| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#41
October 28th 03, 03:24 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Len Over 21 wrote:
In article , (N2EY) writes: In article , (Len Over 21) writes: In article , (N2EY) writes: But some of us (ahem) *do* design them and build them from scratch. Amateur radio is probably the only radio service where a licensee can simply assemble a transmitter and put it on the air without any formal type-acceptance, approval or certification - at least here in the lower 50 provinces. Pennsylvania is a "province?!?" :-) Your lack of a sense of humor is obvious, Len ;-) ;-) Actually it's a commonwealth. Okay, so Pennsylvania seceeded from the Union...otherwise called the United States of America. STATES. No great loss, really... ....sez the non-native Californian who frequently belly aches about the eastern states. I've built-from-scratch (not including kits, no carbon copies of homebrew articles) in my home workshops, at least: 5 receivers 5 transmitters 3 transceivers 4 transmatches 12 power supplies 4 TR systems 5 pieces of test equipment various shack furniture, antennas, power cables, control systems, etc. Keep on doing that. Eventually you'll get some of them to work. The N2EY profile of your likely actions would fit nicely here. The above list does not include: - surplus units converted/restored - manufactured equipment restored/repaired/modified - kits built or rebuilt Keep on doing that. Eventually some may work... What is it with you, Leonard? I've worked several of the regulars here on rrap using my homebrew rigs. I can often be found on or around 7040 using CW. 7040 what? It's a ham radio thing. You wouldn't understand. You have absolutely verifiable proof, iron-clad, evidenciary documentation that such RF was actually generated by this "home-built" equipment? Is that supposed to be necessary, Len? What's it to you? You aren't involved. Keep at it old-timer. Eventually you can get to changing frequency and work some other bands... What amateur bands do you work, old timer? And my transmitters have all been legally used in the service for which I am licensed. So you say...because the FCC was too busy with other monitoring. Maybe Jim can note which particular pieces of homebrew gear he uses on which nights. He can have the whole shebang notarized and forward the info to you on a weekly basis. All of MY transmissions and transmitters have been legally used in the services for which I am licensed...and in the radio services and government contract work which did NOT require any civilian license. Are you licensed in the Amateur Radio Service, Len? You got the scratch, Elecraft has the KIT you can build. All by yourself. I built one of those back in 2001. Kits are not homebrew. So, you built it someplace else other than your residence. Now explain to us again about your 1948 unlicensed operations... Why? Those were within the regulations of unlicensed RF emitters at the time. AM broadcast band "wireless phonograph adapters." :-) You're a regular Marconi. You are welcome to retain an attorney to bring legal action to bear on alleged felonious radio emissions of 55 years ago! :-) Have him show us his cute legal briefs. Contact Riley Hollingsworth immediately! Let loose the legal hounds. Sound the Hue & Cry on the NTS! Bring the might of the US government LAW down on me! Are you erecting a new statute of limitiations or are you just erecting? Tsk, tsk, tsk...in 1953 I was transmitting 4 KW PEP SSB ON some amateur bands. Legally. Sue the United States Army for that. [remember what happened to "Tail Gunner Joe" when that senator tried to "get" the U. S. Army on another matter...] Your time machine isn't set properly. Get to work and FIX it. We are now on Standard REALITY time, not the daylight savings time of your fantasyland of long ago. Len, you're a goofball. Dave K8MN |
|
#42
October 28th 03, 01:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 03:15:11 GMT, Mike Coslo
wrote: snip Actually, if you at all buy the argument about longhand vs a calculator, you can hardly toss out CW by calling it an abacus (BTW, I learned how to use an abacus in grade school) Toss 'em both out or accept them both. Me too - the guy who operated it was awesome - faster than me + calculator, even today! Not sugesting that either be tossed out, Mike - my comments are related to the relative importance that should be placed on CW, or abacuses (abacii?) in the context of the modern world. Some folks will want to continue to use 'em, for a variety of valid reasons - but they are no longer the primary tools for accomplishing the tasks that they were originally designed for - does that mean that we should insist that everyone gain competence in their operation, whether they intend to use them or not? For what purpose? To accomplish what objective? I don't see it..... - Mike KB3EIA - 73, Leo |
|
#43
October 28th 03, 04:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Leo wrote:
Thanks, Mike - my responses are in the text below. ....whole lotta snippage goin' on..... On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 10:49:04 -0500, Mike Coslo wrote: Never does! remember that ill fated thread where I tried to get a decent discussion going? (the troglodyte one) After review, it lasted one post - mine. Yup, I remember that one well! Wonder why that happens....this thread went a bit farther, but keeps branching out into other topics, with the requisite bashings of the participants. I dunno. I enjoy an intelligent discussion with those who disagree with me. It isn't a pure hobby, though. If I were to be doing this as a pure hobby, I would simply be doing PSK31, contesting, and homebrewing. Instead I help with nets, do public service at events, and whatever emergency service might be needed. Some hams may not, but that means they are slacking off and shirking their civic duty, IMHO. Good point - the ability to use the hobby for community service is pretty unique to amateur radio. (try that with R/C model planes, or Civil War re-enactment!.....). The reasons to continue Morse code testing are as valid, and solid as those for removing it. This is not like making the prospective ham clean out toilets with his or her personal toothbrush. It's testing for a purpose. And all arguments for it's removal or retention are as valid as each other. I could make the same argument for tossing out the satellite operation questions as I could for tossing out Morse code testing. I don't care about the details that some people try to toss out. Its the same thing as the core. ...the only difference is that the written testing consists of a question or so on satelite operation - Morse continues as a complete syllabus and test in its own right. I'm not convinced that it is quite that important anymore to warrant this. I do see your point, though - we'll have to 'agree to disagree', I suppose...(a rare achievement in this newsgroup 8*p ) Although it is a valuable mode of operation, especialy in high QRM or QRN situations, (and fun to use!!), it was only a mandatory requirment originally (as I understand it, anyway) so that government (and commercial?) CW stations could communicate with amateurs interfering with their signals, and order them to stop. This is one that I have a little trouble with, Leo. The amateurs needed to have *some* method to communicate, and Morse code was one of the few methods around then. SSB was just being born, voice was pretty much out of the picture. So what's left? Here's the way I understand this one: Agree that there most certainly was a time when CW was all that was available to amateur operators (and was heavily used for commercial radio as well as landline operations too). Then, if an amateur were to be allowed to go on the air with no code training, what would the impact to amateur radio be? You would have a guy sending signals out that no one could understand, or answer. A very frustrated operator, most likely - but no real damage to the service itself. However, if that guy was interfering with commercial or governmental traffic, and did not know enough code to understand their signals to clear off the band immediately, major problems would be possible. Multiply this by the number of amateurs playing around with radio, and it would be a huge problem. CW proficiency testing pior to licence issuance would be a big step towards preventing situations like this one. Now, with virtually no one using code except amateurs, and all of that strictly within the amateur bands, this problem seems to be a thing of the past. Just like a guy who sets up an improperly-functioning RTTY setup (like I jusy did, a couple of nights ago...) - no major problem - and no two way communications, either  An aside, what frequencies do you operate rtty on? I want to get my feet wet with it. A secondary purpose may have been to allow emergency CW traffic to be relayed by amateur stations. These scenarios are no longer viable reasons in 2003 - unless there are new reasons to take their place, then perhaps CW should assume the same status as the other available operating modes - permitted for use, by all means, but not specifically tested by practical examination. My own personal position on this subject has shifted solidly over to the "yes, discontinue mandatory CW testing" side, in the absence of a logical reason to believe otherwise. I cannot recall a single arguement based on hard fact that justifies testing as a necessary requirement to becoming a licenced amateur, and operating on HF. There is emotion, and preference, and nostalgia, and tradition, and fear of the loss of a valuable skill whose value is no longer quantifiable - but no hard reasons. you are correct, there are no hard reasons, no truly logical reasons to keep Morse code testing. Or to get rid of it either. It's all opinions. Agree, to a point. There don't seem to be any logical reasons to keep CW testing (I was hoping that this thread would flesh them out...). OTOH, there is a reason to discontinue CW testing - the reason being that CW is (for all practical purposes) no longer any more important than any other available operating mode, today, in 2003. As such, is it fair to compel people to learn and pass a practical test on one mode in deference to all others? I don't see it! The closest thing I can find to a logical argument is that Morse CW will allow an amateur to communicate with an other amateur in another country who may not share his or her language. This *may* be of some use in an emergency. Will it? Odds aren't all that hot. But here we have one of those opinion things again. I think it is worth the effort, while many others do not. And the odds favor them. Then again, I'm first aid, CPR and defib trained, and will probably (hopefully) never need to use those skills. But if I need them..... Years ago, here in Canada, there was a special licence class required to operate using the Digital modes (!). This was dropped after only a few years. presumably because it was not demonstrated that there was any real benefit gained from the additional testing of digital proficiency. After all, the idea of a hobby is to be able to experiment and learn those aspects that are of interest or use to the individual! Then why the heck don't they get rid of those stupid questions about satellite operations!!!! 8^) Don't know - I think that's one of the ones I got wrong anyway.... The reason I'm not too wild about this argument is that it reminds me of those arguments people used to make for some of the "progressive schools" where the student made up their own curriculum Likewise, if the school board decided that "The Adz, Plane , Bow Saw And Other Pioneer Tools" was to become a seperate mandatory subject, which must be studied and passed prior to gaining a trade certification in Carpentry - that would be equally wrong. It is interesting to some (and at one time, the only way to build a log cabin), but not relevant enough to be given its own course today. Still, there are those who enjoy building with these types of tools - more power to 'em! Remember though, there is a difference between the adz and Morse CW. hehe, the thought makes me chuckle. I look at it more like the way the (Coast Guard?) has a sailed vessl for training on. There are many important things that can be learned, even though those recruits are using really ancient technology. Here I see the fundamental nature of your approach. You see the ARS as a hobby, whereas I see it as a service. I have other things I do as hobbies, like building telescopes and grinding mirrors. Purely personal stuff that I find interesting to do. But my ARS experience is not only the homebrewing, contesting, and digital mode work, it is a way of giving back to the community. And yes, the groups we do radio comms for are part of the community, and appreciate the work we do for them. It's a personal thing, like first aid and CPR training. Them ain't hobbies. You're right - for me, at least so far, it is only a hobby . Since I'm relatively new to the avocation (a year and a half, so far), I'm still in learning mode - I am interested in getting involved with ARES, and may do so in the next few months or so, time permitting. BTW - grinding mirrors? Now there's something that requires a lot of patience! Wow! It is a tremendous amount of fun for me. I'm kind of an obsessive compulsive person, and I can take out my tendencies on a mirror. Grinding and polishing and testing are so darn much fun, and it's one field where all the fussing pays off in the end. I believe that we need to position ourselves as forward-thinking, technically competent and highly motivated - ready to out our skills to use whenever required to do so by the various public safety and security organizations. Looking through the current FCC petitions regarding the infamous Code issue, we could easily be seen as a bunch of folks interested in creating unnecessary levels of proficiency testing within the hobby, without a real technological reason to do so. That will not help us, or our image, one bit. But isn't there some contradiction in there? I can't reconcile forward thinking and reduction in knowledge together myself. I can understand why we wouldn't have questions on tube equipment on tests, but the removal of a basic method of communication that can be used worldwide that has as a drawback that it can't be learned instantaneously is beyond my comprehension. It is in place as the lowest common denominator between two communicators. To me it is like having children learn how to do longhand math before setting them loose with calculators. Is there any value in doing longhand math now? Why should we if we have a calculator? But there is a technolgical reason in continuing to teach longhand division - and that is, without knowing how it works, how will you know when the calculators' answer is incorrect? (My kids have demonstrated this concept to me many times.....they tend to believe whatever answer the thing displays, without applying logic to see if they entered something wrong - grrr) And for that reason, I think that the current level of testing that we do to become an amateur is not enough - as I have explained in previous threads, the level of technical knowledge has dropped considerably over time. Longhand is the check-and-balance for the answer presented by the calculator. Actually I agree. Too many people don't kow the basics of math anymore. I don't quite see the analogy to CW, though - sure, if SSB communications are not possible CW could be used to get through. But the rest of the world is moving away from it (first the commercial and government users, and now amateur administrations all over the world) - I'd suggest that if there was any value to retaining it even as a back-up mode of communications, it would have been retained by someone. I'd think, anyway. What I think leads to the decline in use is that it uses a very expensive processor - a human. We've tried to take humans ot of the loop for years now, or at least skilled ones. It is a lot easier to train a person to hit a button and make a copy than it is to teach them something like Morse code. And that I think is why the ARS can still get away with using Morse CW. Our "wetware" does a superb job of translating the recieved signals, and since this is a hobby/service/avocation, we aren't being paid, so we can continue to economically use Morse/CW. In fact, the economics are the reverse of what everyone elses are. They want to buy a piece of equipment to replace an expensive human, and we already have - indeed are stuck with the human - ourselves, and would have to spend extra money for the needed equipment to work other emergency modes. - Mike KB3EIA - |
|
#44
October 28th 03, 07:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 11:53:27 -0500, Mike Coslo wrote:
Yup, I remember that one well! Wonder why that happens....this thread went a bit farther, but keeps branching out into other topics, with the requisite bashings of the participants. I dunno. I enjoy an intelligent discussion with those who disagree with me. Me too - I learn a lot of things that way! Now, with virtually no one using code except amateurs, and all of that strictly within the amateur bands, this problem seems to be a thing of the past. Just like a guy who sets up an improperly-functioning RTTY setup (like I jusy did, a couple of nights ago...) - no major problem - and no two way communications, either An aside, what frequencies do you operate rtty on? I want to get my feet wet with it. 40 Meters, but there seems to be some confusion over where the digital band assignments really are.....the RAC band plan lists 7.035 to 7.050 MHz for digital modes, while ARRL has 7.040 MHz as a DX RTTY freq., and 7.080 to 7.100 for RTTY communications. And, the last RTTY gut that I copied was on 7.075 MHx. Hmm.... (scratches head...) 45 Baud seems to be the usual format for Ham traffic, but I have copied a couple of 75 Baud ones. I have been hanging out there receiving transmissions and setting up the equipment. RX works pretty reliably (on my hamfest PK-232). My old analog Heath TX tends to drift too much for reliable RTTY TX at the moment (and maybe forever - still working on it...). Looks like fun, though - if I ever get it together  The closest thing I can find to a logical argument is that Morse CW will allow an amateur to communicate with an other amateur in another country who may not share his or her language. This *may* be of some use in an emergency. Will it? Odds aren't all that hot. But here we have one of those opinion things again. I think it is worth the effort, while many others do not. And the odds favor them. Then again, I'm first aid, CPR and defib trained, and will probably (hopefully) never need to use those skills. But if I need them..... With the way thing are going, I'm not sure if I would want to rely on CW for emergency comms - the infrastructure isn't as solid as it was years ago, and will deteriorate further quickly as CW contnues to be dropped as a requirement. As far as communicating with non-English speaking people, I hadn't considered that... Does it work? Is there enough commonality to get a message through? (my Morse so far has been primarily Englosh (not a spelling error ) - example "wx hr is cldy / ovrcst, ant is adipole" -type stuff. A lot of English-based stuff - is that sort of an accepted International language? I know that there are variants of morse for other character sets (cyrillic, for example) - I suppose that this might cause a problem too... Remember though, there is a difference between the adz and Morse CW. hehe, the thought makes me chuckle. I look at it more like the way the (Coast Guard?) has a sailed vessl for training on. There are many important things that can be learned, even though those recruits are using really ancient technology. Good point. BTW - grinding mirrors? Now there's something that requires a lot of patience! Wow! It is a tremendous amount of fun for me. I'm kind of an obsessive compulsive person, and I can take out my tendencies on a mirror. Grinding and polishing and testing are so darn much fun, and it's one field where all the fussing pays off in the end. More patience that I have, that's for sure. (or skill...nah, can't be a skill thing..) What I think leads to the decline in use is that it uses a very expensive processor - a human. We've tried to take humans ot of the loop for years now, or at least skilled ones. It is a lot easier to train a person to hit a button and make a copy than it is to teach them something like Morse code. And this manifests itself in other areas than the CW arena. So many people are using microprocessor-controlled, dial & talk radios these days that a big piece of technical ability has been lost there too. Last week, I had some guy tell me to get my rig fixed because it was off frequency by about 20Hz. 20Hz - on my old analog Heath? With that set, I was doing good to be within 100.... The gentleman didn't know if his set had RIT, and was reluctant to QSY 20 Hz to 'correct my problem' - really! Jeez. And that I think is why the ARS can still get away with using Morse CW. Our "wetware" does a superb job of translating the recieved signals, and since this is a hobby/service/avocation, we aren't being paid, so we can continue to economically use Morse/CW. In fact, the economics are the reverse of what everyone elses are. They want to buy a piece of equipment to replace an expensive human, and we already have - indeed are stuck with the human - ourselves, and would have to spend extra money for the needed equipment to work other emergency modes. CW is by far the most economical mode of operation, from an equipment standpoint - no argument there. Progress frequently has significant costs associated, though - look at the millions that the owners of general aviation aircraft will have to spend to replace all of the current 121.5 / 223 MHz analog ELTs with the new digital 406.025 MHz ones! (or, you could gamble and risk not being found for a long, long time if you land off-airport somewhere.....) Costs, as usual, passed down directly to the end user of the service. Of course! - Mike KB3EIA - 73, Leo |
|
#45
October 28th 03, 10:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Leo wrote in message . ..
On 28 Oct 2003 01:17:46 GMT, (N2EY) wrote: Only problem with "200" is that it stops at 1936 and there was never a followup book. If you want a really good history of US amateur radio from the very beginning to almost the present day, google up W2XOY's "Wayback Machine". Excellent history in many chapters. Free for the download. Great articles - thanks! Wish there was a similar series for VE-land... (extra bonus question: what is the significance of that callsign?) Found this reference on Google: Feb. 1, 1939. Broadcasting reports General Electric engineers recently set up two experimental frequency modulation transmitters at Albany and Schenectady, operating on the same frequency. They drove a test car between the two cities and found almost no areas of interference between the stations. The stations were W2XDA Schenectady and W2XOY New Scotland hey, this guy's GOOD! Years ago, here in Canada, there was a special licence class required to operate using the Digital modes (!). This was dropped after only a few years. presumably because it was not demonstrated that there was any real benefit gained from the additional testing of digital proficiency. After all, the idea of a hobby is to be able to experiment and learn those aspects that are of interest or use to the individual! I thought it was dropped because so few applied for it. I recall something like 150 in 4 years. Haven't seen those stats - but seperate testing for Digital modes died out with it! Years ago I suggested here that one way out of the code test argument would be to create a new "Homebrew" class of license. No code test, Extra class written, all privs. Just one special requirement - amateurs with that license class could only use equipment they'd built themselves (except in a genuine emergency). No kits, either. You can imagine how that idea went over. And merely because something is old doesn't make it bad. Look at the way words are spelled... Certainly wasn't connecting 'old' with 'bad', Jim - just an observation that as times change, priorities tend to shift as well. All progress requires change but all change is not progress. Newer is not always better. Some folks hold up "change" as some sort of mantra, saying that we should all accept change without resistance or question. I don't buy it. Try telling the hams who searched for shuttle pieces, or who are right now helping fight the wildfires in California, that it's "a hobby". They might not agree. It's a unique hobby - one where the skills learned and practised within it can be taken out into the community in times of need, to augment the 'professional' emergency services. The emergency and public service aspects take it beyond being purely a "hobby". Is there any value in doing longhand math now? Why should we if we have a calculator? Exactly! Not quite - longhand is still required to be understood before relying on calculators, as it teaches the underlying principles of division (and works without batteries!). How does memorizing tables of addition, subtraction, multiplication and division teach underlying principles? It's just a mechanical skill, right? Memorize the tables, practice the way you are shown. Light-powered four-function calculators have been giveaway items for many years now. Yet we still spend enormous resources teaching children to do basic arithmetic manually - which usually requires pencil and paper anyway. Every single argument used against Morse code can be used against doing basic arithmetic by hand. It is simply a more rigorous method of accomplishing the identical task - but without competence in it, how would you know if the answer the calculator gave you was correct? How often are calculators wrong? How would you check it? Why does it need checking? By that logic, we should resend RTTY messages in Morse to check them. Yes, I know more advanced TOR modes include error detection and correction. So do more advanced calculators. If you are worried about a human typing in the wrong numbers, the same problem occurs with any TOR mode. You would not really understand the mechanics of division. Why is it necessary to do so? CW, in this analogy, is a different animal - more like comparing an abacus to a calculator. I disagree! Morse is like doing manual arithmetic. Direct interaction with the signal, just as manual math is direct interaction with the numbers. No difference. Your whole argument rests on *not* allowing Morse to be analogous to manual arithmetic calculation...yet it is. In skilled hands, an abacus can give you the same answer as a calculator (faster, too - watched a guy do it once!) - but it is outmoded, in a world where calculators are cheap and common.....one would be hard pressed to devise a compelling arguement for teaching the abacus nowadays! The abacus never achieved any great acceptance in western culture. Morse did! And Morse is still widely used by hams. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
#46
October 28th 03, 11:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Leo wrote in message . ..
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 11:53:27 -0500, Mike Coslo wrote: I have been hanging out there receiving transmissions and setting up the equipment. RX works pretty reliably (on my hamfest PK-232). My old analog Heath TX tends to drift too much for reliable RTTY TX at the moment (and maybe forever - still working on it...). It'd be fine for CW, tho...;-) The closest thing I can find to a logical argument is that Morse CW will allow an amateur to communicate with an other amateur in another country who may not share his or her language. This *may* be of some use in an emergency. Will it? Odds aren't all that hot. But here we have one of those opinion things again. I think it is worth the effort, while many others do not. And the odds favor them. Then again, I'm first aid, CPR and defib trained, and will probably (hopefully) never need to use those skills. But if I need them..... With the way thing are going, I'm not sure if I would want to rely on CW for emergency comms - the infrastructure isn't as solid as it was years ago, and will deteriorate further quickly as CW contnues to be dropped as a requirement. Most HF emergency communications by hams is done on SSB - because it's easy to use. But under poor conditions it is sometimes backed up by Morse. As far as communicating with non-English speaking people, I hadn't considered that... Does it work? Is there enough commonality to get a message through? (my Morse so far has been primarily Englosh (not a spelling error ) - example "wx hr is cldy / ovrcst, ant is adipole" -type stuff. A lot of English-based stuff - is that sort of an accepted International language? Most DX hams I've worked pick up enough English to have a basic conversation in Morse. Accents and such aren't an issue. Sure, the same is true with TOR modes, but again they are not so common among the DX. Remember though, there is a difference between the adz and Morse CW. hehe, the thought makes me chuckle. I look at it more like the way the (Coast Guard?) has a sailed vessl for training on. There are many important things that can be learned, even though those recruits are using really ancient technology. Good point. And remember, amateurs have to provide all their own resources. BTW - grinding mirrors? Now there's something that requires a lot of patience! Wow! It is a tremendous amount of fun for me. I'm kind of an obsessive compulsive person, and I can take out my tendencies on a mirror. Grinding and polishing and testing are so darn much fun, and it's one field where all the fussing pays off in the end. More patience that I have, that's for sure. (or skill...nah, can't be a skill thing..) What I think leads to the decline in use is that it uses a very expensive processor - a human. We've tried to take humans ot of the loop for years now, or at least skilled ones. It is a lot easier to train a person to hit a button and make a copy than it is to teach them something like Morse code. And this manifests itself in other areas than the CW arena. So many people are using microprocessor-controlled, dial & talk radios these days that a big piece of technical ability has been lost there too. Which brings up a major factor in anything done by amateurs: is a thing being done for its own sake, or is it a means to an end? In most applications, radio is simply a means to an end. Does someone watching TV really care if the program gets to their set by means of direct broadcast, satellite relay, coax cable, fiber optics, or some other technology? In most cases, the answer is no - all the viewer cares about is getting the program. Same for things like telephone service. Once upon a time terrestrial microwave was the cutting edge technology - then there were satellites - now it's optical fiber, which isn't even "electrical" at all. Indeed, communications satellites are already essentially obsolete for communication between fixed points in most parts of developed countries. Fiber offers much more bandwidth at much less cost. Hams do radio for its own sake - which makes all the difference. Last week, I had some guy tell me to get my rig fixed because it was off frequency by about 20Hz. 20Hz - on my old analog Heath? With that set, I was doing good to be within 100.... The gentleman didn't know if his set had RIT, and was reluctant to QSY 20 Hz to 'correct my problem' - really! Jeez. And what mode was being used when you were told you were 20 Hz off? Bet it wasn't CW! And that I think is why the ARS can still get away with using Morse CW. Our "wetware" does a superb job of translating the recieved signals, and since this is a hobby/service/avocation, we aren't being paid, so we can continue to economically use Morse/CW. In fact, the economics are the reverse of what everyone elses are. They want to buy a piece of equipment to replace an expensive human, and we already have - indeed are stuck with the human - ourselves, and would have to spend extra money for the needed equipment to work other emergency modes. In fact, if the human is eliminated, what's the point? CW is by far the most economical mode of operation, from an equipment standpoint - no argument there. Not just economy but simplicity. How many homebrewers are we going to have if they have to build rigs accurate to less than 20 Hz as first projects? Progress frequently has significant costs associated, though - look at the millions that the owners of general aviation aircraft will have to spend to replace all of the current 121.5 / 223 MHz analog ELTs with the new digital 406.025 MHz ones! (or, you could gamble and risk not being found for a long, long time if you land off-airport somewhere.....) But don't the ELTs have to be replaced every so often anyway? Costs, as usual, passed down directly to the end user of the service. Of course! 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
#47
October 28th 03, 11:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Leo wrote Not sugesting that either be tossed out,
Mike - my comments are related to the relative importance that should be placed on CW, or abacuses (abacii?) in the context of the modern world. Some folks will want to continue to use 'em, for a variety of valid reasons - but they are no longer the primary tools for accomplishing the tasks that they were originally designed for - does that mean that we should insist that everyone gain competence in their operation, whether they intend to use them or not? For what purpose? To accomplish what objective? I don't see it..... When I first became involved in electronics, slide rules were the one absolutely necessary calculation tool owned by every engineer and technician. They were simple, uncomplicated, easy to use (after some period of rather tedious practice), and delightfully low tech. They were the calculation tool-of-choice for over three centuries. Then, as the giant asteroid was to dinosaurs, overnight the $9.95 pocket calculator killed the slide rule. Despite it's ubiquity and utter simplicity the mighty slide rule went extinct in less than a decade! Perhaps somewhere, in a backward company in a backward country without sand from which to make silicon chips, a group of stalwart engineers still treasure their Pickett or K+E slipsticks, and still require a practical examination, down to the third significant digit, of an engineers proficiency, and whether they actually could explain the difference between the CIF and DIF scales. Perhaps some amateur mathematicians still are proficient on slide rules (after all, they haven't been outlawed!). I bet they even hold speed and accuracy contests at a nostalgic "Slippers" convention each spring in Akron, Ohio. Led by the scratchy but firm voices of their oldest club members, Jim 'Bentupcursor' Nichols and Larry Elscale, they close each convention by quoting the 1940's fight song of that bastion of wood-assisted math, Cal Tech: "E-to-the-x du dx, E-to-the-x dx, Cotan secant tangent sine, three point one four one five nine. Square root, cube root, QED Slipstick, slide rule, Hooray! CT!" The next SLIPS newsletter duly reports the resolution of the IEEE BoD to gain legislation to include slide-rule competency testing as a requisite to all engineering degrees, except those seeking 2-year Stickless Technician degrees. Regular Technicians will require 5CPM (Calculation Per Minute) exams, BSEE will require 13CPM, and MSEE will require a 20CPM exam. On another front, when I first became involved in amateur radio, Morse code was the one absolutely necessary communications mode used by every ham. It was simple, uncomplicated, easy to use (after some period of rather tedious practice) and delightfully low tech. It was the communications mode-of-choice for over three generations. Then, as the giant asteroid was to dinosaurs, overnight.......... 73, de Hans, K0HB/4ID ~~~ "Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way." -- Bokonon ~~~ |
|
#48
October 29th 03, 12:18 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#49
October 29th 03, 06:29 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
