wrote:

AJ Lake wrote:

I do have a [treaty] source. [3 listed]

But if the treaty had not required a code test for the 220 MHz Tech in
the license change of 1951, do you think the hams of the day (both
inside and outside the FCC) would have allowed a codeless ham to
exist? It would have been scary to even express those thoughts aloud
in those days, considering what you hear now, 50+ years later...

I haven't been an ARRL member since the dark days.
When were these "dark days"?

Incentive Licensing. I have always voted with my wallet.

The license is for operating, not building.

The Technician was meant for those who were more interested in VHF/UHF
experimentation than HF operating.

The basic argument against the code test comes down to this:
Why should anyone have to learn it if they don't intend to use it?

I've heard that argument, but that's not why they quit the code test.

The reasons for a code test that once applied are no longer valid. No
more military CW. No more ship to shore CW. No more WW2 ops needed.
Ect ect ect. CW is now really obsolete for anything but hobby use.
Making involuntary human modems has little value to the government any
more.

What happens is that the argument, taken to its logical conclusion,
says there should be no real test at all.

The ham test should be about *modern* technology. Testing about past
obsolete technology and practices such as tubes, mechanical RTTY, and
code ect just doesn't make sense.

The basic argument against the code test comes down to this:
Why should anyone have to learn it if they don't intend to use it?

Gee, if you don't plan on using the ham license, why bother taking a test?

An old Tech class Elmer that first taught me the code, told me you need it
so you will know what repeater you are talking on. I find Morse code
useful but I can see how someone who doesn't know it might not find any use
for it. Even I can't tell you what it's good for if you don't plan on using
it. DUH.

I still have some Vinyl records and even a couple of 45s still. I like some
Classical music too even though the people that wrote it are dead, I guess
that makes it obsolete. So what's with these Heavy Metal bands where they
are still using a Tube guitar amp and half of those guys have one foot in
the grave anyway. Even the newest bands are old guys in their 30s with
15-20 year olds freaking all around them. Except for the Girl bands all but
doing strip shows. That's kind of entertaining, but everytime they open
their mouths, bubble gum and bullsqueek comes out. But then you have all
these teen girls who idolize them and dress like strippers and everyone
wonders why their teen daughters have all gone astray, but NOOO, they tell
us we're OLD and don't know what were talking about because all their
girlfriends are pregnant and had 15 abortions when they were 15, so why
can't they have fun too. Just because they say the 50 yo migrant worker is
cute and says he loves her, why can't she have him for a sleepover.
ARGGGGHHE... but I digress. What is it with these NEWBIES telling us - We
who know better - That Morse Code is useless.

I'll tell you one thing, E-mail isn't even faster than Morse Code. In fact
they should do away with E-mail because it's slower than Morse Code. The
fact that someone actually marketed a Blackberry smaller than a full size
keyboard must have been tasked to find out how many idiots there are trying
to push their lives through a microscopic keyboard when a Straight key you
don't even have to look at to find the alphabet. Shouldn't cell phones have
made them all obsolete? Come to think of it, these computers should be
obsolete too because they are so much slower than cell phones. Or maybe
because you can't even talk to people on the phone anymore because they are
stuck sifting through their SPAM lists.

Just a few Wild-A** thoughts.

"JB" wrote:

I still have some Vinyl records and even a couple of 45s still.

Hopefully you still have the antique/obsolete equipment to play them.

I like some Classical music too even though the people that wrote it
are dead, I guess that makes it obsolete.

Classical music isn't obsolete. But the technology used to store it
can be obsolete (such as wire spool recording) or modern (such as
computer mp3 files).

So what's with these Heavy Metal bands where they
are still using a Tube guitar amp...

*Tube* guitar amps are supposed to sound better. Hard for me to tell
with all that intentional distortion they introduce into the music.

My old *tube* receivers still work fine even though they're antiques
(and quite obsolete). But in serious QRM/QRN I have to switch to my
modern rig with the receiver digital processing if I want to complete
the QSO.

We who know better - That Morse Code is useless.

CW is *not* useless. It's fun. It's all I ever use these days.
Unfortunately the phone bands are often R rated so I left there years
ago. CW is still a gentlemans band and great place to enjoy the CW
*hobby*...

AJ Lake wrote:

So what's with these Heavy Metal bands where they
are still using a Tube guitar amp...

*Tube* guitar amps are supposed to sound better.

They generally do. They introduce concordant (even order) harmonic
distortion, so are nicer to listen to.

My old *tube* receivers still work fine even though they're antiques
(and quite obsolete). But in serious QRM/QRN I have to switch to my
modern rig with the receiver digital processing if I want to complete
the QSO.

My valve (tube - U.S.) receivers far out-perform /any/ semiconductor
receiver. I don't need any digital processing at all.

We who know better - That Morse Code is useless.

CW is *not* useless. It's fun.

I can "work the world" on tiny power using CW, whereas I'd have to use
stupid amounts of power to get similar results with SSB. Also, the people
you meet on CW tend to be much more friendly!

C.

Bob wrote:

My valve (tube - U.S.) receivers far out-perform /any/ semiconductor
receiver.

Your tube receivers outperform *any* semiconductor (solid state -
U.S.) receiver? I guess that would mean in all ways. That's a big
claim. What receivers might those be?

I don't need any digital processing at all.

Ah, I'm getting the picture now. You are firmly rooted in the past.
Not unusual with old timers. The problem often is that we think
everyone else should be the same. That's why it took so long to kill
the code test.

I can "work the world" on tiny power using CW, whereas I'd have to use
stupid amounts of power to get similar results with SSB.

Less power needed is an advantage of CW. Also less antenna needed. I
run 50 watts to a random wire 8' high (HOA stealth antenna) with quite
satisfactory results. It's not a DX antenna, though I do snag one
every now and then. CW ragchewing's my game, and I seldom fail to
complete a QSO.

Also, the people you meet on CW tend to be much more friendly!

Yes CW is a gentlemans band.

AJ Lake wrote:

Bob wrote:

My valve (tube - U.S.) receivers far out-perform /any/ semiconductor
receiver.

Your tube receivers outperform *any* semiconductor (solid state -
U.S.) receiver? I guess that would mean in all ways. That's a big
claim. What receivers might those be?

Yes. In every way. Intermodulation, noise floor, selectivity, ultimate
sensitivity, every parameter you can think of! The receivers were very
carefully designed and constructed by me, (though taking advice from some
of the "classic" designs), and have been widely tested against some really
serious, exotic receivers!

I don't need any digital processing at all.

Ah, I'm getting the picture now. You are firmly rooted in the past.

Not at all. I'm a professional electronics designer, and use the very
latest technology when applicable. I haven't seen /any/ digital processor
that assists me in actually picking signals out of QRM. I'd rather use
tight filtering (RF, IF and AF), and synchronous demodulation when needed.
The real trick is a receiver with extreme selectivity (not the bogus
pseudo-selectivity given by digital filters with all their nasty artifacts)
and a really low noise floor.

Not unusual with old timers. The problem often is that we think
everyone else should be the same. That's why it took so long to kill
the code test.

Absolutely not - I'm happy for you if you're happy with your digital Rice
Box - I'd rather use something *I* made and get results that often astonish
my friends and colleagues.

I can "work the world" on tiny power using CW, whereas I'd have to use
stupid amounts of power to get similar results with SSB.

Less power needed is an advantage of CW. Also less antenna needed. I
run 50 watts to a random wire 8' high (HOA stealth antenna) with quite
satisfactory results.

I have a loop over my garden (backyard - U.S.), which is (just) resonant on
7 Mhz and has a reasonable match on other bands. It's basically two long
wires above each other, connected by a vertical section at the far end and
with a transformer coupling at the house end (the transformer is 6 metres
of UR 67, and the horizontal sections are about 9 metres long). It's not
the world's greatest antenna, but works surprisingly well for its small
size.

It's not a DX antenna, though I do snag one every now and then.

Me too!

CW ragchewing's my game, and I seldom fail to complete a QSO.

My latest game has been working on a /really/ simple and cheap frequency
synthesiser and SSB generator that's not too critical in component values
and easy to align. It's entirely digital!

Also, the people you meet on CW tend to be much more friendly!

Yes CW is a gentlemans band.

Certainly is!

Bob

Also - I seldom run more than 10 Watts on any band (unless conditions are
really bad) and I seldom fail to complete a QSO!

Bob

CW is *not* useless. It's fun. It's all I ever use these days.
Unfortunately the phone bands are often R rated so I left there years
ago. CW is still a gentlemans band and great place to enjoy the CW
*hobby*...

Which completely proves the point that resistance is not futile. That
having the patience to learn a skill will in fact tend to protect a valuable
resource from degradation by being flooded with impulsive personalities.
The mentality that wants the FCC rules changed so that they can play music,
false signals, profanity, deliberately interfere and act out in public,
can't really petition for that, but they can petition to make it easier to
have that capability and let nature take it's course.

Bob wrote:

have been widely tested against some really
serious, exotic receivers!

If you only tested your tube receiver against *some* receivers then
your claim about outperforming *all* SS receivers would be invalid.
'Absolute' statements will get you in trouble most of the time.

I haven't seen /any/ digital processor
that assists me in actually picking signals out of QRM.

*You* not having seen any doesn't mean there aren't any.

pseudo-selectivity given by digital filters with all their nasty artifacts)

Selectivity is not usually my problem. With close neighbors and a low
wire antenna, it's man made noise that is my problem. Digital does
well with this.

I'm happy for you if you're happy with your digital Rice Box

Yes we have hams here that are also 'Rice Box' prejudiced. Prejudice
for everything produced in Asia is silly these days.

"JB" wrote:

having the patience to learn a skill will in fact tend to protect a valuable
resource from degradation by being flooded with impulsive personalities.

The old having to learn the code will keep the whacko's out just
doesn't stand up. The biggest offenders on the SSB 75M mess are code
tested Extras...