Gang,

I've read with some interest (and commented at times) concerning the CW
tests. I'd like us all to consider that even a newbie would likely know
more about radio and communications than some guy born in 1768 (and, yes,
I'm cheating - I'm reading some interesting info out of the Handbook). AM,
FM, CW ... all very modern compared to this gentleman. Heck, spark wasn't
around then. This guy formulated the relationship between the application
of heat to a solid body and its propagation. What does this have to do with
radio? The gentleman's name was Joseph Fourier. The laws he wrote (and I
now quote from the Radio Amateur's handbook) define the connection between
time and frequency domain descriptions of signals. He might not understand
radio right away, but as soon as he saw what was being done with DSP, he'd
likely be ahead of us all. It is time to get over the CW business. Really.
The amateur license is an introduction to electronics and communications.
It isn't a professional license, but allows us to learn (and serve in
emergencies). I honestly believe it is time to drop the 'holier than thou'
attitude and try and attract new blood to this fine hobby of ours. I don't
care what class of ticket one holds, we are all licensed amateur operators
and all should be respected as such.


73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.502 / Virus Database: 300 - Release Date: 7/18/03

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

Seriously, if they are right, the holier than thou pro-coders will
vanish into the noise level - figuratively speaking.

Mike:

Actually, when BPL raises the noise level, it will be us pro-coders who
will be the ones NOT "vanishing" -- holier-than-thou status notwithstanding.

73 de Larry, K3LT

Larry,

If the BPL raises the noise level enough, it will be the folks running
PSK-31 who will get through with signals below the noise level. No offense,
CW does do a remarkable job, but some of the digital modes will transmit
faster through higher noise levels than CW will (and I did turn in a perfect
paper in 1967 at 40 words per minute).

73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
In article , Mike Coslo

writes:

Seriously, if they are right, the holier than thou pro-coders will
vanish into the noise level - figuratively speaking.

Mike:

Actually, when BPL raises the noise level, it will be us pro-coders who
will be the ones NOT "vanishing" -- holier-than-thou status
notwithstanding.

73 de Larry, K3LT



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.502 / Virus Database: 300 - Release Date: 7/18/03

"Jim Hampton" wrote in message
...
Larry,

If the BPL raises the noise level enough, it will be the folks running
PSK-31 who will get through with signals below the noise level. No
offense,
CW does do a remarkable job, but some of the digital modes will transmit
faster through higher noise levels than CW will (and I did turn in a
perfect
paper in 1967 at 40 words per minute).

73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA


Actually if the computer digital modes end up being the only thing that gets
through, I won't be on the air nearly as much as I am now the computer modes
just don't interest me.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Jim Hampton" wrote in message
...
Larry,

If the BPL raises the noise level enough, it will be the folks running
PSK-31 who will get through with signals below the noise level. No
offense,
CW does do a remarkable job, but some of the digital modes will transmit
faster through higher noise levels than CW will (and I did turn in a
perfect
paper in 1967 at 40 words per minute).

73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA


You're in real trouble now, Jim!

Kim W5TIT

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
In article , Mike Coslo

writes:

Seriously, if they are right, the holier than thou pro-coders will
vanish into the noise level - figuratively speaking.

Mike:

Actually, when BPL raises the noise level, it will be us pro-coders who
will be the ones NOT "vanishing" -- holier-than-thou status
notwithstanding.

73 de Larry, K3LT




---
Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net
Complaints to

"Jim Hampton" wrote in message
...
Larry,

If the BPL raises the noise level enough, it will be the folks running
PSK-31 who will get through with signals below the noise level. No
offense,
CW does do a remarkable job, but some of the digital modes will transmit
faster through higher noise levels than CW will (and I did turn in a
perfect
paper in 1967 at 40 words per minute).

73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
In article , Mike Coslo

writes:

Seriously, if they are right, the holier than thou pro-coders will
vanish into the noise level - figuratively speaking.

Mike:

Actually, when BPL raises the noise level, it will be us pro-coders who
will be the ones NOT "vanishing" -- holier-than-thou status
notwithstanding.

73 de Larry, K3LT



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.502 / Virus Database: 300 - Release Date: 7/18/03


Im not so sure about that. Ive been on PSK31 since late 98 and whenever a
actual carrier, i.e. digital or cw, or whatever gets close on
frequency.....well to put it mildly things go to crap in a handbasket.

With BPL as I understand it you will have multiple TONES being sent down the
lines and thus into your receivers. These tones will be received by the
PSK31 program and attempted to be decoded.

NO COMPUTER can decode as well as a human ear/brain combination. In CW
communications it takes two things to communicate, an operator on both
ends.

Dan/W4NTI

In article , "Dan/W4NTI"
writes:

Larry,

If the BPL raises the noise level enough, it will be the folks running
PSK-31 who will get through with signals below the noise level. No
offense,
CW does do a remarkable job, but some of the digital modes will transmit
faster through higher noise levels than CW will (and I did turn in a
perfect
paper in 1967 at 40 words per minute).


Jim:

I sure hope you're right about what you say about PSK31. However, I have
been using that mode since shortly after it was available to hams, and have
not noticed any particular ruggedness when dealing with QRM. In fact,
just about anything will cause a "hit" when copying a PSK31 signal. And
while this generally does not render the whole QSO useless, it doesn't
offer any more copying accuracy than CW under adverse conditions, IMHO.
Personally, I think plain ole FEC AMTOR is a lot better, but the only way
I've ever had a QSO in that mode is to ask someone working RTTY to
switch over and give it a try.

73 de Larry, K3LT

"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message
...
In article , Mike Coslo

writes:

Seriously, if they are right, the holier than thou pro-coders will
vanish into the noise level - figuratively speaking.

Mike:

Actually, when BPL raises the noise level, it will be us pro-coders who
will be the ones NOT "vanishing" -- holier-than-thou status
notwithstanding.

73 de Larry, K3LT


Yep Yep. CW forever.

Dan/W4NTI

In article , "Dan/W4NTI"
writes:

Disregarding USAF jargon such as "3 level," I'd say they should have.
US Army did it for the old Field Radio MOS at the time...and few
formerly-civilian morsemen could cut the Army requirements. :-)

Well Len what I didn't mention, due to it not being relevant to the
discussion that I also have 8 years Army time, from 71 to 79.

Whoop de do. By that time, the US Army was phasing OUT morse
code for tactical field communications...it already did NOT have
any need for morse methods in long-haul strategic communications.

Upon enlistment (in 1971) I was given the MOS of O5C20, and a rank of PFC.
After basic I received my Army specialty of O5C40/CW qualified. All based
on my AF speciality.

What's an "O5C20?" Or "O5C40?" The US Army changed MOS
designations after I got out in 1960 and again before present day.

I received Sgt E5 as soon as I made TIG while in Germany in 72 or 73. Still
having attended NO MILITARY SCHOOLS in the speciality.

Yeah, so?

As to your comment of not being able to meet the Army requirements.
FYI...while deployed to Don Muong Air Base in 1966 I was given a TDY
assignment. It was to downtown Bangkok to work with the Army Morse
Intercept group. They needed a immediate and temporary fill in. I
qualified....again due to my AMATEUR RADIO LICENSE.

Ooooo! All due to your AMATEUR RADIO LICENSE!

Of course they did. How could they fail to overlook the wonderful
skill and dedication of hard-working morsemen?

Did you make DXCC from Bangkok? WAC?

Can you copy Thai at 20 WPM?

LHA

In article , "Dan/W4NTI"
writes:

"Len Over 21" wrote in message
...
In article , "Dan/W4NTI"
writes:

Gosh, "no" schooling at all?!? Sounds like the USAF was really
desperate! :-)

Probably were Len. The faked Gulf of Tonkin incident happend while I was at
Lackland.

A "coincidence?"


Care to go face-to-face at my 1965 electronics level? Of ELECTRONICS,
SERVICEman. It won't be an open-book exam and you can't crib from
any ARRL Handbook.

Why do you assume everyone gives a damn about your credentials? Im not in a
contest with you. I was just responding to a question or comment, directed
to me.

And NO. I don't think Im better than you in Electronics at that point.
Because I was not into electronics at that point. I was a GROUND RADIO
OPERATOR in 1965.

I was a GROUND RADIO OPERATOR-MAINTAINER in 1953-1956.

"Radio" is a subset of all electronics. It's all together in physics.


Nope, I was a GROUND RADIO OPERATOR at that time and didn't need
electronics courses to advance in that area. As far as patriotism and love
of country....I think 2 years plus in Nam and 12 years in uniform is enough
proof.

Tsk, tsk. Another has "challenged" my service experience, saying I was
a mere "radio clerk" well away from the "fighting." :-)

You could also be "challenged" by the same comment. :-)


Not to mention the fact that in order to stay on the air I had to learn how
to fix that dang equipment.

Did you learn all the "mods" and "diode snippings" in there?

There were no 'mods' and 'diode snippings' involved. My ham station of the
1960s consisted of homebrew tx and later a Knight T50, then several other
junkers. I had to keep fixin them to keep em on the air. I got smart
quick. Or was not on the air. Original 'Incentive Licensing' for me.

Sorry, I thought you were still descibing your GROUND RADIO
OPERATOR activities while in the military service, not the amateur radio
service. :-)


Very good indeed. The Commercial First Phone. Which had absolutly nothing
to do with ham radio. Some said it was equivilant to the Amateur Extra
ticket. I wouldnt know. I only had the Ham stuff. No need for a
commercial. I was never into being a 'broadcast engeeennnare'. You know
the switch thrower. And the solder jockey at the KW AM street corner
broadcast station. Didnt need one in the military, and didn't need on when
I worked for Bendix in the Avionics department. Nor at the Anniston Army
Depot where I was a electronics technician.

Strange, most personnel departments give more credence to a
commercial radio license versus an amateur radio license. The former
is for professional work while the latter is, well, amateur stuff.

The US military does not require any civilian radio operator licenses of
its service people. The FCC does not rule over any military radio use.

Your amateur radio license does NOT authorize you to transmit on civil
airways frequencies nor conduct maintenance on civil avionics. It was
that way in 1956 and still is in 2003.

I guess if I really needed one I would have gotten it. But why bother? I
don't get licensees and degrees to impress some people...like some folks
do...... I get em if/when I need them.

No? No impress-the-friends wallpaper?

Some in here are so adamant about Passing Ham TESTS that they insist
that all in a newsgroup MUST have passed a Ham TEST.

The TEST passing is all important. But, it can only be an AMATEUR
test. Harder commercial tests are considered "inferior." Illogical.

You must be mentally challanged or something Len. I never said I did a damn
thing doing Morse in the military. You have some sort of a problem. What
it is I dont know, nor do I care. But you need to seek help.

I sought help from the FCC in the form of Comments on FCC 98-143.

So, you did NOT use morse code in the military? Which is it? First you
brag about the ham license (which required morse code demonstration)
as "helping you advance" in the military yet now you say you never used it?

I think what must have happened was that guy that knew CW must have stolen
yourcup cake and you can't get over it.

No "guy that knew CW" ever stole any "cup cake" from me, neither the
confection nor the "cupcake" type of girlfriend. :-)

Your pathetic Len. You really are.

Nope. I'm an American of Scandinavian ancestry who has never seen any
need or necessity in having a morse code test for an amateur radio test
in the last 30 years or so.

I was DOING 24/7 radio communications on HF 50 years ago and never
once had to use any morse codings...not then, not afterwards...and don't
consider such as license-test-worthy for licensing in a hobby-recreation
activity involving radio.

You are under the presumption that your vaunted amateur radio license
gives you some special permission to denigrate and demean others. It
doesn't do that. Your "pathetic" comment only serves to prove that you
won't accept any opinion that is not in line with your personal opinion.

You need another venue for venting your aggressive frustrations. :-)

LHA