From: Dee Flint on Sun, Oct 29 2006 8:48 am

wrote in message
Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message


No I do not say that all those who learned the code are highly proficient.
I am saying that setting someone up with CWGet for a contest is a recipe for
failure and a very unenjoyable contest experience. When I first started cw
contesting, I had to listen to the station many times through picking out
their call letter by letter over a dozen exchanges before throwing in my
call. I also sent PSE QRS 5 on many occasions to get the balance of the
exchange. But it worked.

If they choose to view as merely a hurdle to pass and never try it, that's
sad but that's their problem.

Never been a problem to me.

I can't see any personal enjoyment in "contesting," using
kilodollars worth of equipment just to accumulate the most
radio contacts in a short period of time. But, if that's
your Thing, go for it.

I started out in HF radio with the mission of keeping
communications channels open and working 24/7. Not my
thing to hop all over some small band and making
transitory contact with some individual one will probably
never "work" again. I put that on par with being a fan
of "Wheel of Fortune." :-)

The FCC has nothing on "contesting," doesn't require it of
any licensee.

Then there are the majority of hams who have no-code licenses...

While they have numbers, way too many of them are inactive or have low
activity levels.

You don't hear them so they don't exist?!?

When I work VHF/UHF contests, I sometimes check the call
signs of the people worked. Most are Extras, some are Generals, and I've
only worked ONE Technician. And that's in a voice contest. Why is that?
They have full band privileges and full power privileges yet they don't use
them. Why? Same deal with the grid square hunters. And so on.

Tsk. VHF-UHF is LOS stuff regularly, sometimes "DX" when
there are atmospheric inversion layers for ducting or other
weird effects.

Did it ever occur to you that OTHER people on ham bands
are NOT really into 'contesting?" Maybe they LIKE to get
to know the other party on a radio circuit?



The ITU has a standard definition of what constitutes International Morse
Code that is sufficient for the purpose.

It's a date-update of an old CCITT *TELEGRAM* standard.

Would you like a copy? :-)

IT DOES NOT SPECIFY WORD *RATE*!


The FCC doesn't need to define it.
They say we must pass the International Morse Code.

The FCC *references* the CCITT-ITU document in
Definitions.

The FCC does NOT LEGALLY DEFINE word rate.

Sunnuvagun.

Now, if the FCC ever gets the 2004 "Omnibus" R&O published
in the Federal Register, we will see if they bothered to
update the old CCITT document to the current ITU document.

:-)



Most engineering jobs do not require that one even have a PE license or
registration or whatever they call it these days.

'Professional Engineer' is a STATE license thing. Requirements
vary between states, but not a great deal.

The state PE license is a nice LEGAL thing because the LEGAL
system is set up to recognize it.

Corporations and businesses who DO THE WORK are less interested
in the number of diplomas and licenses one has...they want
people who can DO THE WORK. If they can DO THE WORK, they are
paid accordingly. Getting PAID for services rendered IS a
legally-acceptible definition of 'professional' activity. Ergo,
an engineer who does engineering work, has engineering
responsibility, and CAN DO THE WORK is generally referred to as
a professional. Really.



So you do use ohm's law and theory, you just don't think it belongs in
amateur licensing?

No I did not say that. I believe that they do belong in the licensing setup
as again for amateur radio, they are basics of the field. Just because my
usage of them is low doesn't mean they don't belong there.

But, but, but...an amateur MUST learn morse code?!? :-)

Lots of amateurs tossed their code keys, had "key burial"
ceremonies after getting their license, and continued to
have fun as licensed amateurs.

There's lots and lots of hypocrisy running around loose in
there... :-(


One needs to
learn the basics as they don't yet know what direction their hobby will take
them. Learning the basics helps them decide which and when or if they want
to further explore various branches of amateur radio.

In crowded, congested ham bands it would seem mo' bettah
to LEARN how to maintain, repair, calibrate their radios.
The FCC has lots technical requirements on radios which
licensees are REQUIRED to obey.

Not to worry. The ready-built designer-manufacturers of
today's ham radios have done all the ADVANCED work for you.
No need to sweat actually LEARNING some beyond-basic
knowledge. Just plug it in and go. You can read the
operating manual as you go along.

You keep stressing the NEED to do radiotelegraphy. I don't
see it. The rest of the world isn't stressing any of that
"CW" need...they just gave up on morse code.


Similarly, there were several courses I took as part of the basics of
engineering but seldom used. I've never done fast fourier transforms in my
work as my career did not go that direction. I've rarely used calculus. On
the other hand, I spent a significant chunk of my career (12 years out of 33
years) writing engineering software using Fortran and later Visual Basic.

Sunnuvagun! In 1973 I managed to access the RCA corporate
mainframe to do my first FORTRAN coding. I got the basics
from Dan McCracken's large softcover on Programming in
FORTRAN IV. 33 years ago! Took me only about three months
(of my own time) to get acquainted with FORTRAN...was much
more difficult 'selling' the group bean counter to get
access. By 1975 I had 6 programs in the RCA Central
Software Library that I'd written and debugged. Wasn't all
that hard.

Oh, and Dartmouth BASIC was already in industry use 33
years ago. Visual Basic hasn't been out near that long.
Power Basic for Windows 8 is the present package I have,
sufficiently like FORTRAN to make an easy transition.

Computer programming is NOT for everyone. Some haven't got
the aptitude for it. Programming does NOT teach one how to
MAKE a computer, just how to USE it in ONE kind of
application. [like morse proficiency is "supposed to make
one a good radio operator" but doesn't teach squat in how
a radio works or how to fix one]

What is much better for radio amateurs *OR* just radio
and electronics hobbyists in regards to basic theory
knowledge is using a SPICE program set. Linear
Technology Corp. has made a modern SPICE program set
absolutely FREE, just download it at www.linear.com.
"LTSpice/SwitcherCAD." Use the Search box at the home
page. The single download is an automatically-
unpacking .EXE file, just run it and it installs by
itself. It's got a fairly simple Schematic drawing
feature that automatically generates Netlists. A fair
selection of common active device models is supplied
in its Library. Only for Windows OS up to XP as far
as I know.

SPICE program packages *ALL* take some time on the
learning curve. The lovely part of them is that they
do NOT require parts, NO workbench, NO test equipment.
At first they are frustrating in a large amount of
program commands and conventions that must be observed.
Once over that hump, they can be marvelous instruction
machines in allowing quick changes of a circuit to see
the effect on Transient (time-domain) or Linear AC
(frequency-domain) response. They can handle simple,
medium, or large scale circuits...anything from just
an R-C network to fancy oscillators to complex filters,
passive or active.

In working on a "SPICE bench" there is a subtle input
to the mind. The pathways there are opened to first
understand the interrelationships of components in a
circuit...and what those components are made of,
electrically. Once those pathways are opened, it
becomes easier to understand the more complex theory
behind the circuitry. All that can be done without
lots of expensive (or cheap) parts, no danger of
"burning out" something, no smoke and fire. :-)

"All electronics works by smoke. If the smoke leaks
out, it won't work." - anon.

From: on Sun, Oct 29 2006 1:50 pm

On 29 Oct 2006 13:43:20 -0800, "
wrote:
From: on Sun, Oct 29 2006 6:32am
Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
wrote:


The ONLY separate pass-fail TEST is for manual telegraphy.

Wow! I guess CW is more valued than ALL OF THE OTHER MODES COMBINED!

Not so. However, all the digital and image modes are merely a matter of
connecting the radio to the computer and running the appropriate software.

Then why do the military service have technical schools to do somehting
so very simple?

Why aren't the communications billets merely a direct duty assignment
after basic training?

Heh heh heh...I can't wait to see Dee's answer on that! :-)

she choose to duck it

I expected that. Next in line is good old Jimmie Noserve. :-)


Once I decided to try the digital thing, I made the interface and was up and
running in an hour. After a couple of months, it became rather boring.

Do you suppose that there are licensed amateurs that find CW boring?

Gosh, from what I've seen, DATA on ham bands is a lot like
the old computer-modem comms by wireline! Sort of like the
Internet and USENET access now. Maybe Dee just get 'bored'
easily?

and of course what bores HER MUST bore the rest of us

There ya go!

What was late Marie Antoinnette saying about cake? :-)


Whole government agencies gave up on code. Commercial businesses gave
up on code.

Sunnuvagun! :-)

Maybe the whole rest of the radio world KNOWS something that the
morsepersons don't?

sure they do everybody knows something others don't even the Morse
People know things they are just too bigg for their keyers

Heh heh heh heh...Morsepersons are SUPERIOR to ordinaries.

The morsepersons had to test for morse code so everyone else
damn well had to test for it too! :-)

Yawn...just another day in RRAP where the SUPERIOR ones look
down their paddles at the mundane mortals...AS IF they were
really superior. :-)

Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:

The ONLY separate pass-fail TEST is for manual telegraphy.

Wow! I guess CW is more valued than ALL OF THE OTHER MODES COMBINED!

Not so. However, all the digital and image modes are merely a matter of
connecting the radio to the computer and running the appropriate
software.

Then why do the military service have technical schools to do somehting
so very simple?

Why aren't the communications billets merely a direct duty assignment
after basic training?

Beats me. But you know what they say. There's the right way, the wrong way
and the Army way. I would not presume to pass judgement on their training.
However it may be that some of the recruits have not yet learned to read a
schematic and have never operated a soldering iron. I'm quite sure that is
not part of basic training.

What's to know? Follow the little lines, right? And a soldering
pencil is just another appliance.

Once I decided to try the digital thing, I made the interface and was up
and
running in an hour. After a couple of months, it became rather boring.

Do you suppose that there are licensed amateurs that find CW boring?

So what if it is boring. That is no reason not to learn it. I suspected
that digital would end up being boring but since I believe that a person
should be striving to increase their knowledge and skills, I decided it was
time to become familiar with this area. Afterall, I might find myself in
the position of being asked to Elmer someone in this area.

On
the other hand, code needs to be learned before it can be tried. Many
people will give up learning before they've had a chance to try it if
there
is not a test for it.

Whole government agencies gave up on code. Commercial businesses gave
up on code.

They have different goals and objectives than amateur radio.

Saving lives and property. Highly disimilar from amateur radio.

Government
agencies and commercial business do not have the goal of individual self
training and experimentation. Comparing amateur radio to
government/commercial applications is like comparing apples to pomegranates.
They're both red fruits but there the similarity ends.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

That must be why the GROL exam was lifted from the Amateur Advanced
Exam (minus the amateur rules and CW req't).

wrote in
oups.com:


Slow Code wrote:

I expect you'll say the same thing about the written exam in ten years
too.

SC

Not me. Jim/N2EY is the one who trotted out that strawman. I guess if
he can't have amateur radio the way he wants it, he'll make sure it
becomes a non-technical hobby.


Then let's kick the code requirement back up to somewhere between 13
and 20 WPM for all license classes. Then, even if you're not a technical
ham you at least have a skill.

SC

wrote in
oups.com:


Slow Code wrote:
wrote in
ups.com:

Ha! Jim insulting Jim.

Now you've just insulted Jim, calling him he. LOL

SC

Him he who?



Who's on first...


SC

Mark in the Dark, wrote in
:

On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 00:07:22 GMT, Slow Code wrote:

"A. G. Bell" anon@anon wrote in :

you sure do post your crap fast


Your **** pile is higher Markie. It's so large, you dug a hole in it and
live in it like it was a cave.

Learn CW!

SC

" wrote in
ups.com:

From: "Dee Flint" on Sat, Oct 28 2006 5:47pm

wrote in message
Slow Code wrote:

Larry, Dee and Me are the only pro 'Keep the code test' people in the
group anymore.

Then the presentation of sound reasoning has been successful.

No most of them have left due to the spam created by Mark Morgan, the
interminable pontification of Len Anderson, the compulsive responses
that some seem to feel that they must post to the spam, the vulgarity of
people like Opus, the slamming that people like Slow Code do to those
who licensed or will license under the current system and so on.

Mark Morgan is an NCTA.

Len Anderson is an NCTA.

Opus is an NCTA.

We are all "vulgar" BECAUSE we are NCTA? Must be... :-)

Carl Stevenson is an NCTA. He quit posting. Is the
present head of NCI.

Hans Brakob is a sort-of NCTA even though he IS a morseperson
of long experience. Hans doesn't post much now.

Cecil Moore, a long-timer, one who DOES "CW" but
doesn't think the code test should be there. [anyone
who owns and rides a spiffy Harley is hardly bad...]
Cecil hangs out in rec.radio.amateur.antenna now.


-Chop-


Sorry to interrupt your gas pain Len. There's still CB for you NCTA types
and if the shoe fits....


Let us have our tradition.

SC

wrote in
ups.com:

I think amateur radio is one of the best hobbies ever, and it can also
serve in an emergency communications roll.


If you had to use CW to save someones life would that person die?


SC

" wrote in
oups.com:

From: Dee Flint on Sun, Oct 29 2006 8:48 am

wrote in message
Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message


No I do not say that all those who learned the code are highly
proficient. I am saying that setting someone up with CWGet for a contest
is a recipe for failure and a very unenjoyable contest experience. When
I first started cw contesting, I had to listen to the station many times
through picking out their call letter by letter over a dozen exchanges
before throwing in my call. I also sent PSE QRS 5 on many occasions to
get the balance of the exchange. But it worked.

If they choose to view as merely a hurdle to pass and never try it,
that's sad but that's their problem.

Never been a problem to me.

I can't see any personal enjoyment in "contesting," using
kilodollars worth of equipment just to accumulate the most
radio contacts in a short period of time. But, if that's
your Thing, go for it.

I started out in HF radio with the mission of keeping
communications channels open and working 24/7. Not my
thing to hop all over some small band and making
transitory contact with some individual one will probably
never "work" again. I put that on par with being a fan
of "Wheel of Fortune." :-)

The FCC has nothing on "contesting," doesn't require it of
any licensee.

Then there are the majority of hams who have no-code licenses...

While they have numbers, way too many of them are inactive or have low
activity levels.

You don't hear them so they don't exist?!?

When I work VHF/UHF contests, I sometimes check the call
signs of the people worked. Most are Extras, some are Generals, and
I've only worked ONE Technician. And that's in a voice contest. Why is
that? They have full band privileges and full power privileges yet they
don't use them. Why? Same deal with the grid square hunters. And so
on.

Tsk. VHF-UHF is LOS stuff regularly, sometimes "DX" when
there are atmospheric inversion layers for ducting or other
weird effects.

Did it ever occur to you that OTHER people on ham bands
are NOT really into 'contesting?" Maybe they LIKE to get
to know the other party on a radio circuit?



The ITU has a standard definition of what constitutes International
Morse Code that is sufficient for the purpose.

It's a date-update of an old CCITT *TELEGRAM* standard.

Would you like a copy? :-)

IT DOES NOT SPECIFY WORD *RATE*!


The FCC doesn't need to define it.
They say we must pass the International Morse Code.

The FCC *references* the CCITT-ITU document in
Definitions.

The FCC does NOT LEGALLY DEFINE word rate.

Sunnuvagun.

Now, if the FCC ever gets the 2004 "Omnibus" R&O published
in the Federal Register, we will see if they bothered to
update the old CCITT document to the current ITU document.

:-)



Most engineering jobs do not require that one even have a PE license or
registration or whatever they call it these days.

'Professional Engineer' is a STATE license thing. Requirements
vary between states, but not a great deal.

The state PE license is a nice LEGAL thing because the LEGAL
system is set up to recognize it.

Corporations and businesses who DO THE WORK are less interested
in the number of diplomas and licenses one has...they want
people who can DO THE WORK. If they can DO THE WORK, they are
paid accordingly. Getting PAID for services rendered IS a
legally-acceptible definition of 'professional' activity. Ergo,
an engineer who does engineering work, has engineering
responsibility, and CAN DO THE WORK is generally referred to as
a professional. Really.



So you do use ohm's law and theory, you just don't think it belongs in
amateur licensing?

No I did not say that. I believe that they do belong in the licensing
setup as again for amateur radio, they are basics of the field. Just
because my usage of them is low doesn't mean they don't belong there.

But, but, but...an amateur MUST learn morse code?!? :-)

Lots of amateurs tossed their code keys, had "key burial"
ceremonies after getting their license, and continued to
have fun as licensed amateurs.

There's lots and lots of hypocrisy running around loose in
there... :-(


One needs to
learn the basics as they don't yet know what direction their hobby will
take them. Learning the basics helps them decide which and when or if
they want to further explore various branches of amateur radio.

In crowded, congested ham bands it would seem mo' bettah
to LEARN how to maintain, repair, calibrate their radios.
The FCC has lots technical requirements on radios which
licensees are REQUIRED to obey.

Not to worry. The ready-built designer-manufacturers of
today's ham radios have done all the ADVANCED work for you.
No need to sweat actually LEARNING some beyond-basic
knowledge. Just plug it in and go. You can read the
operating manual as you go along.

You keep stressing the NEED to do radiotelegraphy. I don't
see it. The rest of the world isn't stressing any of that
"CW" need...they just gave up on morse code.


Similarly, there were several courses I took as part of the basics of
engineering but seldom used. I've never done fast fourier transforms in
my work as my career did not go that direction. I've rarely used
calculus. On the other hand, I spent a significant chunk of my career
(12 years out of 33 years) writing engineering software using Fortran
and later Visual Basic.

Sunnuvagun! In 1973 I managed to access the RCA corporate
mainframe to do my first FORTRAN coding. I got the basics
from Dan McCracken's large softcover on Programming in
FORTRAN IV. 33 years ago! Took me only about three months
(of my own time) to get acquainted with FORTRAN...was much
more difficult 'selling' the group bean counter to get
access. By 1975 I had 6 programs in the RCA Central
Software Library that I'd written and debugged. Wasn't all
that hard.

Oh, and Dartmouth BASIC was already in industry use 33
years ago. Visual Basic hasn't been out near that long.
Power Basic for Windows 8 is the present package I have,
sufficiently like FORTRAN to make an easy transition.

Computer programming is NOT for everyone. Some haven't got
the aptitude for it. Programming does NOT teach one how to
MAKE a computer, just how to USE it in ONE kind of
application. [like morse proficiency is "supposed to make
one a good radio operator" but doesn't teach squat in how
a radio works or how to fix one]

What is much better for radio amateurs *OR* just radio
and electronics hobbyists in regards to basic theory
knowledge is using a SPICE program set. Linear
Technology Corp. has made a modern SPICE program set
absolutely FREE, just download it at www.linear.com.
"LTSpice/SwitcherCAD." Use the Search box at the home
page. The single download is an automatically-
unpacking .EXE file, just run it and it installs by
itself. It's got a fairly simple Schematic drawing
feature that automatically generates Netlists. A fair
selection of common active device models is supplied
in its Library. Only for Windows OS up to XP as far
as I know.

SPICE program packages *ALL* take some time on the
learning curve. The lovely part of them is that they
do NOT require parts, NO workbench, NO test equipment.
At first they are frustrating in a large amount of
program commands and conventions that must be observed.
Once over that hump, they can be marvelous instruction
machines in allowing quick changes of a circuit to see
the effect on Transient (time-domain) or Linear AC
(frequency-domain) response. They can handle simple,
medium, or large scale circuits...anything from just
an R-C network to fancy oscillators to complex filters,
passive or active.

In working on a "SPICE bench" there is a subtle input
to the mind. The pathways there are opened to first
understand the interrelationships of components in a
circuit...and what those components are made of,
electrically. Once those pathways are opened, it
becomes easier to understand the more complex theory
behind the circuitry. All that can be done without
lots of expensive (or cheap) parts, no danger of
"burning out" something, no smoke and fire. :-)

"All electronics works by smoke. If the smoke leaks
out, it won't work." - anon.




There's a product at the drug store you might want to try: Gas-X. It
should be pretty close to the 'Depends' isle you're familiar with.

SC

" wrote in
ups.com:


Heh heh heh heh...Morsepersons are SUPERIOR to ordinaries.


Salute us when you say that.


The morsepersons had to test for morse code so everyone else
damn well had to test for it too! :-)


Yes, because we'd rather work ambishes ops than lazy no code ones...
errr, I mean lazy no good ones.


Yawn...just another day in RRAP where the SUPERIOR ones look
down their paddles at the mundane mortals...AS IF they were
really superior. :-)




Wheeew! Starting to get a bit gassy again at the end there.


SC