"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message igy.com...
"Brian" wrote in message
om...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
igy.com...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...

"N2EY" wrote in message
om...
"Proficiency" starts at 10 wpm.

That's absurd ... proficiency is a relative term that must be
quantified.
One can be proficient at a variety of levels in any activity requiring
some sort of acquired skill.


We might consider the arguments presented in the book "The Art and Skill
of
Radiotelegraphy".

Why?


Re-read the following sentence as it states why.

The author had done extensive study on Morse code
teaching methods, learning abilities, etc.

Cool. Who is the author, what is his callsign? And what is the
copyright date?


Since I've given the title of the book, surely you can do the research
yourself for that data. Hint, it's available as a free download off the
internet so you can find it with any search engine. However the fourth
edition is copyrighted 2003 and is by William G. Pierpont, N0HFF.

I'll bet he wrote it long after the code began to wane in any (every)
radio service.

His definition of proficiency is
along the lines of what level must a person obtain to prevent forgetting
it.
Basically his research showed that those who achieved 13wpm did not
forget
the code even if they did not use it. They would get "rusty" so to
speak
and their speed would fall off if they did not use it but they would not
forget it. Once they resumed using it, their speed would fairly quickly
climb back to their previous level. That would seem like a reasonable
definition.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee, you might want to suggest this as the definition of "Morse
Proficiency" to the FCC.


The FCC can define it anyway they like for their regulatory activities. The
author's definition is one that works in the real world, i.e. the point at
which the person is at little risk of forgetting the training.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee, wow, that's great. I love these little trips down memory lane.
And to hell with the FCC and their role in regulating amateur radio.
They don't define Morse Code but should, they don't define WPM rate
but should, then they require a pass/fail Morse Exam that excludes
otherwise qualified citizens from access to HF radio. And the VEC's
substitute a Farnsworth Exam where Morse is specified.

Letting the FCC define something "any way they" want is a recipe for
disaster.

In article , "Dan Finn"
writes:

"Len Over 21" wrote in message
...

On most modern HF transceivers, the 3rd harmonic has the strongest
content of RF. The 3rd harmonic of 3.5 to 4.0 MHz is 10.5 to 12 MHz
and there aren't many "ham listening frequencies" there, are there?

For most modulated sine waves, the 3rd harmonic is usually the strongest
*harmonic* although it depends upon several factors. Generally, the odd
harmonic components add and the negative components subtract with modulated
sine waves.

Oh my, such interesting math (which wasn't shown)...:-)

That isn't quite the case in any real world OR the theoretical world.

First of all, in the real world, you must be presuming some absolute
zero phase shift for each harmonic to make your statement. That just
doesn't exist.

I can do the numbers on the series formulas for AM, FM, or PM no
problem but so few in here can follow even the beginnings of such that
I won't care to put it in public view...:-)

Having said that, most modern rigs that produce FCC quality
signals will filter such harmonics several 10's of dB rendering reception
almost impossible except in the near field.

Really?!? They work PERFECTLY ACCORDING TO SPECIFICATIONS
ALL THE TIME?!?!?!

That's not a realistic view, but feel free to indulge if you've laid out a
big
plastic for a couple kilodollars worth of transceiver. :-)

That old standby tube output matching circuit, the "Pi-network" is only
good for about 18 db per octave attenuation above cutoff frequency. Not
all modern transceivers have such "lowpass filters" since they rely on
Class B or AB linear amplifiers with rather broadband transformers
matching PA to load.

A typical 100 W RF transceiver has a fundamental power output of +50
dbm. If there is as much as "60 db harmonic attenuation" in it, the
harmonics can be -10 dbm into the load. That's 100 microWatts and
DOES radiate and rather beyond the Near Field...the level is a lot higher
than most "40 db over S9" signals (depending on who assigned what
levels to a local transceiver S meter).

I thought I needed to correct
this BS, that emanates from someone who claims to understand modern amateur
technology theory.

Feel free to do your numbers in public, senior.

Call it all the "BS" you want to. When you can actually MAKE a linear
(of any class) go as low as 40 db down on total harmonic output, I'll be
giving you a round of applause.

Hams transmitting signals of any significance on 12MHz
will not be hams for long.

Oh? Were there any recent NALs published at the FCC or ARRL sites
on such things? Let us know, please, I've not seen any of those
concerning out-of-ham-band interference due to harmonic generation.

LHA

In article , Robert Casey
writes:


Morsemanship uber alles in the year 2003!

There are NO "novice class" amateur radio licenses issued in
USA amateur radio. Are you going to keep space on a
"reservation" for all those missing indians or what?

What about all of us "extra-lite" licensees?

I've looked high and low on the FCC website and can't find any
amateur radio "extra-lite" license class.


We only need 5wpm nowadays, and if
I want to QSO Larry, I would want to have some skill.

Not an answer.

First of all, you've not established any NEED for a morsemanship test
for the US amateur radio license having below-30-MHz privileges.

I don't know which "Larry" you are talking about, but there's never been
any NEED for "QSO-ing any 'Larry'" in the US amateur radio regulations.



How about we keep all those Morsemen Chiefs on their elite little
EM spectrum reservations, maybe have dude ranches where
youngsters can all attend to learn the Old Ways of Morse?

As morse only requires a small bandwidth, those "reservations" wouldn't
be much of a burden.....

True enough. :-)

Let them get burned up and send smoke signals. Electronics runs on
smoke; if the smoke leaks out it won't work. :-)


LHA

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

"Len Over 21" wrote in message
...

On most modern HF transceivers, the 3rd harmonic has the strongest
content of RF. The 3rd harmonic of 3.5 to 4.0 MHz is 10.5 to 12 MHz
and there aren't many "ham listening frequencies" there, are there?

For most modulated sine waves, the 3rd harmonic is usually the strongest
*harmonic* although it depends upon several factors. Generally, the odd
harmonic components add and the negative components subtract with
modulated
sine waves.

Oh my, such interesting math (which wasn't shown)...:-)

If you do not know this to be true without seeing the math worked out for
you, then you should not be discussing harmonics in a technical context.

That isn't quite the case in any real world OR the theoretical world.

Your saying so does not make your statement true. We are talking technical
issues here which are a matter of common knowledge to the RF community so
your flames are irrelevant.


First of all, in the real world, you must be presuming some absolute
zero phase shift for each harmonic to make your statement. That just
doesn't exist.

Oh God...Earth to Len....harmonics *are* phase shifted. If you reduce the
phase shift to zero, then you have eliminated the harmonics, stupid.

I can do the numbers on the series formulas for AM, FM, or PM no
problem but so few in here can follow even the beginnings of such that
I won't care to put it in public view...:-)

Having said that, most modern rigs that produce FCC quality
signals will filter such harmonics several 10's of dB rendering reception
almost impossible except in the near field.

Really?!? They work PERFECTLY ACCORDING TO SPECIFICATIONS
ALL THE TIME?!?!?!

Pretty close, most of the time, dummy.


That's not a realistic view, but feel free to indulge if you've laid
out a
big
plastic for a couple kilodollars worth of transceiver. :-)

That old standby tube output matching circuit, the "Pi-network" is only
good for about 18 db per octave attenuation above cutoff frequency.

Since 3dB is half the power, you cut the power in half 6 times. 18dB is not
bad over one octave.

Not
all modern transceivers have such "lowpass filters" since they rely on
Class B or AB linear amplifiers with rather broadband transformers
matching PA to load.

They had better filter it so that you do not have a significant signal at
12MHz when transmitting in the 75 meter band.

A typical 100 W RF transceiver has a fundamental power output of +50
dbm. If there is as much as "60 db harmonic attenuation" in it, the
harmonics can be -10 dbm into the load. That's 100 microWatts and
DOES radiate and rather beyond the Near Field...the level is a lot
higher
than most "40 db over S9" signals (depending on who assigned what
levels to a local transceiver S meter).

0.1mW? Hardly a significant signal.


I thought I needed to correct
this BS, that emanates from someone who claims to understand modern
amateur
technology theory.

Feel free to do your numbers in public, senior

That would be a rather boring and somewhar ominous excercize to do on a
newsgroup, dummy.

Call it all the "BS" you want to. When you can actually MAKE a linear
(of any class) go as low as 40 db down on total harmonic output, I'll
be
giving you a round of applause.

Hams transmitting signals of any significance on 12MHz
will not be hams for long.

Oh? Were there any recent NALs published at the FCC or ARRL sites
on such things?

Not that I know of. Not for transmitting harmonics on 12MHz using 'modern'
transceivers, as you called them.

Let us know, please, I've not seen any of those
concerning out-of-ham-band interference due to harmonic generation.

Neither have I. Most NAL's are for in band interference, referred to as QRM.

de KR4AF

LHA

An interesting note. I do recall having learned American land-line Morse
once as a lark and was capable of perhaps 16 words per minute - but I was
using a mental look-up table for those characters/numbers that were
different from international Morse. The long and short of it is this: I did
copy with no errors 40 words per minute of international Morse code in the
US Navy in 1967. I used American Morse once only in 1968. I did not use
any Morse from 1969 until I retook the amateur extra exam in 1993. I
passed, but I have forgotten the American Morse. A few weeks of writing
some Morse code programs did pump my speed up just a wee bit on
international Morse

73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.512 / Virus Database: 309 - Release Date: 8/19/03

(Brian) wrote in message . com...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message igy.com...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...

"N2EY" wrote in message
om...
"Proficiency" starts at 10 wpm.

That's absurd ... proficiency is a relative term that must be quantified.
One can be proficient at a variety of levels in any activity requiring
some sort of acquired skill.


We might consider the arguments presented in the book "The Art and Skill of
Radiotelegraphy".

Why?

The author had done extensive study on Morse code
teaching methods, learning abilities, etc.

Cool. Who is the author, what is his callsign? And what is the
copyright date?

I'll bet he wrote it long after the code began to wane in any (every)
radio service.



There gpes the Brain child on another erroneous tangent. Only in the
ham shacks of NCI members has use of code began to wane within ham
radio. If he'd bother himself to actually check what'seing done *on
the air* he'd soon find that the use of Morse has grown within the
ARS,not waned. All this in spite of the hearfelt wishes and strenuous
actions of him and the likeminded.

"None so blind as those who won't see!"

(DickCarroll) wrote in message . com...
(Brian) wrote in message . com...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message igy.com...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...

"N2EY" wrote in message
om...
"Proficiency" starts at 10 wpm.

That's absurd ... proficiency is a relative term that must be quantified.
One can be proficient at a variety of levels in any activity requiring
some sort of acquired skill.


We might consider the arguments presented in the book "The Art and Skill of
Radiotelegraphy".

Why?

The author had done extensive study on Morse code
teaching methods, learning abilities, etc.

Cool. Who is the author, what is his callsign? And what is the
copyright date?

I'll bet he wrote it long after the code began to wane in any (every)
radio service.



There gpes the Brain child on another erroneous tangent. Only in the
ham shacks of NCI members has use of code began to wane within ham
radio. If he'd bother himself to actually check what'seing done *on
the air* he'd soon find that the use of Morse has grown within the
ARS,not waned. All this in spite of the hearfelt wishes and strenuous
actions of him and the likeminded.

"None so blind as those who won't see!"

Poor DICK. Believes his own BS.

On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 21:51:00 GMT, "Dee D. Flint"
wrote:

We might consider the arguments presented in the book "The Art and Skill of
Radiotelegraphy". The author had done extensive study on Morse code
teaching methods, learning abilities, etc. His definition of proficiency is
along the lines of what level must a person obtain to prevent forgetting it.
Basically his research showed that those who achieved 13wpm did not forget
the code even if they did not use it. They would get "rusty" so to speak
and their speed would fall off if they did not use it but they would not
forget it. Once they resumed using it, their speed would fairly quickly
climb back to their previous level. That would seem like a reasonable
definition.

I can attest to that. Having been without an antenna for nearly a
year some time ago, my speed fell way off, but I retained what each
letter in code was.

Contests are a good way to get the code speed back up to snuff in no
time, if you're "rusty". Of course, the first few hours are a beast,
but by the time the contest is over, you're working QSO's in your
sleep. LOL

Stacey, AA7YA

On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 14:38:36 GMT, "Dee D. Flint"
wrote:

The exam does not exclude anyone who cares to make the effort to learn. And
Farnsworth IS Morse since it relates a letter directly to a sound without
counting dots and dashes.

Actually the Farnsworth method is Morse Code sent at a constant rate
of speed, 18 WPM actually, yet at lower speeds the spacing between
each character is increased while attaining the same rate of speed of
18 WPM for each character.

By the time one becomes proficient enough to copy Morse Code, counting
out the dits and dahs is moot at best.

Stacey, AA7YA

=2D----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

"Stacey" =3D=3D S Hanrahan writes:

[...]

Stacey Actually the Farnsworth method is Morse Code sent at a
Stacey constant rate of speed, 18 WPM actually, yet at lower speeds
Stacey the spacing between each character is increased while
Stacey attaining the same rate of speed of 18 WPM for each character.

I was under the impression that Farnsworth was a type of spacing but
that the actual numbers weren't relevant -- only that the word speed
is often much less than the character speed. The test I took had a
word speed of five words per minute and a character speed of eighteen
words per minute. The practice files I'm building for my web site
have a word speed of five words per minute and a character speed of
twenty words per minute.

Stacey By the time one becomes proficient enough to copy Morse Code,
Stacey counting out the dits and dahs is moot at best.

In my limited experience, I learn more characters faster with
Farnsworth spacing, but I'm concerned that I'm building a lookup table
instead of reflexes. It's the difference between "dahdidah, hmm,
that's K, dahdah, hmm, that's M" and "dahdidah (K) dahdah (M)". I
learned eight or nine characters with Farnsworth spacing, but I can't
repeat the performance at full speed, so I fear that I'm learning
something that won't be useful if I continue to use Farnsworth
spacing.

Stacey Stacey, AA7YA

Jack.
=2D --=20
Jack Twilley
jmt at twilley dot org
http colon slash slash www dot twilley dot org slash tilde jmt slash
=2D----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQE/VjGIGPFSfAB/ezgRAovAAJ9oamqHg6aAYcpdWq4jDVgELfiZCwCgrlXJ
Uyg56cgKhn3fR1s/8P81XBM=3D
=3D6OG2
=2D----END PGP SIGNATURE-----