No I am not doing a memorizing of each dit and dah and converting
method. My problem is my brain does not react fast enough to decide what
each character is before the next one is sent. I just get further
behind. I practice at least 20 to 30 minutes usually twice a day if not
more. I use computer programs and ARRL training CDs.

I will check "The Art and Skill of Radiotelegraphy". Thanks for the
encouragement.

C.



In article m,
"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

If you were memorizing the code, that was the problem. That's not the right
way to learn it. There's quite a bit of material out there on the internet
on the right way to learn code. For starters, work towards a reflex
reaction. i.e. Hear the sound, write the letter. Don't think about the
dots and dashes. Practice every day for 30 mintues per day EVERY day or
almost everyday. There are lots of computer programs out there you can
download from the internet and every person has their favorite. Set it for
an 18wpm character speed but 5wpm word speed. Try the G4FON program. It's
available for free on the internet. I apologize for not posting the website
but I don't happen to have it anymore.

Practicing once or twice a week won't get it. You fall too far backwards
between sessions. Memorizing dots and dashes and then trying to write the
letter slows you down so that you can't keep up.

Read "The Art and Skill of Radiotelegraphy". It's available for free on the
internet. The author did extensive research on how code should be studied.
The biggest problem is that too many people are told to use study methods
that hold a person back rather than move them forward. Another problem is
unrealistic expections. They see the whiz kids get it in a week and think
they should be able to do the same. They're the exception not the rule.

The code is far easier than most things that you have learned in life if you
find the correct way to study it and put in the amount of time needed.


If my General CSCE expires again (this will be #2) I will never take it
again and will have lost desire in a hobby that I grew up working in for
the last 39 years.......

C.

Don't give up. Work with modern training methods and you can do it.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

Kim W5TIT wrote:

Absolutely. To come to the conclusion that deaf people cannot learn and use
CW is rather narrow-minded in my opnion. I bet there's a way that ANYONE
could learn CW.

It helps if a person types in all caps too! ;^)

For goodness sake! By your example, Keith, blind people should not be
licensed because, "how in the world would they know what frequency they are
on?"

Now that you mention it, how does a fully blind ham tell what frequency

he or she is on? I suppose that using the memory channels on an HF rig
would be one method, but does anyone here know?

There are many aids for the hearing disabled as well as sight disabled
out there. Few know about them because there isn't a mass market for
them.

There were at least two "speaking meters" on the market, one of which
was used by a ham heard on a 20m net some years ago. In that case
he put the microphone in front of the meter's transducer to indicate the
carrier frequency (which resulted in an on-air argument amongst the
net as to which one of them was "most accurate" in frequency, sighted
or sightless...heh heh). There are "talking wrist watches" on the market
now, at least three models that I've seen...heard one used by a patient
at a nursing home who also had a bedside radio with some "talking"
features built into its controls.

The "TDD" is quite a common appliance for hearing disabled to use as
a telephone. A perusal of telephone book listings will show the "TDD"
(Telecommunications Device for the Deaf) numbers at stores so
equipped...and some urban services which have operator translators
with a TDD and conventional telephone to "interpret" for deaf folks.
I know a lady who did about two years at that task as a volunteer.

A diligent search will turn up a surprising number of devices and
appliances that are available for sight or hearing disables people.

LHA

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

So please don't tell those who cannot hear as well as you what they can

and cannot do.

Sorry about that, Mike, but you have to consider the environment.

The environment in here.

All sorts of morsemen have been shouting and hollering about having
to know, do, and test for morsemanship in amateurism for a long
time. Roughly 91 years now.

Morsemen keep telling everyone else what THEY CAN AND CANNOT
DO for decades in order to be a "good" radio person. They MUST DO
MORSE.

[I turned up the volume so you could hear...]

LHA

In article , Dave Heil
writes:

Len Over 21 wrote:

Whine, whine, whine...spiteful statements from someone who insists that
all must do as he did because he is so magnificent.

Not all must or can do what Steve did.

Which "Steve" are you talking about, colonel?

The test standards are not now the same.

NO KIDDING?!? Why do you state the obvious, colonel?

You, on the other hand, can continue to do what you've been
doing toward obtaining an amateur radio license--zip, nada, zilch,
nuttin'.

It was not a "requirement" anywhere that I GET an amateur radio
license...anywhere but in your mind.

All I want to do is see the morse code test eliminated.


I'm sure you'll get that "Extra right out of the box" as soon as you
figure out how to open the box.

Couldn't do that. The FDA pulled all the boxes from the shelves.
Inspectors found it contained tainted ham and the remains of a
code key. They are tracing the key remnants now and suspect
it may have your fingerprints on it.

Wear gloves next time, Una.

LHA

In article , Alun Palmer
writes:

The question comes down to the meaning of "and who has
received credit for proficiency in telegraphy in accordance with the
international requirements". If there is no international requirement to
have "received credit for proficiency in telegraphy" for access to any
frequency, then a person who has not "received credit for proficiency in
telegraphy" is "in accordance with the international requirements" if they
operate on those frequencies.

Except that there IS an "international requirement to have "received credit for
proficiency in telegraphy"". The international requirement is that each country
shall decide what the requirement is for those it licenses. Switzerland has
decided that it's 0 wpm. Britain has decided that it's the "Morse assessment"
of the Foundation license. The US has decided it's 5 wpm.

Can we deem that a Tech who has not "received credit for proficiency in
telegraphy" has nevertheless "received credit for proficiency in
accordance with the international requirements", i.e. is "in accordance
with the international requirements"?

Nope.

Granted that s25.5 as revised allows each administration to determine
whether a code test is required. That being the case, the FCC does so in
respect of Tech HF operation only through 97.301(e) and in no other rule.

Poor verbiage, that's all.

If that rule is conditional upon a code test being required by
international requirements, then there is nothing therein indicating that
the FCC chooses to require a code test for that particular purpose.

Except that's not what it means.

To cut a long story short, the argument rests upon whether "in accordance
with international requirements" is a necessary condition in the sentence.
If it is, then no-code Techs have the Novice HF frequencies*, and if not,
then they will have to wait. This is really what I am seeking comment on,
although all other observations are welcome.

*(Although possibly not until after ratification of the new treaty)

FCC used that verbiage to avoid having to keep the Tech Plus class alive. I
don't know what their problem with the T+ license is, but they have always
treated it as a poor relation.

What I find most surreal about all this is that even with folks like WK3C,
K2UNK and K2ASP saying the way it is, folks argue with them and question their
motivation and qualification.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Jim Hampton" wrote in
:

Please re-read Phil's reply again. You missed the point as to each
administration is free to do as they please. So far, the FCC has not
seen to eliminate the Morse requirement. Period.

73 from Rochester, NY
Jim



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.504 / Virus Database: 302 - Release Date: 7/24/03




No I am well aware of that point. However, the FCCs implementation of
requiring a code test is different for Techs than it is for Generals and
Extras. Generals and Extras are required to pass Element 1, and Techs are
not. Access for Techs to the Novice HF subbands is __not__ conditioned on
passing Element 1, but only upon having "received credit for proficiency
in telegraphy in accordance with the international requirements" (from
rule 97.301(e)).

Given that s25.5 leaves it open for each administration to determine if a
code test is required, with no mention of any specific frequencies, the
only rule the FCC chooses to make for Tech HF access is 97.301(e), which
in turn includes the words "in accordance with international
requirements", i.e. in accordance with s25.5.

So, the FCC rule implies that a code test is required if s25.5 requires
it, and s25.5 says that a code test is required if the administration (the
FCC) requires it! This is a circular process, in fact one that could go
around in ever decreasing circles! Each rule appears to be conditional
upon the other! Obviously those who drafted the rules did not intend this,
but the ITU rule has changed in a way that was not anticipated.

It would seem to me that if two rules each require that a specific
condition must be met only if the other rule requires it, then in fact
that condition does not have to be met.

"C" wrote in message
...

No I am not doing a memorizing of each dit and dah and converting
method. My problem is my brain does not react fast enough to decide what
each character is before the next one is sent. I just get further
behind. I practice at least 20 to 30 minutes usually twice a day if not
more. I use computer programs and ARRL training CDs.

I will check "The Art and Skill of Radiotelegraphy". Thanks for the
encouragement.

C.

None of us could react fast enough at first. You are not alone. When you
are copying and miss a letter, just skip it and catch the next one. If you
let your mind focus on what you missed, you will then miss several others
that come after. DON'T TRY TO GET THE MISSED LETTER AT THAT TIME. Just
write an underscore and go on so that you don't miss following letters.
This takes a little practice by the way as we all want to be perfect so we
sit there and try to figure it out while falling further behind. If you get
a lot of blanks at first, that's OK. Just keep working on it.

When you take the test, you are allowed time to go back over your paper and
fill in what you think the missing material might be. Here is an example
(using an underscore for characters that you miss on the copy).

What you originally copied: NAM_ IS JO_N.
Now if you look back over your copy, fill in what you believe the missing
letters should be. In this case, the text sent was most likely: NAME IS
JOHN.
Then on the test questions, you will probably be asked the name and there
you have it right there on your paper.

When I took my extra code test (20wpm), I had a lot of underscores on my
paper but despite that I was able to successfully answer the country
question (it was Switzerland) even though I only had about half the letters
copied on my sheet.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

(N2EY) wrote in
:

In article , Alun Palmer
writes:

The question comes down to the meaning of "and who has
received credit for proficiency in telegraphy in accordance with the
international requirements". If there is no international requirement
to have "received credit for proficiency in telegraphy" for access to
any frequency, then a person who has not "received credit for
proficiency in telegraphy" is "in accordance with the international
requirements" if they operate on those frequencies.

Except that there IS an "international requirement to have "received
credit for proficiency in telegraphy"". The international requirement
is that each country shall decide what the requirement is for those it
licenses. Switzerland has decided that it's 0 wpm. Britain has decided
that it's the "Morse assessment" of the Foundation license. The US has
decided it's 5 wpm.

But not in that rule, and it's the only rule controlling Tech access to
Novice HF subbands. 97.301(e) refers apparently to 25.5, which now refers
right back again.

For the General and the Extra the requirement remains at 5 wpm until the
FCC changes it, but that is a separate issue.


Can we deem that a Tech who has not "received credit for proficiency in
telegraphy" has nevertheless "received credit for proficiency in
accordance with the international requirements", i.e. is "in accordance
with the international requirements"?

Nope.

Granted that s25.5 as revised allows each administration to determine
whether a code test is required. That being the case, the FCC does so
in respect of Tech HF operation only through 97.301(e) and in no other
rule.

Poor verbiage, that's all.

Since when did a poorly written rule not apply?


If that rule is conditional upon a code test being required by
international requirements, then there is nothing therein indicating
that the FCC chooses to require a code test for that particular
purpose.

Except that's not what it means.

To cut a long story short, the argument rests upon whether "in
accordance with international requirements" is a necessary condition in
the sentence. If it is, then no-code Techs have the Novice HF
frequencies*, and if not, then they will have to wait. This is really
what I am seeking comment on, although all other observations are
welcome.

*(Although possibly not until after ratification of the new treaty)

FCC used that verbiage to avoid having to keep the Tech Plus class
alive. I don't know what their problem with the T+ license is, but they
have always treated it as a poor relation.

Which is not relevant to what the verbiage means now that s25.5 has been
altered.


What I find most surreal about all this is that even with folks like
WK3C, K2UNK and K2ASP saying the way it is, folks argue with them and
question their motivation and qualification.

73 de Jim, N2EY


It is a fallacy of argument to say that someone is an expert, so therefore
they must be right. Their arguments must stand or fall on their own
merits. I do not question anyone's qualifications, as I do not see it as
relevant to whether they are right or wrong.

73 de Alun, N3KIP

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, Phil Kane wrote:
On 26 Jul 2003 04:49:22 GMT, Alun Palmer wrote:

OK Phil, read 97.301(e) and let us know how you understand it, parsing
each part carefully.

OK - I presume that you mean the following text, not the frequency
table:

(e) For a station having a control operator who has been
granted an operator license of Novice Class or Technician Class

This is self-explanatory.

and who has received credit for proficiency in telegraphy in
accordance with the international requirements.

The key to this discussion is, or course, "what are the
international requirements".

Up until the 2003 revision of S25.5 of the IRR, each Administration
was required to determine the proficiency of each applicant for a
license valid for operation below 30 MHz. In the US, this was done
by requiring the applicant to pass Element 1.

Upon the 2003 revision of S25.5 of the IRR, the requirement to
determine proficiency was made optional for each Administration.

That is the only change in the "international requirement" - each
Administration can now decide by its own rules/regulations whether
to require a code test. The code test is no longer mandatory for
each Administration. Each Administration's requirement for code
testing has not been automatically "dropped" or "eliminated" solely
by the revision of S25.5.

If it's OPTIONAL (on a country-by-country basis, but that doesn't matter; any
basis will do), then it's NOT A REQUIREMENT. One cannot comply with a
requirement that doesn't exist - and that's the problem.

Until the FCC changes the rules concering Element 1, the
requirement in the US remains that Element 1 must be passed.

But that's not the requirement. 47 CFR 97.301(e) made DIRECT REFERENCE to the
international requirement, not to "element 1 credit." Certainly, there's no
need to cite "element 1 credit" for the novice license!

If it had cited "element 1 credit" as the second requirement for technican
licenseholders (novice licenseholders already have it by definition in .501),
then I would agree that nothing had changed. But that's not how the FCC wrote
..301(e) and you know it! ;-)

The question of -when- and -how- the FCC Rules will be changed is a
separate item from -what- the rule requirement is up until they
-are- changed. Ditto for how the FCC will handle the issue of
giving -what- privileges to folks who hold a Technician license
but have never passed the code test.

I don't believe that's the correct question. It's not a matter of no-code
technicians now having HF privileges. It's a question of "coded techs" and
Novices having their HF privileges STRIPPED on account of one of the two
requirements now being untenable.

On Sun, 27 Jul 2003, Bill Sohl wrote:
"Keith" wrote in message
...
On 25 Jul 2003 22:56:38 GMT, (Michael Black)
wrote:

No, the rules are what counts, not some preamble.

The FCC rules are based on that international requirement.
Now the FCC could have said you must pass the 5 wpm test to operate on HF
frequencies. But they said based on the international proficiency
requirements
a tech can operate on HF.

Today there are no international proficiency requirements for morse code.

Actually, the new treaty sez each country can decide for itself.

....And that means that it is an OPTION, not a requirement.

A requirement cannot be bypassed like an option can.