Bill Sohl wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message

I'm alomost confused here Bill! I'm saying there is no direct
relationship between being Pro-Code and technical ability.


OK, I agree.

My point is that the arguments should and can be made
without regard to personal aspects of either side.

And how! I'm a bit dissapointed that this turned into another little
donnybrook. It was an attempt at getting something else besides the
usual rancor here.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Jim:

The truth is, only hams who know the Morse code have the capability
to fall back on the CW mode when other modes are unavailable. Why
do hams know the Morse code? Because they had to learn it to pass
the code tests to become licensed or obtain upgrades. In the absence
of a code testing requirement, why will they learn it?

If the people, like you, that do love it, it will live on through proper
promotion of it. It's just that simple. Of all the "coded hams" out there,
not ALL of them are code lovers, and I would place a bet that some couldn't
pass the current 5wpm test as they have not used it since their
examinations. But in the same turn there are some that love it and will
pass it on. As long as it is mentored properly.

How will we
convince new hams to invest the time and effort to learn this useful
communications skill when they are not offered the incentive of
increased operating privileges?

Gee, if it is so useful, then why bribe them?? It should be sooooo damned
good as you say, they should automatically want to flock right to it.
People will invest the time and effort if they see value and usefullness in
it.

I'm asking you because I don't have
the answers. I'm one of those hams who learned the code because
I wanted to be a ham, and the requirement was there. Ony *after*
learning the code and becoming a reasonably proficient CW operator
did I become aware of it's benefits and advantages. Personally, I'm
grateful that the code testing requirement existed when I became a
ham. Had it not, I never would have become a CW operator...and
neither will most hams in the ECTA (Era of Code Test Abolition).


Oh jeesh Larry, add more to the alphabet soup eh? (PCTA, NCTA, ECTA,
etc.)



--
Ryan, KC8PMX
FF1-FF2-MFR-(pending NREMT-B!)
--. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-.
... --. .... - . .-. ...

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article ,
ospam
(Larry Roll K3LT) writes:

In article ,
(N2EY)
writes:

On the one hand, Morse is not used very much in emergency communication.
On
the
other hand, it *is* still used occasionally, by hams, in emergency
communications. More important, there *are* times when it when it is the
only
available mode that would get through in the situation.
(Note that phrase "only available mode")

All of the above are documented facts.

The problem is, does the occasional use of Morse in emergencies mean
that
*all*
hams *must* be tested on the mode? Some say yes, some say no, some say
it's
a
piece of the reason. All based on personal opinion, nothing more.

Boil down any of the arguments on either side, and what you wind up with
is
personal opinion.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Jim:

The truth is, only hams who know the Morse code have the capability
to fall back on the CW mode when other modes are unavailable.

Absolutely true. But whether that is a reason to make every ham pass a
code
test is a matter of opinion - some say yes, others say no.

Why
do hams know the Morse code? Because they had to learn it to pass
the code tests to become licensed or obtain upgrades.

That's one reason.

In the absence
of a code testing requirement, why will they learn it?

Here are some reasons:

- Morse is fun for many thousands of hams
- Lots of interesting DX on Morse only
- Morse gets through better than any analog voice mode and better than
many TOR
modes
- Morse equipment for a given performance level costs less and is simpler
than
any other mode
- Morse is usually aural, not visual, but doesn't require talking. It's a
unique way of communicating
- Morse takes up less, or far less, spectrum than almost all other modes.
- There is much less objectionable stuff to deal with in the parts of the
bands
where Morse is usually used.

How will we
convince new hams to invest the time and effort to learn this useful
communications skill when they are not offered the incentive of
increased operating privileges?

Through the incentives of:

- improved performance of a given radio setup
- less crowded spectrum space
- a unique communications experience not available elsewhere
- rare DX
- spectrum conservation

There is also the element of putting the mode out there for others to see.
As
in demonstrations at club meetings, hamfests, conventions, Field Day, etc.
"Sell" the mode the way the FM/repeater, PSK-31, APRS, packet and other
folks
have been selling their modes for years.

If all a new ham ever sees is other, more experienced hams talking into
mikes
and tapping keyboards, that's all the newbie will think exists.

Look at what the AM and vintage/military radio folks have done. They set
up
demos at hamfests and other venues to show what it's all about. Why not
the
same thing with Morse? Show 'em how it's done - plant the seed.

Or consider the QRP/homebrew/hiker folks. What's the most effective mode
to
bring along on a backpack trip?

Elecraft has a new rig - the KX1. Amazing little box the size of a stack
of
QSLs. Is there *any* non-CW rig of equivalent size/weight/power
requirement
that will perform anywhere near as well?

You should see the looks on their faces at FD when they see the CW station
making QSOs at a rate better than the 'phone folks, yet using a more
modest
setup and expending far *less* effort. When well over half the points
earned by
a 4A+free VHF FD setup come from one fulltime and one part time setup
running
CW, serious selling is happening.

I'm asking you because I don't have
the answers. I'm one of those hams who learned the code because
I wanted to be a ham, and the requirement was there.

That's you. It's not everybody.

Some will be sold on the mode regardless of whether or not there's a test.

Some will never be sold no matter what you do.

And some will be sold if approached in the right way.

Ony *after*
learning the code and becoming a reasonably proficient CW operator
did I become aware of it's benefits and advantages. Personally, I'm
grateful that the code testing requirement existed when I became a
ham. Had it not, I never would have become a CW operator...and
neither will most hams in the ECTA (Era of Code Test Abolition).

How do we know that for sure? Maybe you would have seen the light after
getting
frustrated with other modes.

Here's an experience I had recently (post-restructuring):

Relatively new ham got started via the Tech route. Decided he wanted HF
and
passed the required elements, including code, which was learned from CDs
and
computer software.

But then he discovered that learning enough code to pass the test was a
far
different thing from copying and sending live on the air in a real QSO.

Now remember, this ham had already passed all the code tests he'd ever
need to
pass. He had all bands and modes open to him, and a nice HF station set
up.
There was absolutely no requirement that he ever do any Morse code
operating at
all, ever. Nor was there any requirement to spend more time and effort
learning
to send and copy real-world off-the-air Morse.

But this ham *wanted* to use the mode, based on its merits alone. With a
small
amount of help and encouragement, he learned the skills of on-air copy,
sending, abbreviations, procedure, etc.

I had the privilege and honor of being his first CW QSO. Since then he's
had
many more, his skills have improved, and he's on the way. CW SS is a few
weekends away.........

And this ham is the kind who will share what he has learned with others
and
repeat the cycle. Test or no test.

--

Sure, not every new or old ham will be "sold". But we don't need every
ham.
Just enough hams. And a positve image.

Does that answer the question?

73 de Jim, N2EY



Jim,

I think you have said it better here than any other that I have seen so far!


Ryan KC8PMX

"Hans K0HB" wrote in message
om...
"Kim W5TIT" wrote



The term "******" (excuse me, to anyone who is offended
by that word--me included) isn't derogatory until some
bigoted person uses it against another person, either.
No hazard, at all, in being honest.


Of course it's derogatory, no matter who uses the word.


Pure BS....... words mean nothing!!! It's the racist asshole behind the
words you need to be concerned with. Remember the phrase "Sticks and stones
may break my bones, but names will never hurt me?" I am more concerned with
the sticks and stones!!!!!



--
Ryan, KC8PMX

"Symbolism is for the simple minded....."

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
. net...
Bill Sohl wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message

I'm alomost confused here Bill! I'm saying there is no direct
relationship between being Pro-Code and technical ability.


OK, I agree.

My point is that the arguments should and can be made
without regard to personal aspects of either side.

And how! I'm a bit dissapointed that this turned into another little
donnybrook. It was an attempt at getting something else besides the
usual rancor here.

- Mike KB3EIA -


Yeah. Uh huh. Well, spend some time to see "what side" began degrading it,
Mike. And, as far as I can see, "that side" is the far more agressive and
offending one, even now...

Kim W5TIT

"Hans K0HB" wrote in message
om...
"Kim W5TIT" wrote



But, did the FCC ever get anywhere close to seeing its use banned? I am
not, remember, saying that a mode would become so unpopular or disliked
on a
scale such that it would be rare to find it openly being used. I am
saying,
however, that I believe the FCC would never regulate its ban.


Spark transmissions were outlawed (as well they should have been) so
the precedent exists.


Hmmmm, Jim/N2EY made that observation also. Then, I see the comment that
spark was a transmission method--not a mode. I think that's splitting
hairs, isn't it? I'm asking--I wasn't around for spark


On a more immediate note, as relates to your discussion on AM phone,
I'd have to dig out some old material to get all the facts exactly in
order, but there was a petition (in the 70's?) which the I
***believe*** the FCC had moved to the stage of an NPRM to outlaw AM
transmissions on the HF amateur bands. The rationale was that AM was
(is?) wasteful of spectrum because SSB can convey the same message in
half the bandwidth oF DSB AM phone and without those awful sounding
hetrodyning carriers. The proposal narrowly missed being adopted,
only because of a huge hue and cry from thousands of AM-forever hams
(who drew ARRL into the fight on their side).


Well, I would expect the same would happen if it came up again--*and* there
were enough people to bear pressure on the FCC to retain the mode. However,
if a mode is within current standards of technology (i.e., with respect to
the FCC R&R) would there really be a reason the FCC would entertain the
thought of banning it? I just don't see them doing that--but then I am an
ultimate optimist.


Today you're hard
pressed to find any remaining AM-ers on the band, and if the petition
were re-introduced it might well be adopted due to lack of organized
opposition. Most of the AM-forever crowd has moved to "forever".

73, de Hans, K0HB


Whoooohooooo, I know a few of those "forever" gang down here--and they are
as passionate about AM as any ardent CW fan! Dems would be fightin' words
in this neck 'o the woods. At any rate, so you're bringing up the scenario
that someone outside the FCC would bring up a petition to ban a mode.
Hmmmmmm, hadn't thought of that--but why? Why would anyone want to have a
mode banned? I mean, seriously, what would be gained?

Kim W5TIT

By my review, it took 3 posts to have the slamming and insults begin. And,
DICK wins the prize:

"Dick Carroll" wrote in message
...
Carl R. Stevenson wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

I just saw another accusation of Pro-Coders as technically backwards.

Yet some of the most progressive RF Engineers and Technicians I know
(who are Hams) are really enamored of Morse CW.




That would be those engineers who understood the real value of simple,
effective, easily implemented baseline communications which can be used
from almost anywhere with the least amount of simple equipment imaginable.
Carl never did understand any of this, and of course it doesn't match
his agenda, so it has no validity to him.


In over 32 years as an RF engineer, I have not had the same experience.

This would be no surprise, given your OBVIOUS hatred of radiotelegraphy.


The most technical folks have seemed more interested in the technical
side of ham radio and there have been MANY who I could not recruit
into ham radio because they had no interest in and were unwilling to
waste
their valuable time learing Morse to a level that would get them decent
HF privs. (some have capitulated and jumped through the 5 wpm hoop
since "restructuring" and are now extras, but many have refused, on
principal, to jump through the hoop, saying they'll wait until they
don't
have to waste their time on Morse)



Mygawd man, no one in his right mind, having once endured that diatribe,
would be eager to have to go through it all over again. You have it
programmed into your psyche, if not in a keyboard macro. Naturally they
avoided any act or word which would have keyed your internal macro. Who
wouldn't?


I would challenge the NCTA's to show some proof that those who believe
that the morse code test should be retained are in a technical
backwater.



That *might* be a bit difficult given that even Carl, their vaunted
leader, is a SSB ratchjaw, not given to even putting a digital HF
station on the air, much less doing any "amsteur digital design".


Most of the avid CW ragchewers/contesters I've known over the years
(remember, I'm a long-time ham)

Ah, it MUST be pointed out here that your tenure as a longtime ham did
not include close connection to *anyone* who was seriously involved in
radiotelegraphy in any way. And I know that how? By your actions here!
It's completely safe to say that no one would tolarate your attitude as
a friend, not likely as even a casual acquaintance, given the lever of
vituperation you have always shown toward CW. So what would anyone
expect your experience to be??



have been more interested in the operating
activity (ragchewing, contesting, paper-chasing) than the technical
side.
My experience has been that they have been less technically inclined
than
a lot of the no-code techs I've met, less inclined to participate in
public
service/emergency communications, and more inclined to just being
"users"
rather than tinkerers ...



Same old, same old... Make the CW supporters appear to be Luddites-an
accusation you have repeated many times here on rrap=-Go googling for
the facts if anyone doubts it.

The FACTS are that the CW suppoorters are far most often the users of
advanced digital modes. I'd wager that Carl has never been on the air
using CLOVER II. I have.

I think Jim was stretching it a little far to decide to be offended by the
phrase "jump through the hoop" and "waste their valuable time." But, that's
my opinion...

"N2EY" wrote in message
om...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
I just saw another accusation of Pro-Coders as technically backwards.

Yet some of the most progressive RF Engineers and Technicians I know
(who are Hams) are really enamored of Morse CW.

In over 32 years as an RF engineer, I have not had the same experience.
The most technical folks have seemed more interested in the technical
side of ham radio and there have been MANY who I could not recruit
into ham radio because they had no interest in and were unwilling to
waste
their valuable time learing Morse to a level that would get them decent
HF privs. (some have capitulated and jumped through the 5 wpm hoop
since "restructuring" and are now extras, but many have refused, on
principal, to jump through the hoop, saying they'll wait until they
don't
have to waste their time on Morse)

My experience has been different. But let's talk about yours.

First off, with all due respect, I would submit that Carl is perhaps
not the optimum salesperson for convincing people to take code tests
in order to get a license.

Carl's claim, as I read it, is that he knows RF engineers who would
have become hams but for the code test. Some of them have become hams
in spite of that test, or since it was lowered to 5 wpm for all
classes.

The question I ask is this: What does it matter to amateur radio what
a person's job is, unless that person actually uses their job-related
skills for amateur radio? And how many RF engineers will put that
experience to work in amateur radio if the code test is removed that
are allegedly being stopped today?

I remember back in 1990 that this same argument was being used against
the Technician code test. We were told that ham radio would get lots
of new technical folks to push development of the VHF/UHF spectrum,
and that such folks weren't interested in taking code tests. Yet here
it is a dozen years later and there hasn't been any techno-revolution
in amateur VHF/UHF. That doesn't mean there hasn't been progress, just
that there hasn't been massive changes.

Indeed, consider the recent developments in 24 GHz EME. Several
enterprising hams have built stations for that band capable of EME
QSOs (USA to Czech Republic is the current record, IIRC) using only
small (~ 2 meter diameter) dishes and less than 100 watts output from
the TWTs.

And the mode used?

I would challenge the NCTA's to show some proof that those who believe
that the morse code test should be retained are in a technical
backwater.

Most of the avid CW ragchewers/contesters I've known over the years
(remember, I'm a long-time ham) have been more interested in the
operating
activity (ragchewing, contesting, paper-chasing) than the technical
side.
My experience has been that they have been less technically inclined
than
a lot of the no-code techs I've met, less inclined to participate in
public
service/emergency communications, and more inclined to just being
"users"
rather than tinkerers ...

I've found more homebrewers among CW ops than any other part of ham
radio.

Remember, this is my personal experience, and since it seems to differ
from
yours, YMMV ...

Of course.

I would also challenge them to do it without being abrasive or
insulting.

I think I've met the challenge ...

Almost.

You wrote:

"were unwilling to waste their valuable time lear[n]ing Morse"

and

"jumped through the 5 wpm hoop"

which some folks would take as abrasive and/or insulting.

Why not just say:

"were unwilling to spend the time and effort"

and

"passed the 5 wpm test simply to meet the requirement"

?

Is an RF engineer's time more valuable than, say, a doctor's or
lawyer's?

Suppose a doctor or lawyer wants to be a ham, but doesn't want to
spend the time learning all the material in the written tests just to
use a manufactured rig to chase DX. Would you say such a person did
not want to waste their valuable time learning the theory needed for
the Extra test? Or, perhaps, did not want to jump through the written
test hoop?

Just facts or intelligent informed opinions.

Since there are no authortative, scientific statistics (and probably
never
will
be), I think that all you can expect to get are peoples accounting of
their
own
personal experiences.

Agreed.

Mine are admitedly coming from the fact that I'm "in
the business" of RF engineering ... but through local clubs and
ARES/RACES
participation over the past 25+ years, my observations seem to hold,
even
amongst contacts/acquaintences/friends who are not "in the profession."
Remember, YMMV ...

Of course.


Pro coders can help by refraining from name calling too.

We shall see ...

I think I've done that.

My statement is that there is no direct relationship.

The evidence is anecdotal will, as I point out, vary from person
to person, depending on their location, profession, the "slant"
of the local club(s) they belong to, etc.

One can find anecdotes for almost any position.

Anyone ready for a real discussion without the barbs? Can we do it?
First person to start throwing insults only makes it look bad for
his/her side.

I think I've taken the high ground ...

Except for the "waste their valuable time" and "hoop" stuff, I'd
agree.

73 de Jim, N2EY

And here, on Post #7, it pretty much goes South between Carl and DICK...
However, no surprise there...

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...

"Dick Carroll" wrote in message
...
[snip]

That *might* be a bit difficult given that even Carl, their vaunted
leader, is a SSB ratchjaw, not given to even putting a digital HF
station on the air, much less doing any "amsteur digital design".

Gee, Dick your hatred of SSB is showing again ... and you failed
Mike's "test" because you resorted to insults.

Besides, I'm active on digital ... how the hell do you profess to
know what modes I'm capable of/equipped for/using?????

At least I can get PSK31 to work ...

Most of the avid CW ragchewers/contesters I've known over the years
(remember, I'm a long-time ham)

Ah, it MUST be pointed out here that your tenure as a longtime ham did
not include close connection to *anyone* who was seriously involved in
radiotelegraphy in any way. And I know that how? By your actions here!
It's completely safe to say that no one would tolarate your attitude as
a friend, not likely as even a casual acquaintance, given the lever of
vituperation you have always shown toward CW. So what would anyone
expect your experience to be??

One of my best friends, now SK unfortuantely, was a CW op ... worked
as radio officer on ships, was a LL telegrapher when he was a kid. 60 wpm
in his head, while drunk, smoking, and playing poker was no problem for
him. HE understood that CW "wasn't my thing" and we still were friends,
enjoyed other aspects of ham radio together, and had a good time.

Now, I wouldn't expect to be able to have that sort of a relationship
with you, Dick ... you're not open-minded enough to accept that others
see things different than you. (You see, I accept that you like and use
CW ... I disagree only with your propatation of the "Morse myths" and
your insistence that everyone should have Morse forced on them in
exchange for HF privs ... fortunately, most of the rest of the world
doesn't agree with you.)

Carl - wk3c

Kim W5TIT wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
. net...

Bill Sohl wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message

I'm alomost confused here Bill! I'm saying there is no direct
relationship between being Pro-Code and technical ability.


OK, I agree.

My point is that the arguments should and can be made
without regard to personal aspects of either side.

And how! I'm a bit dissapointed that this turned into another little
donnybrook. It was an attempt at getting something else besides the
usual rancor here.

- Mike KB3EIA -



Yeah. Uh huh.

Yeah.


Well, spend some time to see "what side" began degrading it,
Mike. And, as far as I can see, "that side" is the far more agressive and
offending one, even now...


What it tells me is that not many here care to have a "non-degraded
"discussion. And that goes for both sides. It didn't take long at all
for that to happen. And I noted that it wouldn't look good for the side
that started things rolling downhill.

Dale Carnegie courses for everyone!

- Mike KB3EIA -