Don't know about our local group but I heard something like around a 100
morse code contacts (all bands being used) and around 70-80 voice mode
contacts.

Myself and about 1/3 to 1/2 of our local club pretty much boycotted Field
Day this year..... (issues with local club)


--
Ryan, KC8PMX
FF1-FF2-MFR-(pending NREMT-B!)
--. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-.
... --. .... - . .-. ...

How did others fare?

73 de Jim, N2EY

(Len Over 21)erroneously wrote in message ...
In article , (N2EY),
writes:

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article ,
(N2EY)
writes:

Visual blending depends on the individual, but is around 20 flashes (dits)
per second.

The correct term is "persistence of vision." :-)

A term which is actually a misnomer:

Oh goodie, an "optical expert" you are now? :-)

I don't claim to be an expert at motiuon picture projection, Len. But
I do know some facts on the subject that you don't know. Apparently
that bothers you a great deal.

When were you ever an "expert" in optics in addition to doing your
"electrical engineering" thing?

One does not have to be an expert to know more than you do, Len ;-)

Just curious since I was directly
involved in a rather large DoD contract at Rockwell on an
interferometer.

Did the interferometer project motion pictures?

Had to work with lots of high-level optical
physicist types.

So? That doesn't correct your error.

Methinks you have a terrible "persistence of righteousness" about
your output in here. :-)

No, it's your "persistence of error" that causes you to insult the
messenger.

http://www.grand-illusions.com/percept.htm

There's the facts. But there are none so blind as those who will not
bother to look.

The actual persistence threshold varies with individuals and can
go down to 15 "flashes" per second. That seems to be a combined
function of the retinal cells and cerebral visual cortex.

Motion picture speed is 24 frames per second, but to eliminate flicker ecah
frame is flashed on the screen twice by means of a rotating shutter.

Not quite.

How "not quite"?

Modern standard sound motion pictures run at 24 frames per second. But each
frame is flashed on the screen twice, so there are 48 images per second on
the screen. A two-bladed rotary shutter is usually used in the projector.

Back when I actually RAN a projector in a cinema, the film rate was
24 frames per second.

That's what I wrote, at least twice, above. 24 frames per second is
the rate film goes through the projector. But it is not the rate at
which images are flashed on the screen.

Back when I was actually running a 16mm
projector, the film rate was 24 frames per second.

That's what I wrote, at least twice, above. 24 frames per second is
the rate film goes through the projector. But it is not the rate at
which images are flashed on the screen.

Once, when I rented
an 8mm projector to see some home movies of family, the film rate
was 24 frames per second.

That's what I wrote, at least twice, above. 24 frames per second is
the rate film goes through the projector. But it is not the rate at
which images are flashed on the screen.

While I never got a Masters in Optics,

I don't think you have an accredited degree in anything, Len ;-)

I can't ever recall any projectors that flashed on an image twice or any
other multiples.

Forgetful, huh? Here's a hint: Except for some museum pieces, they all
do it. T

All the mechanisms I've seen had the simple pawl
and shutter arrangement to blank the projected image during the
frame pull-down time.

Then you haven't seen any projectors newer than the 1920s or so.

The eye sees 24 frames per second and the eye-brain combination
perceives motion on a frame-to-frame basis.

24 frames per second. 48 images per second. Each frame is projected
twice. At 24 images per second, many people see objectionable flicker.
Which is where the term "flicks" came from.

It doesn't make any
difference if the SAME frame is flashed on twice, thrice, or quadruple
times.

Yes, it does. See the references.

What you and everyone else sees is those 24 frames per
second.

24 frames per second. 48 images per second. Each frame is projected
twice. At 24 images per second, many people see objectionable flicker.

The rate doesn't vary more than allowed by the internal
projector rate controls.

Feel free to post your American Cinematographer's association card
membership number.

Don't need one. Anybody who knows how projectors work knows I'm right
and you're wrong.

In the early silent film era, a speed of 16 frames per second was common, and
a
three-bladed shutter was usually used in the projector. Again, 48 images per
second.

The last time I saw any "silent films" was at the Rosenwald Museum
of Science and Industry in Chicago some time around 1950.

So?

The shutter is there to blank the "pull-down" time when
the geneva mechanism and pawl yank down the next frame.

That's not the only thing the shutter does. It also blanks the screen halfway
between pulldown intervals so that each frame is flashed on the screen twice.

...and you can send morse code in between the dits and dahs of
your solid-state break-in T/R switch.

Nope. I never claimed that. You are mistaken.

Of course you can. You SAY so therefore you are absolutely correct.

Nope. I never claimed that. You are mistaken.

What I CAN do when operating QSK/break-in CW/Morse is HEAR the receive
frequency between dits and dahs. Which is one of the big advantages of
CW/Morse over other modes. The first setup I used with that feature
was a homebrew station I designed and built about 1973. It used a
highspeed keying relay and a vacuum-tube TR switch.

Like it or not, I know far more about the subject of QSK/break-in
Morse/CW than you do, Len.

The
intermittent movement requires a free loop of film before and after
the shutter mechanism so that the supply and take-up reels can
move at an approximate constant rate. Note: A geneva wheel may
not be used in cheaper projectors but was standard in cinema
projectors for decades; there are other, simpler pull-downs.

Irrelevant to the discussion.

So is the subject of motion picture projection and your "48 per second"
frame rate.

24 frames per second. 48 images per second. Each frame is projected
twice. At 24 images per second, many people see objectionable flicker.

Motion picture frame rate standards are still 24 per second and that
is what nearly everyone sees. That's a comporomise between the
maintenance of persistence of vision and length of film needed for a
given time.

48 images per second. See:

http://www.bbctv-ap.freeserve.co.uk/supfr3.htm

or any reliable reference on motion picture projection.

Go for it...DEMAND to be recognized now also as an optical
expert.

I don't demand a thing, Len old boy.

As far as I'm concerned, the acquaintences I have in the motion
picture industry don't agree with you.

You don't understand how projectors work, Len.

For nearly all film projectors and editors, it is still 24 per second.

Incorrect.

:-) Check with the motion picture standards folks. Since before WW2
the motion picture frame rate has been 24 images per second.

24 frames per second. 48 images per second. Each frame is projected
twice. At 24 images per second, many people see objectionable flicker.

The frame rate and the image rate are not the same.

You're simply wrong on this, Len. 24 frames per second, 48 images per second.

Be a big boy and admit it.

What is a "big boy?"

Somebody mature enough to admit a mistake and learn something new.
Which leaves you out, Len.

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
In article , "Kim W5TIT"

writes:

The time I spent learning the Morse code and increasing my skill in
order to upgrade to 20-WPM Extra-class status was in investment that
paid off in what has become, so far, over 20 years of enjoyable HF CW
operation. I'm certainly glad I didn't decide to devote that time to
"something else" -- especially if that may have been hours of yakking
into a microphone!

73 de Larry, K3LT


So. You're thinking that people would have actually made a conscious
decision to stay "verbally engaged" with you for hours, huh?

Kim W5TIT

Kim:

I'm not so sure about that. In any case, I never allowed it to happen!
Back in the days when I did regularly use HF phone, about 10 minutes
of listening to the same boring old bowel and bladder reports was all
I could stand!

73 de Larry, K3LT


I have no doubt you found those frequencies quite entertaining, albeit
shortlived. You should have tried some constructive listening...

Kim W5TIT

On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 20:37:38 -0500, Kim W5TIT wrote:

For instance, I happen to absolutely know I would not enjoy jumping out of
an airplane to parachute. I've never tried it, no. But I don't intend to
because "it's just not me."

Funny that you should say that, because just this evening at dinner
my wife was relating that one of her co-workers is an ex-paratrooper
who absolutely gets the shakes and white knuckles when he has to fly
as a passenger in a commercial airliner and land on a runway sitting
in his seat - he has no problems when it's just him and 10,000 feet of
thin air between him and the ground.

Me, I had problems falling off a ladder at 8 feet above ground,
twisting my knee - after 30 years the knee started bothering me
again.

To each his own.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

In article , "Dee D. Flint"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Dee D.
Flint"
writes:

This weekend's Field Day was a prime example of the benefits of CW.
Bands
were very poor most of the weekend and the voice stations struggled to
find
contacts late in the event. Our CW stations far outstripped the voice
stations in total number of contacts.

Worst conditions in a long time.

FD 2003 at N2EY (1B-1 Battery, EPA):

Setup:

K2 #2084 at 5 W outout with KAT2, KAF2, powered by external 7 AH gel cell.
Homebrew coax-fed inverted V with traps, apex at 47 feet, ends at 25 feet,
oriented north-south. About 14 hours on the air.

Results:

80 CW: 89 QSOs
40 CW: 115 QSOs
20 CW: 15 QSOs
Total QSOs: 219 QSOs (2190 QSO points)
Bonuses: Emergency power, W1AW bulletin, message to SM (300 bonus points)
Total raw sco 2490 points

How did others fare?

73 de Jim, N2EY


Well I don't have the club's totals (club call W8HP with our GOTA station on
W8JXU) but our CW guys did well and I took a turn at both of our CW
stations.

I recall working W8HP on at least two bands. Also N8NN. Thanks for the points!

We ran 5A at a nearby park that is used as a Scout camp at times
(bunk beds to sleep in and a place to cook, Yay!).

Good site selection.

For 20m CW and phone,
the count was near 300 each although the voice didn't really pick up until
late this morning. 80 and 40 CW were good but voice was very modest. My OM
picked up one CW contact on 15m this morning and one on 6m yesterday.

20 was the poorest I've seen it in a long time. 15 and 10 were useless here in
EPA.

There
wasn't more than a couple dozen voice contacts on 15m, 10m, and VHF
combined.

It will be interesting to see how the totals work out contest-wide. There may
have been more CW than voice contacts across the board this year. Pretty good
for a mode that we are told is "obsolete", huh, Dee?

However, there's always a silver lining. Most of us got a pretty good
night's sleep since the bands were poor.

I hung in till about 3 AM and was back at it soon after sunrise. Even got in a
short run Sunday morning.

Today, we knocked down most of the
antennas and stations early and just kept our 20m ones running until time to
quit. That left only a minimal teardown to do this afternoon.

Teardown took me less than one hour:

- disconnect the rig and battery
- pull up ground rod
- pack rig, battery, papers, bug, etc. into their respective boxes
- fold up the special homebrew FD table
- tear down tent and roll it up
- untie three antenna ropes and drop antenna
- roll up and pack antenna
- load up car

Probably the quickest getaway yet!

361 days till the next one.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , Alun Palmer
writes:

(N2EY) wrote in
:

In article , Alun Palmer
writes:

Largely because it comes too late. If this had happened in 1992, as it
might well have if it had made the agenda and that particular
conference had not been postponed by three years, then I think the
effect would have been much bigger.

Maybe.

Or maybe S25.5 would have not been revised in 1992 if it was on the
agenda, conference wasn't postponed, etc. Remember that back in '92 the
maritime folks still had CW/Morse capability required on all ships over
a certain size.

I think the delay actually worked FOR the total elimination of code
testing.


Absolutely. It changed it from an odds on probability to a near certainty.

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree about the probability back in 1992.

But note this: Medical waivers for the 13 and 20 wpm code tests began in 1990.
Anyone who could get a doctor's note needed only to pass 5 wpm. And there
were/are lots of accomodations available.

Then in 1991 the code test for all amateur privs above 30 MHz went away.

Was there a sustained increase in amateur radio growth because of those
changes? No - just compare the growth in the '80s vs. the '90s. There was an
initial surge when the changes happened, that's all.

It's been over three years since the restructuring and US license totals have
increased by about 11,000. I thought we'd be over 700,000 by 2001.

If/when FCC dumps Element 1, will we see lots of growth? I sincerely doubt it.


Don't forget though that the maritime CW phasing out period began way back
in 1987, although it wasn't completed until 2000 (and some would say,
isn't complete now, despite no testing, distress watch, etc.).

You left out a key word: "mandatory". Morse/CW is still used in some parts of
the maritime services, it's just not mandatory anymore.

Something else happened in the interim, an explosion in
Internet use, which has changed the landscape.

Which would have happened regardless of S25.5.

To paraphrase and expand on a statement by W3RV, amateur radio will
continue to exist because of things it offers that cannot be done with
the internet, email, cell phones or inexpensive long distance
telecommunications. Toss in GMRS/FRS, too. Example: most of the folks
who got ham licenses for honeydew purposes in the '80s and '90s now
have cellphones for that job. There's no point in running routine phone
patches when you can direct dial for a few pennies a minute.

Amateurs, by definition, have to build their facilities with
discretionary money, time and other resources. And no hope of any
financial return. Which means they have to really want to do it or it's
just not gonna happen. Classic "bell the cat" situation.

And removal or retention of various tests or other requirements will not change
any of that. Cell phones, computers and 'net connection have become a practical
necessity in most people's lives today.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Kim W5TIT wrote:

Dee, no doubt CW has its benefits. Contrary to a lot of the "pro-CW"
folks,
the "anti-CW" folks recognize its capabilities. (It's silly to even put
the
groups in such diverse categories.) However, that does not negate the
argument that, even though it may be quite beneficial, there are those
of us
who simply choose not to learn it well enough for practicability (eh?).


You don't have to use it, just learn it. I don't like the stupid
satellite questions on the test, but I had to learn them. (sorry
satellite folks)

Actually you didn't have to learn the satellite stuff to
get a passing grade on the test. I have no problem adding
a couple of questions to the question pool for any license that
asks about CW as a mode. That is, however, a distinctly
different situation than having an exclusive and separaelty
graded test element as Morse code does today.

If we threw out all the parts that some people did not
want to learn, there would soon be no test whatsoever.

Let's make the case:

None of the cases below now have a separate pass
fail test element so the "case" or analogy fails.

Satellite stations - this is a very mode-specific section

Strike

Band edges - most hams I know have a ARRL band page by their
rigs.

Strike

Theory - Many hams never plan to homebrew and some even have
other people wire their stations for them.

Strike

Packet questions? Mode specific and most hams aren't interested
in packet

Strike

Questions about SSTV Mode specific, and many hams never plan to
use SSTV

Strike

Baudot code questions? Give me a break!

Strike

Test equipment questions? In this day of appliance operations,
who needs those sort of questions?

Strike

I'll stop now, but for every type of question on the test, there is a
person who thinks it doesn't belong there.
- Mike KB3EIA -

I repeat:
None of the cases above now have a separate pass
fail test element so the "case" or analogy or argument fails.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

Mike Coslo writes:

If they are interested in the ARS, but do not learn Morse because
they don't like it, they are not as interested as someone who does
make the effort.

You're really describing the "hazing effect", AFAICS. I approve of CW
testing precisely because of this effect; after being forced to run
the gauntlet of CW practice and testing, many will decide they love
CW--but more importantly, their attitude to the ARS in general will be
affected by the fact of having spent effort (however minor) and jumped
through hoops (however simple) to get into it.

(For that purpose, almost any hoop will do, of course. The chief
advantage of CW over the theory test is that it's much harder to
"cram". I'd have been an extra 20 years ago without that one extra
"hump", as would several people I know. And yes, the fact that we
didn't, does indeed prove that we "didn't want to badly enough".)

There's a chicken-and-egg question, of course. How many people got
their license before the no-code tech, but weren't interested in CW at
all? How many became interested in CW after the fact as a result of
the "hazing effect"? How many support CW now because they feel the
need to haze the newbies as they were hazed, even though they don't
use the mode themselves? And if so, what's so terrible about that?

Regards,
Len.


Disclaimer: I'm interested in CW for its own sake. Or is it because
I'll fight the man that calls me a "nickel extra", let alone a
"no-code extra"? Now I'm motivated to get my ticket before they
eliminate CW entirely, which seems likely.

Dick Carroll; wrote:

Mike Coslo wrote:


Kim W5TIT wrote:


Dan, I can understand your exasperation with people who choose not to learn
CW or decide that they don't like it. However, that is as far as the
understanding goes. It seems impossible to me that you can't understand
that people know what they do, or don't, like.

We all have to learn things that we may not like all that much. I had
to sit and learn classes in school that I found boring to distraction.


Betcha you decided that some of them that you thought you'd never like turned out
to be interesting after all, too. Most folks mature into understanding that as a
possibility, even a liklihood. SOME don't.

I remember, as a high school freshman, hating history class - until we really got
into it. I later minored in history.

Absolutely! We just don't know what will interest us as we go through life.

.....does that make people who automatically know that they don't like
Morse and will never use it "know it all's" (sorry, couldn't help it)
;^) my bad!


For instance, I happen to absolutely know I would not enjoy jumping out of
an airplane to parachute. I've never tried it, no. But I don't intend to
because "it's just not me."

But if you wanted to parachute out of planes, you would indeed have to
jump out of a plane. I know that sounds redundant or maybe redumbdant,
but it helps prove my point. You aren't that interested in that sort of
hobby, so you don't do it. It is strange that so many people have a
problem with my basic premise: that people who aren't willing to learn
the requirements are not all that interested in the ARS. In this case,
the requirement is the Morse test.


The best proof of that is in the millions of hams since the end of the 18th
century who DID learn the code without hesitation or even giving it a passing
thought as to how "unnecessary" it might be. Basics are never "unnecessary".

I just thought of it as another part of the testing process. That I had
my own difficulties with it, or whether or not it was applicable or not
(IMO it is) was and is irrelevant. It's there, it's part of the test.
Just do it. (all apologies to Nike)

- Mike KB3EIA -

Bill Sohl wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

Kim W5TIT wrote:


Dee, no doubt CW has its benefits. Contrary to a lot of the "pro-CW"

folks,

the "anti-CW" folks recognize its capabilities. (It's silly to even put

the

groups in such diverse categories.) However, that does not negate the
argument that, even though it may be quite beneficial, there are those

of us

who simply choose not to learn it well enough for practicability (eh?).


You don't have to use it, just learn it. I don't like the stupid
satellite questions on the test, but I had to learn them. (sorry
satellite folks)


Actually you didn't have to learn the satellite stuff to
get a passing grade on the test. I have no problem adding
a couple of questions to the question pool for any license that
asks about CW as a mode. That is, however, a distinctly
different situation than having an exclusive and separaelty
graded test element as Morse code does today.


If we threw out all the parts that some people did not
want to learn, there would soon be no test whatsoever.

Let's make the case:


None of the cases below now have a separate pass
fail test element so the "case" or analogy fails.

I wasn't making a pass/fail argument Bill, My argument is that you take
a test based on what the test is. Another made the argument that they
will never use Morse, so why should they have to take the test. In that
context it is relevant.



Satellite stations - this is a very mode-specific section

Strike

Band edges - most hams I know have a ARRL band page by their
rigs.

Strike

Theory - Many hams never plan to homebrew and some even have
other people wire their stations for them.

Strike

Packet questions? Mode specific and most hams aren't interested
in packet

Strike

Questions about SSTV Mode specific, and many hams never plan to
use SSTV

Strike

Baudot code questions? Give me a break!

Strike

Test equipment questions? In this day of appliance operations,
who needs those sort of questions?

Strike

I'll stop now, but for every type of question on the test, there is a
person who thinks it doesn't belong there.
- Mike KB3EIA -


I repeat:
None of the cases above now have a separate pass
fail test element so the "case" or analogy or argument fails.

Okay, I'll repeat:

I wasn't making a pass/fail argument Bill, My argument is that you take
a test based on what the test is. Another made the argument that they
will never use Morse, so why should they have to take the test. In that
context it is relevant.

Your's is a different argument. On that, there *is* a case to be made
as to Morse code being an anachronism, and that it is one element in
that a failure will cause you to fail the intire test - disregarding
the certificate that you get for passing the test.

But that's not the specific argument here - tho there isn't anything
prohibiting taking it in that direcion, 'ceptin' some likely confusion!

- Mike KB3EIA -