replace cw test with typing test!
 

Dave,

I made a somewhat similar observation when I mentioned that I had copied
(100% perfect copy on a typewriter) 40 words per minute CW back when I was
in the Navy. A lot of folks can't type 40 words per minute :) Also, I used
to chat with Norm, VK2NP, in Brisbane Australia, for hours on end several
times a week via teletype. It was about our 3rd qso when I had a mind
cramp, stopped typing, then started with figs/letters/figs/letters, got the
rhythm back and finished what I was saying. He almost fell out of his
chair; he thought I was using the tape reader. Why use the tape? Amateur
RTTY was only 60 words per minute and I could hit bursts of 92 words per
minute on the 100 minute teletypes on the military circuits. Of course, I
shouldn't be surprised today. Most people talk communications and they are
talking 'cut and paste' on the internet, MP3 swapping on the internet, or
yapping on the cell phone whilst driving all over the road :) Ah, the
communications geniuses of today :)

73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA

"David Robbins" wrote in message
...
I think the fcc should replace the cw test with a typing accuracy and
speed
test. Just think about how much nicer the digital segments would be if
everyone had to be able to type fast enough to keep their buffers full!
No
more diddles and wasted bandwidth while someone hunted around for the
letters trying to answer a simple question that wasn't on their brag tape.
This will of course become much more important as the manual digital
method
is phased out and the hf bands become more heavily used.





---
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

In article , "Jim Hampton"
writes:

I made a somewhat similar observation when I mentioned that I had copied
(100% perfect copy on a typewriter) 40 words per minute CW back when I was
in the Navy. A lot of folks can't type 40 words per minute :)

Oooo...more stories from Olde Salts. shrug

I could cruise on a typewriter keyboard in 1951 at 60 WPM, burst
type to 90 WPM. Still can do that. Learned in middle school of
1947 (we called it "junior high" back then), using manual type-
writers with no markings on the keys. No "backspace" key then.

Also, I used
to chat with Norm, VK2NP, in Brisbane Australia, for hours on end several
times a week via teletype. It was about our 3rd qso when I had a mind
cramp, stopped typing, then started with figs/letters/figs/letters, got the
rhythm back and finished what I was saying. He almost fell out of his
chair; he thought I was using the tape reader. Why use the tape? Amateur
RTTY was only 60 words per minute and I could hit bursts of 92 words per
minute on the 100 minute teletypes on the military circuits.

When I was in the US Army there were no "100 WPM" teleprinters,
only the old pre-WW2 60 WPM machines. No problem to practiced
touch-typists. When I was an operating shift leader, I used to send
the confirmation list of frequencies by circuits to control (once per
shift) using manual keyboard instead of the reader...could feel the
mechanism lock-out hit back when I tried to go faster than 60.

But, none of the 36 transmitters at ADA were sending morse back in
the early 1950s. [later up to 43 transmitters at the new site] All of
the communications trans-Pacific was done via TTY, Voice, or (rarely)
FAX. No need for practiced morsemen although we had a few (all of
three at a maximum at one time).

The "torn tape" TTY relay used p-tape on purpose. One TTY relay
guy would normally handle 8 to 12 circuits at a time, plenty of time
to yank off an incoming tape to go to another circuit or to load and
start outgoing tapes. ADA handled over 200K messages a month in
1955. Just couldn't do that with manual morsemen...would have
taken a whole other battalion of personnel just to do that in morse.

Of course, I
shouldn't be surprised today. Most people talk communications and they are
talking 'cut and paste' on the internet, MP3 swapping on the internet, or
yapping on the cell phone whilst driving all over the road :) Ah, the
communications geniuses of today :)

Are you saying "cut and paste" in general is a "bad" thing? I found that
the modern word processor program is an excellent tool for writing,
re-writing, and general polishing, greatly aided by the "cut and paste"
features inherent in each package.

Oh, you must mean that using a computer to compose words is a "bad"
thing using newfangled contraptions? You prefer "longhand" writing using
real ink on real paper? That was a common tool back in 1844 when
morse code debuted as a communications mode.

Tsk, tsk. I was on ARPANET in 1978 using a video terminal. Used
old-fashioned 300 Baud modems. Five years earlier (1973) I was on a
corporate network using 100 WPM teleprinters to connect to the
central corporate mainframes.

I can still do handwriting as good as my physician (who just hit 33)...
which isn't saying much for that skill. :-)

Of what possible use in amateur radio is manual typewriting? I see
NO need of a test in that at all and I've been typing longer than being
involved in radio.

It's better that amateurs learn a bit more technology than Ohm's Law
in this modern age...not emulation of the "necessary manual skills in
radio" (morse code) for my generation's daddies of pre-WW2 times.

LHA


73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA

"David Robbins" wrote in message
...
I think the fcc should replace the cw test with a typing accuracy and speed
test. Just think about how much nicer the digital segments would be if
everyone had to be able to type fast enough to keep their buffers full! No
more diddles and wasted bandwidth while someone hunted around for the
letters trying to answer a simple question that wasn't on their brag tape.
This will of course become much more important as the manual digital method
is phased out and the hf bands become more heavily used.

Len,

I didn't want to mention the cause of my complaint of cut and paste. One of
our college graduates at work told me (why would he lie about this?) he did
his thesis using cut and paste from other papers on the internet. Perhaps
you missed the point; at some point in time, someone has to put the
*original* information into the computer and on the internet. This seems to
be the point you missed. Sure, I did 90 on a 100 wpm teletype. Perhaps you
mistakenly assume that I can't do 30 on a keyboard? (Har har-de-har!). Cut
and paste is most certainly *very* useful. I just don't see using cut and
paste to pass someone else's work off as your own.

As far as testing, I have a concern that a lot of folks don't want any
testing. Sure, enjoy it when someone has a shoot-out on 11 meters (or 10)
running 10,000 or 20,000 watts next door to you. Perhaps I misunderstand
your last statement "it's better that amateurs learn a bit more technology
than Ohm's law". The lab I may be moving into has an interesting power
supply ... 30,000 volts at 20 ma. Sure, why bother to learn interesting
things concerning relationships between voltage, resistance, and current.
The nice thing about that is, the dang fool who doesn't care and gets into
that lab may do us a favor and remove his genes from the gene pool. As far
as typewriting, might I gently enquire as to how you managed to post your
response to my post? Are you using a Windows based keyboard and clicking
your mouse over the letters? (how modern!). Or, perhaps, you are using a
most modern keyboard - Dang! That sure looks like a ... um ... gee, the
layout looks very much like those old typewriters. Frankly, I'm not worried
about code or typing - I'd like to see some safety issues and relevant
theory covered, but perhaps that is asking too much. Why is it when we
mention typing, everyone assumes an old fashioned typewriter. Typing is
typing, whether on a computer or an old fashioned linotype machine. I'd
love to see all of these lovely 'modern' folks get the information into the
computer in the first place without copying it from someone else. I've
helped some of those younger folks ... "the mouse is f****d up". Pick his
hand up off the mouse, turn the mouse 180 degrees so the cable comes off of
the back end rather than towards the front, and put his hand back on the
mouse. Yep, I love you smart, modern, young folks! BWAAaahahahah!


73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA
ps - better put the guy with a mouse problem on an emergency keyboard
circuit. Could prove interesting, especially since he could hunt-and-peck
perhaps 15 words per minute.



---
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

In article , "Jim Hampton"
writes:

I didn't want to mention the cause of my complaint of cut and paste. One of
our college graduates at work told me (why would he lie about this?) he did
his thesis using cut and paste from other papers on the internet. Perhaps
you missed the point; at some point in time, someone has to put the
*original* information into the computer and on the internet. This seems to
be the point you missed. Sure, I did 90 on a 100 wpm teletype. Perhaps you
mistakenly assume that I can't do 30 on a keyboard? (Har har-de-har!). Cut
and paste is most certainly *very* useful. I just don't see using cut and
paste to pass someone else's work off as your own.

I regularly do "cut and paste" from the Internet as part of my writing.
The difference between me and the common PLAGIARIST is that
I give credit for the source in my writing. It's a helluvalot easier than
having to travel 10 miles to any of three technical libraries which
might not have what references I'm looking for.

I'm a firm believer in Title 17 and its Public Law 94-553 and later
amendments. [copyrights] Avoids plagiarism lawsuits and stuff.

As far as testing, I have a concern that a lot of folks don't want any
testing. Sure, enjoy it when someone has a shoot-out on 11 meters (or 10)
running 10,000 or 20,000 watts next door to you.

I lived and worked 7 months *IN* an antenna field covering about 2 miles
by 1 mile (had been a small airfield) with up to 43 transmitters feeding
the antennas between 1 and 40 KW RF each. Makes listening to SW
or MF AM BC during free time a tad difficult...:-)

The electric power generation (self-contained on station) could handle
600 KWe and I figure about 200 KW of RF was being tossed in many
directions. Our barrack was at one corner of the field, transmitters in
the middle.

I once went out with a lady who had an apartment just two blocks from
KMPC, an MF AM BC station. KMPC regularly operated with 50 KW
RF output, maximum legal output for Mass Media services on MF BC.

I've never seen any substantive proof of any CBer running 10 gallons
or more. [fish story that]

Perhaps I misunderstand
your last statement "it's better that amateurs learn a bit more technology
than Ohm's law".

I was referring to "what is behind the front panel" of a radio, the general
principles of receivers, transmitters, frequency control, and the how and
why of matching to an antenna. Basic stuff of REAL communications,
especially for test/calibration/finding-out-if-it-works-maybe-bad-to-send-
back-to-the-factory-for-fixing.

I've gotten very tired long ago of so many amateurs claiming greatness
in radio and then showing they hadn't any knowledge of what went on
behind the front panel. They can spout off hours of memorized sales
phrases and quotes from Yaecomwood ads as if they knew what it
meant but all they demonstrated was mnemonic skills. :-)

In the late 1970s I decided to upgrade my communications receiver
thing and was looking around the HRO then in Van Nuys CA. I asked
(serially) three clerks in the HRO if they knew anything about how the
Icom R-70 could have a PLL using 1 KHz reference yet still have 10
Hz tuning increments. None of them knew what I was talking about.
I called Icom America from work and managed an instruction manual
copy, got it in the mail; Yaesu and Kenwood offices didn't return my
call. I bought the R-70 from HRO, showed the store folks (all hams)
what and how Icom did it (cleverly, I thought) and just got incredulous
looks. I'm not sure they could understand block diagrams, let alone
schematics.

The lab I may be moving into has an interesting power
supply ... 30,000 volts at 20 ma.

In 1960 I had the task of building a replica of a 15 KV, 50 mA supply
for an STL Physics Research lab project. [750 W equivalent] Corona
I didn't believe! :-) Used up three small bottles of GC corona dope.

Sure, why bother to learn interesting
things concerning relationships between voltage, resistance, and current.
The nice thing about that is, the dang fool who doesn't care and gets into
that lab may do us a favor and remove his genes from the gene pool.

For RF sources, one needs MORE than DC law knowledge.

At age 21 I got broken into operating a Press Wireless 15 KW beast
whose 350 V bias supply was still hot when the side door was open
for tank link changing on QSYs. One of the guys on another shift got
his sleeve caught in something and was severely burned on his fore-
arm, required surgery to put it right. Danger ALWAYS lurks around
high power anything.

As far
as typewriting, might I gently enquire as to how you managed to post your
response to my post? Are you using a Windows based keyboard and clicking
your mouse over the letters? (how modern!). Or, perhaps, you are using a
most modern keyboard - Dang! That sure looks like a ... um ... gee, the
layout looks very much like those old typewriters.

The letters are still in the "QWERTY" arrangement on my keyboard
as they were on my middle school's class typewriters...except my
computer keyboard has the keys labeled. Our typing class' writers
had no marking on the keys. :-)

Frankly, I'm not worried
about code or typing - I'd like to see some safety issues and relevant
theory covered, but perhaps that is asking too much.

Since the tests and test materials are all public, the only real "safety"
issues I see are all the "RF biohazard" impositions shoved on the FCC
by Congress...the ones with the terribly-dangerous, almost-fatal-to-
think-about-over-50-Watt RF RADIATION LEVELS!!! :-)

Heh...I know of several hundred guys in the service who cycled through
a year's service in 100 to 200 KW RF antenna fields at HF in the US
Army and Air Force. Human beans are hardier than some extremists
in the public (who influenced Congress) believe.

No written test is going to keep someone from making a fatal mistake
while in a high place anymore than driver tests stop road accidents.

Why is it when we
mention typing, everyone assumes an old fashioned typewriter. Typing is
typing, whether on a computer or an old fashioned linotype machine.

Nooo...not quite right. a Linotype automatic type-setter machine has
a different keyboard arrangement. One row is "ETAOINSHRDLU"
as opposed to the conventional "QWERTYUIOP." An "office" type
typist would produce very funny type slugs on a real Linotype. :-)

I got training in touch-typing rather long before there was such things
as desktop computers, even before video terminals. Hundreds of
thousands did. To me, a "typewriter" is any instrument that produces
legible text not requiring direct manual writing by pen or pencil

I'd
love to see all of these lovely 'modern' folks get the information into the
computer in the first place without copying it from someone else.

I've personally seen dozens do it no problem at all.

It used to be a lot worse at the DOS level before Windows or the
the GUI concept developed by Xerox' PARC. But that "worseness"
was due to early shorthand-style jargon commands necessitated
by way-insufficient internal memory.

I totally love the speed, efficiency, and capability of modern word-
processors and their ability to produce print-ready copy in my choice
of type styles (over 200 in my computer, had to cut out about 100
more as too freaky). Remember, I'm one of those from prehistory
back when "typing" meant on a solely mechanical gizmo that took
paper directly, not through a separate "printer." Training on a type-
writer that had NO key markings...[learn or die, very Darwin...:-) ]

What gets me is all this "magic" and "majesty" and "need" for a
159 year old PRIMITIVE language coding tool in a hobby/recreation
activity involving radio that requires federal licensing! Stupid!

Yes, having the ability to send/receive at 40 WPM plus in morse IS
a definite accomplishment for an individual. No doubt.

In the 1930s morsemanship skills were in demand in radio. Trouble
is, this is NOT the 1930s, it is in the new millennium where one
residence out of three in the USA has some kind of computer. One
residence out of five in the USA has some kind of Internet access.
There are 150 million cellular telephones in the USA now.

A whole half century ago I was doing HF communications without
ever using or needing to know morse code. A half century later I
still find some over-inflated, self-professed "masters of radio" saying
everyone "must" have morsemanship to operate on HF amateur
bands. That does not compute, that does not compose logically on
a manual typewriter. That "need" is so much fetilizer base.

I've
helped some of those younger folks ... "the mouse is f****d up". Pick his
hand up off the mouse, turn the mouse 180 degrees so the cable comes off of
the back end rather than towards the front, and put his hand back on the
mouse. Yep, I love you smart, modern, young folks! BWAAaahahahah!

I've never seen ANY young folks acting so stupidly. Not even any old
folks or middle-age folks. The Xerox PARC "mouse" concept is very
intuitive even to first timers (I was one of at least 3 dozen at a Valley
store here when the Apple Macintosh made its debut...not a one of us
had any problems with the mouse).

I started personal computing back in 1976, back before the first Apple
computers hit the big time market. Working out source code for
microprocessors was a helluva lot more interesting, entertaining and
challenging than trying a third attempt to keep morse code in the head.

What I have personally experienced is some old hams jumping up and
down, cussing and whining about everyone "obeying the law and taking
a morse test!!!" Your example was dumb. The old procoder jumping
up and down in rage demanding obediance is dumberer...in my opinion.

The old procoder's outrage will be manifest until the last key is removed
from their cold, dead fingers. Screwm.

LHA

On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 21:33:06 GMT, Jim Hampton wrote:

Or, perhaps, you are using a
most modern keyboard - Dang! That sure looks like a ... um ... gee, the
layout looks very much like those old typewriters.

Did the "Dvorak" key layout not catch on ??

And then there are those of us who believe as a matter of faith that
the F-keys belong on the left, the Ctrl key belongs just above the
left Shift key, and the Alt key belongs just below the left Shift
key, and other assorted differences from the Windowz key layout.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon

Phil,

I just want to know what happened to the "cents" key :)
Actually, Phil, all you need on the keyboard to a Windows based computer are
the ctrl, alt, and delete keys :))


73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA



"Phil Kane" wrote in message
.net...
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 21:33:06 GMT, Jim Hampton wrote:

Or, perhaps, you are using a
most modern keyboard - Dang! That sure looks like a ... um ... gee, the
layout looks very much like those old typewriters.

Did the "Dvorak" key layout not catch on ??

And then there are those of us who believe as a matter of faith that
the F-keys belong on the left, the Ctrl key belongs just above the
left Shift key, and the Alt key belongs just below the left Shift
key, and other assorted differences from the Windowz key layout.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon




---
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

Wrong!

We need a more modern test.
Typing is too easy.
My thirteen year passed a school mandated typing test last school year.

A real ham should be able to copy 5 minutes of 4 channel rtty by ear using a
keyboard as the transcription.
device. Or how about five minutes of BPSK by ear. : )

Let the flames begin!!!!!!!

Dan
AI8O



David Robbins wrote in message
...
I think the fcc should replace the cw test with a typing accuracy and
speed
test. Just think about how much nicer the digital segments would be if
everyone had to be able to type fast enough to keep their buffers full!
No
more diddles and wasted bandwidth while someone hunted around for the
letters trying to answer a simple question that wasn't on their brag tape.
This will of course become much more important as the manual digital
method
is phased out and the hf bands become more heavily used.

In article , "Jim Hampton"
writes:

I just want to know what happened to the "cents" key :)

Inflation!



LHA :-)

In article , "Phil Kane"
writes:

On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 21:33:06 GMT, Jim Hampton wrote:

Or, perhaps, you are using a
most modern keyboard - Dang! That sure looks like a ... um ... gee, the
layout looks very much like those old typewriters.

Did the "Dvorak" key layout not catch on ??

Nope. Why should it?

There was never any real need for a "Dvorak" key layout except perhaps
to Dvorak. :-)

In middle school in the midwest in 1948 us students watched a
typing champion do 150 WPM continuous on an all-mechanical
portable typewriter while also carrying on a conversation with some of
the students from the stage. He let us proof-read what he had typed
and nobody could find any errors. That was with the old "QWERTY"
key layout that was already old and standard. It is now older and
still standard. It works.

[notice a resemblance to the old morse-manliness of high rates in
CW? :-) ]

The typing champion was actually GIVING A PERFORMANCE. It
is NOT necessary to do high word rate on a keyboard to produce
words for communications. Office typewriting throughput is typically
anywhere from 30 to 60 WPM for clerks/secretaries working from
handwritten scribbles of the staff...which they must all convert into
proper formatting, paragraph indentation and so forth. If they are
doing essentially copy typing (just a few changes here and there from
an already-formatted typewritten page) they typically do 50 to 100
WPM.

The Teletype Corporation celebrated their 500,000th teleprinter made
roughly a quarter century ago. Then it was a gold-flashed top-of-the-
line half-mechanical, half-electronic model that was prominent in
trade shows of the time (looked damn good in key lights). All those
Teletype teleprinters used the "QWERTY" key layout.

All those "teletypes" were used in COMMUNICATIONS. Nobody
grouched and whined about their speed of 60 WPM (early models)
or 100 WPM (later models). Neither did any of them require a
human modem operating them, just anyone familiar with the old
"QWERTY" key layout and one or two working fingers. :-)


And then there are those of us who believe as a matter of faith that
the F-keys belong on the left, the Ctrl key belongs just above the
left Shift key, and the Alt key belongs just below the left Shift
key, and other assorted differences from the Windowz key layout.

Tsk, tsk, tsk, Phil. Are you in a snit because you failed to cash in
on some recent Microsoft legal tangle with another jealous entity who
wanted $$$ that MS got? :-)

Do you need a different keyboard layout for you computer(s)?
That's almost entirely possible...the only exception being those keys
which are hardwired into the keyboard's own little microprocessor.
I can do it in a single program running at DOS, to any new key layout
desired...it will echo the desired character for an existing key. It won't
relabel the keytops, though, don't ask too much of software...:-)

Want to negotiate such a program for yourself? No problem, just
contact me at my mailing address (it's been in print at least 900,000
times). I only charge about a quarter of small-scale attorney billings
so it is a bargain! You'll even get the source code. Computer code,
that is... :-)

LHA

In article , "Jim Hampton"
writes:

You are wrong in my example of the younger guy with the mouse. It happened.
Really. You and I are closer than you think.

Okay, so some younger person doesn't know about mice. :-)

As I stated, I am not worried over Morse.

I'm not worried either. To me, it's all those morse-uber-alles
in der Amatur SchutzStaffel who demand morsemanship as some
kind of manhood equivalent in radio. :-)

As far as the high powered HF, most of the HF was nowhere near
30 MHz. You know that and don't try and tell me otherwise.

I really have no idea of what frequencies you transmitted at in the
US military. At Army station ADA the HF transmitters were
pushing out somewhere between 200 to 300 KW total between
4 and about 20 MHz. Most transmitters could cover 3 to 22 MHz
if necessary.

I've been INSIDE a much lower frequency installation with MW
output.

When you talk
volts per meter, there is a difference between 30 and 15 MHz and a much
bigger difference between 15 MHz and 1.5 MHz (near the top end of the AM
broadcast band).

Oh, I think I know the EM spectrum with some familiarlity... :-)

When I got into the Big Leagues of HF communications we had terms
of "Megacycles" and "Kilocycles" and used the old phonetic alphabet.
Little tiny capacitors were valued in "micro-micro farads" or "uuF." :-)

In 1955 the US military cut over to the NATO phonetic alphabet and
we also had to learn the "scientific" names for values and their
multipliers. Radio theory remained the same...and still does.

Please do us both a favor and don't assume that I don't
know what I'm talking about. That will save us both a lot of time (and
typing!) :)

No problem with me as long as you return the favor.

I write in perhaps more detail than the usual suspects in here, but
only because other types want to engage in meaningless flames
over words/phrases. By explaining things in public, that lessens the
counterproductive bull**** that those others start. :-)

Now I'm waiting for Col. Klink of the A.S.S., the garbageman, and the
pedantic parson to jump in with more unproductive nonsense, shouted
orders, and the usual personal attacks. :-)

LHA