Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#261
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() wrote in message ... "Cool Breeze" WA3MOJ Georgeie wrote: wrote in message ... It's clear that you don't care about anything but yourself, and you're still a cross-posting idiot. -- GO# 40 So are you assclown. Here's for you and Dan. http://amishrakefight.org/gfy/ Yawn, your still a cross posting queer. |
#262
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Mike Coslo wrote in :
Alun Palmer wrote: Mike Coslo wrote in : Alun Palmer wrote: You don't get it, do you? Nobody has ever implied it says OR, and it certainly never mentions Element 1. What it does say is: "who has recieved credit for proficiency in telegraphy _in_accordance_with_international_requirements _" You are taking what is an aside, and basing your whole argument on it. Won't work. This argument doesn't work on enough levels that it is surprising that anyone would use it. 1. My first remark about the very secondary nature of the "in accordance with....." That is the strongest argument against it, i.e. is it a condition? It may not be, but this is the first post to attack that point 2. The reworded Article 25.5 now says, "Administrations shall determine whether or not a person seeking a license to operate an amateur station shall demonstrate the ability to send and receive texts in Morse code signals." Do you agree that this is the reworded article 25.5? Yes The administration has determined that the persons seeking a license must pass a 5 wpm Morse code test. Not so fast. Where does it say that in respect of the Novice frequencies? Until it changes it's requirements, it will continue. 3. There is nothing in the rules that we are out of compliance with. Who said there was? Maybe D Stussy, but his line of argument is truly wierd Yeah, reading his argument makes me dizzy. 4. Morse code testing is not abolished. Individual administrations now make that call- to test, or not to test. Yes, but have they actually made it in respect of those particular frequencies? I'm not sure that they have. Since many contries have individual bending of the rules, (US technician, Japanese Low power HF as examples, there is already evidence of some modification of the rules. This of course complicaes matters. So we are left with starting from the premise that we or whatever country is in initial compliance. That initial compliance is dated from the day before the rule change. This to me says that the present state is in compliance, even though the requirement for the Morse test has been modified. I certainly understand your argument. Yes, I beleive you do now. I think we are at least 'on the same page'. But when situations like this crop up, and one rule interferes with another, those who would be called on to make a ruling have to make it with the concept of the spirit of the rule, plus they have to make rulings that do not throw the institution into chaos. Others have pointed out that rule 301(e) was written that way to avoid creating any new 'Tech+' licencees, but it looks as if invoking the international rules created a sunset clause, whether intentionally or otherwise. I don't really see how that throws anything into chaos. Right now no- coders who operate on the Novice/Tech HF allocations can't readily be detected for lack of any central records to prove that they are actually no-coders. If the changes to s25.5 affect 97.301(e) so as to make it permissible, then from the FCC perspective it makes an enforcement problem go away! Using the argument that Morse code testing has been abolished is quite simply *wrong*. No-one is saying it has been abolished for the General or the Extra - Mike KB3EIA - 73 de Alun, N3KIP |
#263
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Ryan, KC8PMX" wrote in message ...
Definitely a problem if you do not have a HF reciever at all. And those Rat Shack ones suck for that too. Amen, don't even think about one of those turkeys. One advantage I/we had back then was a profusion of quite inexpensive but usable HF rcvrs which are not available today. Mostly military surplus gear and some commercial cheapies like the Hallicrafters S-38. In this respect maybe we had it much easier than the newbies today have. There used to be publication of VHF rebroadcasts of the w1aw transmissions, but I have yet to hear any around here in Michigan. Where the hell is the so-called field organization they are so proud of on this one? Even if it is a members-only thing, still you would think that the local (state-wise) field organizations would think that was important enough to rebroadcast......... Too much work. Plus once VHF comes into play CW becomes a no-interest thing. We've had sporadic attempts around here to get 2M code practice sessions going but they didn't last very long. Ryan, KC8PMX w3rv |
#264
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Dick Carroll;" wrote in message ...
Brian Kelly wrote: When I studied for my earliest tests there were no consumer-level recording methods let alone computers. My only options for practicing Morse were having somebody hand-send it or copying it off the air. Which, as a practical matter, meant copying it with a rcvr or forget it. Exactly, and with my old ARC 5 receiver you NEVER heard only one signal, the thing was wide open and you had to pick out which signal you wanted to copy and learn to ignor ethe rest. Sure was good training, I developed a very good 'internal filter' at the outset and still retain that skill. Yessir. Ya had to learn operating skills along with learning just the code. Whether ya wanted to or not. There was no "pause" button on W1AW and ya couldn't replay it either. I saw some *really* off-the-wall Novice rcvrs. One buddy of mine comandeered an old wooden case Philco BC/SW rcvr which didn't have a BFO. Musta had a 15 Khz "bandwidth". So he copied the thumps the speaker cranked out. Some time later he managed to pick up a half-working grid-dipper and tuned the dipper just off the sides of the incoming signals and viola, hetrodynes he could copy. As long as he had his mitts on both tuning knobs. I came along and had a brainfart. I fished an insulated wire down inside the last IF can and wound the other end loosely around the GDO coil and tuned the GDO to 455 kHz. Instant BFO. He took it one step further yet and added a gawdawful narrow passive surplus audio filter and cruised all over 40M with that lashup. The homebrewed TX was another Rube Golberg gem, some xtal oscillator tube driving a 6146, all of it in a cigar box. Imagine any nocode even considering jumping thru those hoops just to get on the air. The upside was that the Novice bands were absolutely packed with slowspeed code and finding lots of practice was no problem. You also learned to copy the many and varied 'fists', it was all hand sent, no one had a keyer, though some used bugs. That provided another experience which developed lifetime skills that no one today gets. I still enjoy copying hand sent or bug sent code, unless it's *really* butchered. Absolutely correct. It goes farther than that though. As much as a pain in the butt as those days were in a number of respects that regime had a number of huge advantages over what is available today to newbies. The Novice bands were actually a very successful "support group", we had no options but to clump together and work with each other toward the same objectives. We climbed all over each other trying to get our speeds up and beat the one-year clock on our drop-dead tickets. Boy there was the incentive licensing move from Hell! But it worked and the only bitching I ever heard was from a few of the OFs who turned their noses up at the mere thought of allowing newbies to get on the HF bands with a lousy 5wpm code test. Turned out to be a non-sequeter for them 'cause the FCC tossed us into our isolated playpens 'way up the 80 & 40M bands where they didn't have to put up with us. We *had* to work each other. Clever arrangement in retrospect. And in many if not most cases getting a Novice station took a bunch of self-taught knowledge and work just to get on the air. All of which were more learning experiences. One did not use a rubber-duckie or any otjer catalog antennas on 80 . . autotuners . . as if . . digital *nothing* . . No doubt a dumb-down proponent or two will scan this diatribe and get some giggles out of the ramblings of another stuck-in-the-past grouchy OF. But in the end who will be the **real** losers? Yeah, there's a "cultural gap", fuggem all, I hope they get just exactly they want. I'm still a very strong supporter of learning Morse via the W1AW code practice sessions. It's probaby the best training resource around if one owns a receiver, especially after one has learned basic Morse. Yup. Lotta newbies have used zero-cost borrowed rcvrs. I'd loan one of my "spares" to anybody who was genuinely interested in copying W1AW. I "loaned" my old HQ-120 to the kid accross the street, he then loaned it some other kid . . . I have no idea wher it finally landed. Today they transmit computer-generated code and back then I believe they used tape-generated code so it has always been quite precise. I'll concede that I'm only around 150 miles from the station so they boom here on 80M and QRM wasn't/isn't a problem. Might be more difficult from the west coasts but I don't know. I've heard them one one band or another everywhere in the USA that I've listened for them including out on the west coast. Good. Then they do have big coverage. w3rv |
#266
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Fri, 1 Aug 2003, Alun Palmer wrote:
... Others have pointed out that rule 301(e) was written that way to avoid creating any new 'Tech+' licencees, but it looks as if invoking the international rules created a sunset clause, whether intentionally or otherwise. AH! Someone who is now on the verge of understanding what that "wierd" thing I said was. IT was a "sunset clause" and the change to S25.5 was the "sunset." I don't really see how that throws anything into chaos. Right now no- coders who operate on the Novice/Tech HF allocations can't readily be detected for lack of any central records to prove that they are actually no-coders. If the changes to s25.5 affect 97.301(e) so as to make it permissible, then from the FCC perspective it makes an enforcement problem go away! It doesn't make it permissible. What it did is REVOKE the authority for those Novices/Techs to operate on HF at all. The problem STILL GOES AWAY because NO ONE has the privilege. The FCC doesn't have to worry about who's has a Technician Plus legacy license, a renewed Technician (with code credit), or a Technician with code credit in hand (that they don't know about) - it doesn't matter; Technicians (and Novices) don't have any HF privileges anymore. "The sun has set." [This also explains why Tech Plussers received Technician licenses upon renewal. The license class, and now its privilege, has been disposed of in a very seripticious, systemic manner.] Using the argument that Morse code testing has been abolished is quite simply *wrong*. No-one is saying it has been abolished for the General or the Extra |
#267
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
y.com... "Ryan, KC8PMX" wrote in message ... Yep, As I was aware of that. And I never expected them to change for me at the last minute. BUT, I do believe that with enough warning ahead of time it should be considered more than fair for a VE team to make an adjustment. It should be no problem for a VEC to be able to send via code practice oscillator!!!!!! Wouldn't that be a shame if the VEC's have become so lazy they can't even send a code test via a key because they are relying on the code CD's and tapes. Where the hell did you think I expected to walk into a test session in the past, and at the last possible moment expect a major change? They are supposed to make those provisions. If they did not, they were in the wrong. However, I would not favor them using hand sent code with an oscillator for two reasons. 1) Oscillators are often not adjustable in pitch. 2) Some people who copy quite well have absolutely lousy fists and do not send good clean code. It takes a pretty good op to copy some of the people out there. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE And the fluctuation in CW skills is yet another reason to question its validity as a testing element. Kim W5TIT --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net Complaints to |
#268
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ... "Dee D. Flint" wrote in message y.com... "Ryan, KC8PMX" wrote in message ... Yep, As I was aware of that. And I never expected them to change for me at the last minute. BUT, I do believe that with enough warning ahead of time it should be considered more than fair for a VE team to make an adjustment. It should be no problem for a VEC to be able to send via code practice oscillator!!!!!! Wouldn't that be a shame if the VEC's have become so lazy they can't even send a code test via a key because they are relying on the code CD's and tapes. Where the hell did you think I expected to walk into a test session in the past, and at the last possible moment expect a major change? They are supposed to make those provisions. If they did not, they were in the wrong. However, I would not favor them using hand sent code with an oscillator for two reasons. 1) Oscillators are often not adjustable in pitch. 2) Some people who copy quite well have absolutely lousy fists and do not send good clean code. It takes a pretty good op to copy some of the people out there. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE And the fluctuation in CW skills is yet another reason to question its validity as a testing element. Kim W5TIT That's false logic. One could apply the same to the variation in all other ham radio knowledge. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
#269
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
y.com... "Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ... "Dee D. Flint" wrote in message y.com... "Ryan, KC8PMX" wrote in message ... Yep, As I was aware of that. And I never expected them to change for me at the last minute. BUT, I do believe that with enough warning ahead of time it should be considered more than fair for a VE team to make an adjustment. It should be no problem for a VEC to be able to send via code practice oscillator!!!!!! Wouldn't that be a shame if the VEC's have become so lazy they can't even send a code test via a key because they are relying on the code CD's and tapes. Where the hell did you think I expected to walk into a test session in the past, and at the last possible moment expect a major change? They are supposed to make those provisions. If they did not, they were in the wrong. However, I would not favor them using hand sent code with an oscillator for two reasons. 1) Oscillators are often not adjustable in pitch. 2) Some people who copy quite well have absolutely lousy fists and do not send good clean code. It takes a pretty good op to copy some of the people out there. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE And the fluctuation in CW skills is yet another reason to question its validity as a testing element. Kim W5TIT That's false logic. One could apply the same to the variation in all other ham radio knowledge. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Exactly. Except that the written tests, by virtue of their being only one right answer that has already been chosen to be the right one, is much more stable. Yes, sometimes the right answer isn't so right. BUT, by virtue of agreeing to take the test you have studied for, you are agreeing that the right answers are right. By your observation above, the CW test is dependent on tone quality, morse style, etc. It is not a very stable test environment. Kim W5TIT |
#270
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ... "Dee D. Flint" wrote in message y.com... "Kim W5TIT" wrote in message ... "Dee D. Flint" wrote in message y.com... "Ryan, KC8PMX" wrote in message ... Yep, As I was aware of that. And I never expected them to change for me at the last minute. BUT, I do believe that with enough warning ahead of time it should be considered more than fair for a VE team to make an adjustment. It should be no problem for a VEC to be able to send via code practice oscillator!!!!!! Wouldn't that be a shame if the VEC's have become so lazy they can't even send a code test via a key because they are relying on the code CD's and tapes. Where the hell did you think I expected to walk into a test session in the past, and at the last possible moment expect a major change? They are supposed to make those provisions. If they did not, they were in the wrong. However, I would not favor them using hand sent code with an oscillator for two reasons. 1) Oscillators are often not adjustable in pitch. 2) Some people who copy quite well have absolutely lousy fists and do not send good clean code. It takes a pretty good op to copy some of the people out there. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE And the fluctuation in CW skills is yet another reason to question its validity as a testing element. Kim W5TIT That's false logic. One could apply the same to the variation in all other ham radio knowledge. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Exactly. Except that the written tests, by virtue of their being only one right answer that has already been chosen to be the right one, is much more stable. Yes, sometimes the right answer isn't so right. BUT, by virtue of agreeing to take the test you have studied for, you are agreeing that the right answers are right. By your observation above, the CW test is dependent on tone quality, morse style, etc. It is not a very stable test environment. Kim W5TIT Again your logic is faulty. The code test administration environment is stable. The pitch is predefined. The speed is predefined. The tapes or CDs are made using computer generated code, thus all the spacing is correct and stable. In other words, at the test, one is listening to perfect code and then there is only one right answer. It is even more perfect than the written tests since some of those answers are a bit if you've actually studied and learned the theory rather than memorizing questions and answers. In both instances, code and written, the person is to pass the test and then improve their abilities in the real world. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1360– September 5 2003 | Dx | |||
Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1360– September 5 2003 | Dx | |||
Tech Licensee USA Morse Code Freedom Day is August 1st | Policy | |||
ATTN: Tech Licensee USA Morse Code Freedom Day is August 1st | Boatanchors | |||
ATTN: Tech Licensee USA Morse Code Freedom Day is August 1st | Policy |