On Jan 5, 2:48 pm, wrote:

What I do see are requirements that prospective members prove
themselves by actually getting on the air and working existing members,
using CW, at a given speed or better.

Yes, exactly.


What I see as the flaw in their system is that they state that they
want to create a renaissance in CW. Okay, that's a worthy goal. I do
question how they are going about it.

But setting the bar at 25 wpm is not going to produce that goal.

Why not?

Let me give an example from my own world.

In the PAQSO Party, we like to encourage the use of OOK Morse. That's
why we give more points to them. In a year or two, I'm going to
increase that point value on the bands above 80 meters to 2 points
from 1.5 per CW QSO.

That's telling people that if they want to get more points per QSO,
all they have to do is use OOK Morse. I'm not telling them they have
to do it at a certain speed, just giving a gentle push. And I'm not
trying to single out Morse, because I also give out 2 points for PSK31
and RTTY also. I want people to use those modes too.

And yes, I have had some Morse enthusiasts who became angry when I
added the other modes. They wanted the extra points exclusively for
themselves. Sorry, but I'm an equal opportunity promoter. But that
does tell me that the increased points per QSO is a powerful
incentive.

The main reason that I don't believe that they will be successful in
promoting Morse code is that they are only open to people who are
already proficient in the art. The only rationale I can come up with
that comes out as promotion is that someone will really really want to
join the CWops, so he practices a lot so he can get to 25 wpm, so they
allow him to join. IOW, they are promoting on the side of CW Ops who
are already there. In reality, there aren't likely to be too many
people who will decide to learn and use OOK Morse in order to join
that club.


CWOps isn't the only game in town. FISTS has been around a long time,
for example. SKCC has attracted thousands of members in just a few
years. Second Class Operator's club is another example. All have pretty
minimal entry requirements. That's not a bad thing.

We Second Class Operators are a little different though, in that our
motto is "Competence is tolerated, but not encouraged". We're kind of
the antithesis of exclusive, and we make fun of everything, including
the other members. Great place to let your hair down - if I had any to
let down. 8^)


So I think there's room for a club like CWOps, too. It will be
interesting to see how membership grows.

Absolutely.


"Which one are you copying?" I asked

"All three" said the OT, logging another one. "Now get me another
beer"

I went to get it, and decided right then that someday I'd have that
level of skills.

I'm partway there, I have the beer part down...... ;^)


- 73 de Mike N3LI -

In Jeff Davis
wrote:

On 2010-01-06, Steve Bonine wrote:

I gave up long ago trying to predict what motivates ham radio
operators.
Personally, this whole idea of having to be nominated by current
members turns me off, but I know that I am far from typical in that
regard. If the process of obtaining membership in this club actually

Morse has transitioned from being the lingua franca of amateur radio
to an exclusive club.

Exclusive? How so?

Nobody has to be invited to actually use CW on the air. Membership in
this or any other club is not required.

There's no longer any code requirement for licenses in the US or most
(all?) of the rest of the world, so its use is now completely voluntary.

Even so, large chunks of the bands are still populated almost
exclusively by CW ops.

And folks marvel at its decline...

If people don't use CW, it's because they don't want to, not because
someone won't let them.


--
Bert Hyman W0RSB St. Paul, MN

On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 08:56:38 EST, "Michael J. Coslo"
wrote:

In the PAQSO Party, we like to encourage the use of OOK Morse.

What is OOK Morse, and how does it differ from regular Morse code?
I looked at the PAQSO Party site, and OOK is not defined.

Dick AC7EL

On 2010-01-06, Bert Hyman wrote:

Exclusive? How so?

Nobody has to be invited to actually use CW on the air. Membership in
this or any other club is not required.

True, however, 'exclusive' is implied in the bylaws that call for nomination
for membership, pop tests to prove competancy, etc. It's just another form
of cronyism by a handful of folks not happy that the hazing requirement to
obtain HF privileges has been removed.

Nothing wrong with it but the result will be the same hundred old guys who
all belong to the same tired hundred clubs all with the same stated purpose
of "saving" ham radio by protecting and promoting Morse.

Been there, done that, got the shirt and it still doesn't work...

If people don't use CW, it's because they don't want to, not because
someone won't let them.

Also true. Now if I could just make a few contacts without being shaken down
for my FISTS, SKCC, NAQCC, etc, etc, etc, numbers....

73,
--
Jeff, KE9V

On Jan 6, 8:13 am, Jeff Davis wrote:

Morse has transitioned from being the lingua franca of amateur radio to a
n
exclusive club.

And folks marvel at its decline...

And that worries me.

I'll almost certainly never be qualified to become a member of that
CWops club due to physical limitations, but I realize that Morse code
and it's use in Ham radio is a skill that should never go away. The
concept of working the world with a rudimentary radio and no
infrastructure is pretty powerful. The features of the mode make it
possible, the small bandwidth, the human powered DSP, that's all great
stuff. It absolutely needs to be encouraged. It just takes some work.
And we must be honest, it takes more work for some of us (like me)
than others. But that's okay, I considered the months I put in to get
to a paltry 8 wpm well worth it.

To me it's hard to call a club that has a lower limit of 25 wpm not
exclusive. They are promoting themselves to people who have already
made the grade. But enough about them - I don't begrudge them their
status, just that I think they are not going to achieve one of their
stated goals.

Do we want to promote OOK Morse? How about this idea......

Given that there is now a rather large divide between competent Morse
operators, and those starting out, there is some serious catching up
to do.

I would propose that a web based method of learning OOK Morse might
just do the trick. People have a tendency to be pretty fearful of
learning on the radio, the person on the other end might not be
terribly patient, and there are some people who just get bored
listening to slow Morse.

This system would give feedback on the copy and sending, practice
sessions, and testing.

This so far is kind of like the canned software. But where this
departs is that the student can send back and forth to other students.
Conversations can be made at really slow speeds, and with people of
like skill level. Text messaging can be incorporated to compare notes.
And another feature is a mentor can be added to the system. A
volunteer could work with the students to increase their proficiency.

The "hooks" of such a system are the web based interface, the semi-
chat room atmosphere, and the lack of pressure if no pressure is
desired.

It isn't breaking any technological ground either. The biggest issue
is who would host such a thing? My best guess is that the ARRL would
be a likely candidate.

I believe that would be a much better way to promote OOK Morse.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

wrote:

In the PAQSO Party, we like to encourage the use of OOK Morse.

What is OOK Morse, and how does it differ from regular Morse code?
I looked at the PAQSO Party site, and OOK is not defined.

Hi Dick,

OOK stands for On/Off keying Morse. It's really what most people call
CW. I think the distinction was made when some folks questioned the
distinction between Morse and CW, which technically speaking isn't
actually CW. Just kind of a semantics thing - I ended up settling on
OOK Morse - mostly anyhow - It's probably the most accurate. That
being said, everyone does know what we're talking about when we say
CW.

-73 de Mike N3LI -

On Jan 6, 9:13 am, Bert Hyman wrote:

If people don't use CW, it's because they don't want to, not because
someone won't let them.


I think that Jeff was referring to the club in question, not to CW in
general.

At least for me, the issue is promotion of the mode, how new Ops might
be brought into the mix.

For some folks, this is not an issue, for others, it is a concern.
Some of the concern might be historical, some folks just happen to
like something, and therefore like to promote it.

But some of us believe that the mode has merit, and would like to see
it continue. Now that element 2 is history, how do we promote the
mode?

I believe it does need a little promotion, at least at the present
time, because there is a pretty big gulf between people like me,
people that don't know it at all, and the really proficient
operators. There aren't all that many people in the middle any more.
Perhaps after a new balance is achieved, there will be less need for
promotion, but at present, I believe it is critical. We don't need to
convince the already proficient, we need to work with the new people.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

On Jan 6, 11:12 am, Jeff Davis wrote:

True, however, 'exclusive' is implied in the bylaws that call for nominat
ion
for membership, pop tests to prove competancy, etc. It's just another for
m
of cronyism by a handful of folks not happy that the hazing requirement t
o
obtain HF privileges has been removed.

Then don't join.

Almost *any* nontrivial requirement is bound to be labeled a "hazing
ritual", "cronyism", "luddite" or other derogatory term by somebody.

Now if I could just make a few contacts without being shaken down
for my FISTS, SKCC, NAQCC, etc, etc, etc, numbers....

You can have a QSO with me, then. I have a bunch of those numbers but I
don't ask folks for them during QSOs unless there's a specific
reason (such as they ask me).

IIRC the whole exchanging-numbers deal came from the Ten-Ten folks,
who mostly use 'phone...

73 de Jim, N2EY

On 2010-01-06, wrote:

You can have a QSO with me, then. I have a bunch of those numbers but I
don't ask folks for them during QSOs unless there's a specific
reason (such as they ask me).

I'd like that very much Jim!

At 50 I don't think I'm the oldest guy in the room but it sure seems like a
long time since I enjoyed a QSO without being asked if I had this or that
number to exchange. And I blame that on the endless string of little CW
clubs that sprout like mushrooms in the spring...

Perhaps that's why I was being a little too hard on this latest club venture.

Apologies if any were offended.

73,
--
Jeff, KE9V

In Jeff Davis
wrote:

At 50 I don't think I'm the oldest guy in the room but it sure seems
like a long time since I enjoyed a QSO without being asked if I had
this or that number to exchange. And I blame that on the endless
string of little CW clubs that sprout like mushrooms in the spring...


I've been around for a while myself (licensed 49 years -today!) and
have adopted and dropped many operating roles in that time. I'm
currently strictly a CW operator, recently gave up chasing DX due to
the lack of sunspots, and I'm now trying contesting. So, it's been a
while since I've had a "real" QSO.

Still, if I slide up above 14025, I find US CW operators, obviously
relative newcomers, holding what I'd certainly call traditional
person-to-person conversations on CW. You know that since they don't
have to operate CW any more, they're there because they like it. There's
certainly a similar neighborhood on 40 or elsewhere where you'll find
the same sort of activity.

I'm sure any one of them would welcome the chance to have an extended
chat with anyone who's willing to slow down a bit and would probably
benefit from the chance to listen to "good" CW. And, I doubt that any of
them have any numbers to exchange :-)

--
Bert Hyman W0RSB St. Paul, MN