Hugo" wrote in : Alun Palmer wrote in message ... "Landshark" . wrote in .com: "D. Stussy" wrote in message . org...\ Why don't you people pay attention that your cross posting this troll fodder? Landshark Why are you blaming me for this? The original thread was crossposted. Blame the person who started it all. You should note that where I have noted an inapproprate group, I have killed the cross-posting in my responses. I don't always note that, nor do I really care. I'm not a mind reader of the originator of any thread, myself excluded. |
|
#134
July 30th 03, 05:37 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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." |
|
#135
July 30th 03, 09:11 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
(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. That would drive me batty! 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". That's a bad idea, an hour straight is 'way too long for learning purposes. 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. 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. I'm still a very strong supporter of learning Morse via the W1AW code practice sessions. 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 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 |
|
#136
July 30th 03, 09:15 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#137
July 30th 03, 03:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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) |
|
#138
July 30th 03, 10:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"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 |
|
#139
July 30th 03, 10:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
|
#140
July 30th 03, 10:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
