Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() Alun L. Palmer wrote: wrote in news:1109009984.323422.143080 @o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com: snip Yeah, for me too! 6 months of daily studying, one failed test, and finally passing it. I think that my brain processes audio differently than does those people with normal hearing. I have not posted this point for a long time, as it provokes extreme reactions from the pro code test lobby, but I can beat your 6 months. It took me 22 years. The most extreme reactions I see are those of a few anticode types. Not you, Alun. Can you honestly wonder that I feel the way I do? Why did it take 22 years? I'm not sure I really know I gather that it was a lot of stops and starts, not 22 years of constant effort. And didn't you wind up passing the 20 wpm test? Yes, that's true. Once you get over about 11-12 wpm it's not much harder to get to 20 Which says to me it was more a matter of training method than of the subject matter being "hard". If it wasn't a hazing process, then I'm a Dutchman Don't take it personally! Some people learn Morse pretty easily, and for some it is hard. Is it a hazing process if it is easy? Same goes for the writtens. Exactly! Some people have a very hard time with math. Others with rote memorization of things like band edges. I can assure you that no group of Hams ever sat down and said "Let's give this Coslo guy a rough time and make him learn Morse code". As a guy who can't "hear" people unless he can see the mouth of the person speaking, I have just a little trouble figuring out the problem with normal people for which the test is too hard to make it worth getting a license. But it is! Witness all those who are dropping off the ranks when their license expires. I predict the next tack of the NCI's is that not allowing the codeless Techs HF access is why they aren't renewing their license. Certainly that must be true of some of them. What proportion, I couldn't say. That would certainly be an interesting outlook for a person. Let us say that a person became a ham in 1994, and has a combined intense interest in operation below 30 MHz, and deep seated conviction against Morse code testing, leading to refusal to take the Element 1 test. Somehow doesn't ring true. It was true enough of me, although I became a no-code ham in 1980 (in the UK), more or less in defeat at having tried unsuccessfully to learn Morse code ever since 1970, and passed a code test in 1992. Getting a no-code licence was something I only did because I was resigned to not getting the HF access that I wanted. It was a case of thinking it was silly to stay off the air altogether just because I couldn't get on HF, and it took me a long time, i.e. 10 years, to grudgingly reach that conclusion. WHat were the tesrt requirements in the UK then? Here in the USA, the Novice and Tech were 5 wpm in that time period. 12 wpm random groups with 96% copy The US requirements for hams have never been anywhere near so stringent. The *toughest* they ever were was 1 minute solid copy out of 5 minutes - plain language. 5, 13 and 20 wpm. That's 20% accuracy! About 20-25 years ago, fill-in-the-blank and multiple choice were added. Eventually passing the code test was helped by software that didn't exist back in 1970, and the help of dear friends who took turns to send slow CW transmissions several times a week that I knew were being done mainly just for my benefit. Sure, others tuned in, but they stopped sending them when I passed! I owe them a great deal. Code training software for PCs was common here in EPA by the early 1980s. I still have old copies that run on DOS 3.2.. In the 1970s and 1980s, HF was full of non-amateur Morse operation. And the now-changed treaty required code tests. Here's another interesting fact. I was teaching ham radio classes for years before I passed the bleeping code! If none of this rings true, I can assure that every word is the truth. But why did it take you so long, Alun? What study methods did you use? Early on, mainly just listening to slow Morse transmissions And then what? And if the test were only 5 wpm, and you had a choice of 1 minute solid copy or fill-in-the-blank with 70% being the passing grade, how long would it have taken you to learn enough to pass the test? And note that here in the USA, full privileges have been available with just a 5 wpm code test *since 1990*. Of course a medical waiver was needed before 2000, but all such a waiver required was a simple letter from a medical doctor. As I said, all of this has been posted here before, but not recently. My own history hasn't proved as effective as an argument as simply pointing out that none of the arguments in favour of retaining code testing hold as much water as a leaky bucket! Apply you anticodetest arguments to the written tests. Tell us why most of the written tests must remain. Heck, NCVEC is already trying to trash the writtens even more... Is it *really* so unreasonable to require Element 1? Particularly considering the training aids and accomodations now available? 73 de Jim, N2EY 5wpm isn't very fast, but why is it required to operate phone? A couple of reasons: For the same reason hams have to pass written *theory* tests to use *manufactured* rigs with no critical tuneup adjustments. For the same reason hams have to pass written tests on VHF/UHF to operate HF, high-power RF exposure questions to operate QRP, etc. And because code is a big part of amateur radio, and a ham who doesn't know any just isn't fully qualified. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() Alun L. Palmer wrote: wrote in news:1109065656.859950.28030 @z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com: Alun L. Palmer wrote: wrote in news:1109009984.323422.143080 @o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com: snip 5wpm isn't very fast, but why is it required to operate phone? A couple of reasons: For the same reason hams have to pass written *theory* tests to use *manufactured* rigs with no critical tuneup adjustments. For the same reason hams have to pass written tests on VHF/UHF to operate HF, high-power RF exposure questions to operate QRP, etc. And because code is a big part of amateur radio, and a ham who doesn't know any just isn't fully qualified. 73 de Jim, N2EY I think we can agree to differ on that last point. Perhaps. Do you agree that Morse code is a big part of amateur radio? Not that it needs a test, but just that it is a big part of today's amateur radio, particularly on HF? As a matter of fact, even directly after passing the US 20wpm test I couldn't have passed the UK 12wpm test. Perhaps. But I thought we were discussing *US* code test requirements. 5wpm is not too difficult, especially the way it is tested in the US, but until recently it only gave access to the 'novice' subbands in the US, all of which except for 10m didn't allow phone. From my PoV, it would only have given me 10m at that time. I never took 5. Since 1990 it has been possible to get an Extra (or any other HF-privileges amateur radio license) with just the 5 wpm code test and a waiver. 15 years - hardly "recently". I probably could have passed 5 when I came to the US, but I simply didn't realise how much easier the tests were here. Thinking it would have been as hard as a UK test I didn't bother to take it. The test procedures here aren't secret. Never were. I was operating above 30MHz on a 610A permit, and when the 'no code' licence was introduced I decided to get a US call. Having 'aced' the Novice and I think dropped one question in the Tech paper, I was given the General paper, for which I hadn't looked at the syllabus or question pool atall, and I passed that. Ditto the Advanced, but they didn't have a spare Extra paper. None of this really surprised me, as the UK B licence had the same theory as the A licence, and I have an EE degree anyway, but it surprised the VEs. Why should it? The US writtens were *never* very hard - if you knew a little radio and some regs. Back in 1968 I went for General at the FCC office in early summer. Did not pass 13 wpm code because the examiner couldn't read my longhand. Got credit for 5 wpm, took the written (which was same as General back then), walked out with a Tech. Could not use the new privs until the actual license arrived in the mail, though. Went home, taught myself Signal-Corps-method block printing and more practice until I could do 18 wpm W1AW bulletins solid. Went back and passed 13 wpm code easily, sending and receiving. Then the examiner says "why not try Advanced while you're here?". Now in those days the Advanced was supposedly the toughest of the writtens, with all sorts of math and circuits and such. But one did not say No to The Man, so I tried, with zero preparation. Passed easily and wound up with Advanced instead of General. That was back before question pools, Bash books and computerized practice tests. Didn't have an EE back then either - I was 14 years old and it was the summer between 8th and 9th grades. Two years later I went back to get the Extra. Would have been sooner but in those days you had to have two years experience as General or Advanced to even *try* the Extra. This gave me 12 months to pass 13wpm if I didn't want to have to take the General and Advanced theory again. With the help of computer software and slow Morse transmissions I did it in six months. Bingo. How long do you think it would have taken to get to 5 wpm, tested the way the USA does? Note that Mike got there in that amount of time from scratch even with hearing problems, and it took me that long when I wasn't starting from the beginning, and there's no problem with my hearing. Also, I had a relay of all the VEs sending code on 2m five nights a week. They saw it a a challenge to teach me code. I almost passed 20, but I had to come back a couple of months later. To get up to 13wpm meant copying whole characters instead of dits and dahs, no matter how easy the type of test. OK, so that's gone, but that means the remaining Element 1 doesn't test the ability to copy complete characters, so on the one hand it's relatively easy, but on the other hand it's pointless. Not at all. If the code uses Farnsworth spacing, you copy characters, not dits and dahs. This isn't anything new - W1AW has been sending code practice that way since at least 1966 (first time I heard it, anyway). Why preserve a test that doesn't test an adequate level of a skill as a requirement for access to a particular part of the spectrum, when there's no requirement to use that skill anyway? Same reason for written tests. Do the writtens guarantee that all who pass can design/build/modify/repair/operate all amateur equipment they are authorized to use? Or do they test basic knowledge? 5 wpm is basic Morse skill, that's all. Why is it too much to ask? Tradition? That's a weak reason, but it seems to be the only one. Sure, 40% of HF may be CW, but I can (and do) operate 100% phone . And my HF operation is 99% CW on 80/40/20, with 100 watts or less output, yet I had to learn all kinds of stuff about high power, 'phone modes, RTTY, SSTV, other HF bands, VHF/UHF, etc. Most of that knowledge I've never needed, and some of it (like band edges) has changed since I took the test. So why did I have to learn all that in the first place, just to operate a QRP rig on 7015 CW? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
#5
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
wrote in news:1109088706.576066.237160
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com: Alun L. Palmer wrote: wrote in news:1109065656.859950.28030 @z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com: Alun L. Palmer wrote: wrote in news:1109009984.323422.143080 @o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com: snip 5wpm isn't very fast, but why is it required to operate phone? A couple of reasons: For the same reason hams have to pass written *theory* tests to use *manufactured* rigs with no critical tuneup adjustments. For the same reason hams have to pass written tests on VHF/UHF to operate HF, high-power RF exposure questions to operate QRP, etc. And because code is a big part of amateur radio, and a ham who doesn't know any just isn't fully qualified. 73 de Jim, N2EY I think we can agree to differ on that last point. Perhaps. Do you agree that Morse code is a big part of amateur radio? Not that it needs a test, but just that it is a big part of today's amateur radio, particularly on HF? As a matter of fact, even directly after passing the US 20wpm test I couldn't have passed the UK 12wpm test. Perhaps. But I thought we were discussing *US* code test requirements. 5wpm is not too difficult, especially the way it is tested in the US, but until recently it only gave access to the 'novice' subbands in the US, all of which except for 10m didn't allow phone. From my PoV, it would only have given me 10m at that time. I never took 5. Since 1990 it has been possible to get an Extra (or any other HF-privileges amateur radio license) with just the 5 wpm code test and a waiver. 15 years - hardly "recently". I probably could have passed 5 when I came to the US, but I simply didn't realise how much easier the tests were here. Thinking it would have been as hard as a UK test I didn't bother to take it. The test procedures here aren't secret. Never were. I was operating above 30MHz on a 610A permit, and when the 'no code' licence was introduced I decided to get a US call. Having 'aced' the Novice and I think dropped one question in the Tech paper, I was given the General paper, for which I hadn't looked at the syllabus or question pool atall, and I passed that. Ditto the Advanced, but they didn't have a spare Extra paper. None of this really surprised me, as the UK B licence had the same theory as the A licence, and I have an EE degree anyway, but it surprised the VEs. Why should it? The US writtens were *never* very hard - if you knew a little radio and some regs. Back in 1968 I went for General at the FCC office in early summer. Did not pass 13 wpm code because the examiner couldn't read my longhand. Got credit for 5 wpm, took the written (which was same as General back then), walked out with a Tech. Could not use the new privs until the actual license arrived in the mail, though. Went home, taught myself Signal-Corps-method block printing and more practice until I could do 18 wpm W1AW bulletins solid. Went back and passed 13 wpm code easily, sending and receiving. Then the examiner says "why not try Advanced while you're here?". Now in those days the Advanced was supposedly the toughest of the writtens, with all sorts of math and circuits and such. But one did not say No to The Man, so I tried, with zero preparation. Passed easily and wound up with Advanced instead of General. That was back before question pools, Bash books and computerized practice tests. Didn't have an EE back then either - I was 14 years old and it was the summer between 8th and 9th grades. Two years later I went back to get the Extra. Would have been sooner but in those days you had to have two years experience as General or Advanced to even *try* the Extra. This gave me 12 months to pass 13wpm if I didn't want to have to take the General and Advanced theory again. With the help of computer software and slow Morse transmissions I did it in six months. Bingo. How long do you think it would have taken to get to 5 wpm, tested the way the USA does? Note that Mike got there in that amount of time from scratch even with hearing problems, and it took me that long when I wasn't starting from the beginning, and there's no problem with my hearing. Also, I had a relay of all the VEs sending code on 2m five nights a week. They saw it a a challenge to teach me code. I almost passed 20, but I had to come back a couple of months later. To get up to 13wpm meant copying whole characters instead of dits and dahs, no matter how easy the type of test. OK, so that's gone, but that means the remaining Element 1 doesn't test the ability to copy complete characters, so on the one hand it's relatively easy, but on the other hand it's pointless. Not at all. If the code uses Farnsworth spacing, you copy characters, not dits and dahs. This isn't anything new - W1AW has been sending code practice that way since at least 1966 (first time I heard it, anyway). Why preserve a test that doesn't test an adequate level of a skill as a requirement for access to a particular part of the spectrum, when there's no requirement to use that skill anyway? Same reason for written tests. Do the writtens guarantee that all who pass can design/build/modify/repair/operate all amateur equipment they are authorized to use? Or do they test basic knowledge? 5 wpm is basic Morse skill, that's all. Why is it too much to ask? Tradition? That's a weak reason, but it seems to be the only one. Sure, 40% of HF may be CW, but I can (and do) operate 100% phone . And my HF operation is 99% CW on 80/40/20, with 100 watts or less output, yet I had to learn all kinds of stuff about high power, 'phone modes, RTTY, SSTV, other HF bands, VHF/UHF, etc. Most of that knowledge I've never needed, and some of it (like band edges) has changed since I took the test. So why did I have to learn all that in the first place, just to operate a QRP rig on 7015 CW? 73 de Jim, N2EY I'm not sure this is getting us anywhere. This is all old ground. 73 de Alun, N3KIP |
#6
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() Alun L. Palmer wrote: wrote in news:1109088706.576066.237160 @f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com: Alun L. Palmer wrote: wrote in news:1109065656.859950.28030 @z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com: Alun L. Palmer wrote: wrote in news:1109009984.323422.143080 @o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com: snip 5wpm isn't very fast, but why is it required to operate phone? A couple of reasons: For the same reason hams have to pass written *theory* tests to use *manufactured* rigs with no critical tuneup adjustments. For the same reason hams have to pass written tests on VHF/UHF to operate HF, high-power RF exposure questions to operate QRP, etc. And because code is a big part of amateur radio, and a ham who doesn't know any just isn't fully qualified. 73 de Jim, N2EY I think we can agree to differ on that last point. Perhaps. Do you agree that Morse code is a big part of amateur radio? Not that it needs a test, but just that it is a big part of today's amateur radio, particularly on HF? Well? Agreeing that something is a big part of amateur radio does *not* mean that something deserves its own stand-alone test. As a matter of fact, even directly after passing the US 20wpm test I couldn't have passed the UK 12wpm test. Perhaps. But I thought we were discussing *US* code test requirements. 5wpm is not too difficult, especially the way it is tested in the US, but until recently it only gave access to the 'novice' subbands in the US, all of which except for 10m didn't allow phone. From my PoV, it would only have given me 10m at that time. I never took 5. Since 1990 it has been possible to get an Extra (or any other HF-privileges amateur radio license) with just the 5 wpm code test and a waiver. 15 years - hardly "recently". I probably could have passed 5 when I came to the US, but I simply didn't realise how much easier the tests were here. Thinking it would have been as hard as a UK test I didn't bother to take it. The test procedures here aren't secret. Never were. I was operating above 30MHz on a 610A permit, and when the 'no code' licence was introduced I decided to get a US call. Having 'aced' the Novice and I think dropped one question in the Tech paper, I was given the General paper, for which I hadn't looked at the syllabus or question pool atall, and I passed that. Ditto the Advanced, but they didn't have a spare Extra paper. None of this really surprised me, as the UK B licence had the same theory as the A licence, and I have an EE degree anyway, but it surprised the VEs. Why should it? The US writtens were *never* very hard - if you knew a little radio and some regs. Back in 1968 I went for General at the FCC office in early summer. Did not pass 13 wpm code because the examiner couldn't read my longhand. Got credit for 5 wpm, took the written (which was same as General back then), walked out with a Tech. Could not use the new privs until the actual license arrived in the mail, though. Went home, taught myself Signal-Corps-method block printing and more practice until I could do 18 wpm W1AW bulletins solid. Went back and passed 13 wpm code easily, sending and receiving. Then the examiner says "why not try Advanced while you're here?". Now in those days the Advanced was supposedly the toughest of the writtens, with all sorts of math and circuits and such. But one did not say No to The Man, so I tried, with zero preparation. Passed easily and wound up with Advanced instead of General. That was back before question pools, Bash books and computerized practice tests. Didn't have an EE back then either - I was 14 years old and it was the summer between 8th and 9th grades. Two years later I went back to get the Extra. Would have been sooner but in those days you had to have two years experience as General or Advanced to even *try* the Extra. This gave me 12 months to pass 13wpm if I didn't want to have to take the General and Advanced theory again. With the help of computer software and slow Morse transmissions I did it in six months. Bingo. How long do you think it would have taken *you* to get to 5 wpm, tested the way the USA does? Hmm? Note that Mike got there in that amount of time from scratch even with hearing problems, and it took me that long when I wasn't starting from the beginning, and there's no problem with my hearing. Also, I had a relay of all the VEs sending code on 2m five nights a week. They saw it a a challenge to teach me code. I almost passed 20, but I had to come back a couple of months later. To get up to 13wpm meant copying whole characters instead of dits and dahs, no matter how easy the type of test. OK, so that's gone, but that means the remaining Element 1 doesn't test the ability to copy complete characters, so on the one hand it's relatively easy, but on the other hand it's pointless. Not at all. If the code uses Farnsworth spacing, you copy characters, not dits and dahs. This isn't anything new - W1AW has been sending code practice that way since at least 1966 (first time I heard it, anyway). Why preserve a test that doesn't test an adequate level of a skill as a requirement for access to a particular part of the spectrum, when there's no requirement to use that skill anyway? Same reason for written tests. Do the writtens guarantee that all who pass can design/build/modify/repair/operate all amateur equipment they are authorized to use? Or do they test basic knowledge? 5 wpm is basic Morse skill, that's all. Why is it too much to ask? I think that one major reason some people are so against the code test is that it isn't something you can learn by reading a book or watching a video. Tradition? That's a weak reason, but it seems to be the only one. Sure, 40% of HF may be CW, but I can (and do) operate 100% phone . And my HF operation is 99% CW on 80/40/20, with 100 watts or less output, yet I had to learn all kinds of stuff about high power, 'phone modes, RTTY, SSTV, other HF bands, VHF/UHF, etc. Most of that knowledge I've never needed, and some of it (like band edges) has changed since I took the test. So why did I have to learn all that in the first place, just to operate a QRP rig on 7015 CW? 73 de Jim, N2EY I'm not sure this is getting us anywhere. This is all old ground. Let's boil it down to basics: Your argument is that nobody should have to learn Knowledge A in order to do Activity B if Activity B can be done without Knowledge A. In this case Knowledge A = basic Morse skill, Activity B = amateur radio HF phone The problem is that if you accept that reasoning, you must logically a accept a lot mo Knowledge A = radio theory, Activity B = operate modern manufactured rig Knowledge A = limits of Band X, Activity B = operate on Band Y Knowledge A = SSB theory, Activity B = operate Morse Knowledge A = high power RF exposure safety, Activity B = operate QRP and much more. Despite all the colorful false analogies with buggywhips and such, no one has been able to show why the above arguments don't follow. In fact, the NCVEC proposal takes it to that level, not only dumping code testing but further watering down the *written* requirements to an almost absurd level. Do you think NCVEC has the right idea? Suppose someone proposed to eliminate the Extra and Advanced class licenses, give those hams Generals - and give all Generals full privileges. And suppose the proposal argued that since a General was qualified to use all modes, bands and power levels allowed to Advanceds and Extras, there was no need for the two higher level license classes. How would you counter that argument? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
#7
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
wrote in news:1109166707.942384.171130
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com: Alun L. Palmer wrote: wrote in news:1109088706.576066.237160 @f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com: Alun L. Palmer wrote: wrote in news:1109065656.859950.28030 @z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com: Alun L. Palmer wrote: wrote in news:1109009984.323422.143080 @o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com: snip 5wpm isn't very fast, but why is it required to operate phone? A couple of reasons: For the same reason hams have to pass written *theory* tests to use *manufactured* rigs with no critical tuneup adjustments. For the same reason hams have to pass written tests on VHF/UHF to operate HF, high-power RF exposure questions to operate QRP, etc. And because code is a big part of amateur radio, and a ham who doesn't know any just isn't fully qualified. 73 de Jim, N2EY I think we can agree to differ on that last point. Perhaps. Do you agree that Morse code is a big part of amateur radio? Not that it needs a test, but just that it is a big part of today's amateur radio, particularly on HF? Well? Agreeing that something is a big part of amateur radio does *not* mean that something deserves its own stand-alone test. It's maybe about 40% of HF, so I suppose it's big enough. As a matter of fact, even directly after passing the US 20wpm test I couldn't have passed the UK 12wpm test. Perhaps. But I thought we were discussing *US* code test requirements. 5wpm is not too difficult, especially the way it is tested in the US, but until recently it only gave access to the 'novice' subbands in the US, all of which except for 10m didn't allow phone. From my PoV, it would only have given me 10m at that time. I never took 5. Since 1990 it has been possible to get an Extra (or any other HF-privileges amateur radio license) with just the 5 wpm code test and a waiver. 15 years - hardly "recently". I probably could have passed 5 when I came to the US, but I simply didn't realise how much easier the tests were here. Thinking it would have been as hard as a UK test I didn't bother to take it. The test procedures here aren't secret. Never were. I was operating above 30MHz on a 610A permit, and when the 'no code' licence was introduced I decided to get a US call. Having 'aced' the Novice and I think dropped one question in the Tech paper, I was given the General paper, for which I hadn't looked at the syllabus or question pool atall, and I passed that. Ditto the Advanced, but they didn't have a spare Extra paper. None of this really surprised me, as the UK B licence had the same theory as the A licence, and I have an EE degree anyway, but it surprised the VEs. Why should it? The US writtens were *never* very hard - if you knew a little radio and some regs. Back in 1968 I went for General at the FCC office in early summer. Did not pass 13 wpm code because the examiner couldn't read my longhand. Got credit for 5 wpm, took the written (which was same as General back then), walked out with a Tech. Could not use the new privs until the actual license arrived in the mail, though. Went home, taught myself Signal-Corps-method block printing and more practice until I could do 18 wpm W1AW bulletins solid. Went back and passed 13 wpm code easily, sending and receiving. Then the examiner says "why not try Advanced while you're here?". Now in those days the Advanced was supposedly the toughest of the writtens, with all sorts of math and circuits and such. But one did not say No to The Man, so I tried, with zero preparation. Passed easily and wound up with Advanced instead of General. That was back before question pools, Bash books and computerized practice tests. Didn't have an EE back then either - I was 14 years old and it was the summer between 8th and 9th grades. Two years later I went back to get the Extra. Would have been sooner but in those days you had to have two years experience as General or Advanced to even *try* the Extra. This gave me 12 months to pass 13wpm if I didn't want to have to take the General and Advanced theory again. With the help of computer software and slow Morse transmissions I did it in six months. Bingo. How long do you think it would have taken *you* to get to 5 wpm, tested the way the USA does? Hmm? I think that's probably about where I was when I came here in '89, so I could just say 19 years. I suppose you would have to knock something off that as I had been stuck at that level for a while! Note that Mike got there in that amount of time from scratch even with hearing problems, and it took me that long when I wasn't starting from the beginning, and there's no problem with my hearing. Also, I had a relay of all the VEs sending code on 2m five nights a week. They saw it a a challenge to teach me code. I almost passed 20, but I had to come back a couple of months later. To get up to 13wpm meant copying whole characters instead of dits and dahs, no matter how easy the type of test. OK, so that's gone, but that means the remaining Element 1 doesn't test the ability to copy complete characters, so on the one hand it's relatively easy, but on the other hand it's pointless. Not at all. If the code uses Farnsworth spacing, you copy characters, not dits and dahs. This isn't anything new - W1AW has been sending code practice that way since at least 1966 (first time I heard it, anyway). Why preserve a test that doesn't test an adequate level of a skill as a requirement for access to a particular part of the spectrum, when there's no requirement to use that skill anyway? Same reason for written tests. Do the writtens guarantee that all who pass can design/build/modify/repair/operate all amateur equipment they are authorized to use? Or do they test basic knowledge? 5 wpm is basic Morse skill, that's all. Why is it too much to ask? I think that one major reason some people are so against the code test is that it isn't something you can learn by reading a book or watching a video. Tradition? That's a weak reason, but it seems to be the only one. Sure, 40% of HF may be CW, but I can (and do) operate 100% phone . And my HF operation is 99% CW on 80/40/20, with 100 watts or less output, yet I had to learn all kinds of stuff about high power, 'phone modes, RTTY, SSTV, other HF bands, VHF/UHF, etc. Most of that knowledge I've never needed, and some of it (like band edges) has changed since I took the test. So why did I have to learn all that in the first place, just to operate a QRP rig on 7015 CW? 73 de Jim, N2EY I'm not sure this is getting us anywhere. This is all old ground. Let's boil it down to basics: Your argument is that nobody should have to learn Knowledge A in order to do Activity B if Activity B can be done without Knowledge A. In this case Knowledge A = basic Morse skill, Activity B = amateur radio HF phone The problem is that if you accept that reasoning, you must logically a accept a lot mo Knowledge A = radio theory, Activity B = operate modern manufactured rig Knowledge A = limits of Band X, Activity B = operate on Band Y Knowledge A = SSB theory, Activity B = operate Morse Knowledge A = high power RF exposure safety, Activity B = operate QRP and much more. Despite all the colorful false analogies with buggywhips and such, no one has been able to show why the above arguments don't follow. In fact, the NCVEC proposal takes it to that level, not only dumping code testing but further watering down the *written* requirements to an almost absurd level. Do you think NCVEC has the right idea? Suppose someone proposed to eliminate the Extra and Advanced class licenses, give those hams Generals - and give all Generals full privileges. And suppose the proposal argued that since a General was qualified to use all modes, bands and power levels allowed to Advanceds and Extras, there was no need for the two higher level license classes. How would you counter that argument? 73 de Jim, N2EY Just the same way I did before when discussing it with you, Jim (shades of deja vu?). The Morse test is a skill test, and all the others are theory tests. I have no objection to theory tests on all aspects of the hobby, including Morse code. That would be a balanced approach. 73 de Alun, N3KIP |
#8
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() wrote in message ups.com... Alun L. Palmer wrote: [snip] 12 wpm random groups with 96% copy The US requirements for hams have never been anywhere near so stringent. The *toughest* they ever were was 1 minute solid copy out of 5 minutes - plain language. 5, 13 and 20 wpm. That's 20% accuracy! About 20-25 years ago, fill-in-the-blank and multiple choice were added. Multiple choice exams are no longer allowed for element 1. It's too easy to guess the answer if you have even minimal copy. As I recall when I took my 20wpm, I was able to successfully deduce that the only possible answer out of the choices offered was Switzerland. The only letter that I had copied was the W. Some of us were too good at deduction and guessing. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
#9
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Dee Flint" wrote in
: wrote in message ups.com... Alun L. Palmer wrote: [snip] 12 wpm random groups with 96% copy The US requirements for hams have never been anywhere near so stringent. The *toughest* they ever were was 1 minute solid copy out of 5 minutes - plain language. 5, 13 and 20 wpm. That's 20% accuracy! About 20-25 years ago, fill-in-the-blank and multiple choice were added. Multiple choice exams are no longer allowed for element 1. It's too easy to guess the answer if you have even minimal copy. As I recall when I took my 20wpm, I was able to successfully deduce that the only possible answer out of the choices offered was Switzerland. The only letter that I had copied was the W. Some of us were too good at deduction and guessing. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE That's how I passed. Never said I was any good at Morse, quite the opposite in fact. I found that 70% copy was good enough for 7/10 multiple guess. If there hadn't been multiple guess I would never have passed 20wpm, for sure. When you're asked was the operator's name Hank, Frank, Bert or Gert, and you copy _ANK you have got the 50/50 like on Who Wants to be a Millionaire on TV. The other trick that I assume still works is listening for .. ,,, (IS), which precedes every answer. Name is _____, Ant is _____. And another thing. Copy IS Y____ and you know that either the rig is a Yeasu or the antenna is a Yagi, and if you know how many characters came after the Y, you know which of those is right. I miss the beginnings of words, but I know that ____OOD is Kenwood. It's still Kenwood even if you miss the D but just copy the OO. I approached it like a crossword puzzle. I couldn't make a minute solid copy at 20wpm to save my life. |
#10
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Jim, , wrote on Tues, Feb 22 2005 1:47 am
Alun L. Palmer wrote: wrote in news:1109009984.323422.143080 @o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com: 5wpm isn't very fast, but why is it required to operate phone? A couple of reasons: For the same reason hams have to pass written *theory* tests to use *manufactured* rigs with no critical tuneup adjustments. 1. The FCC decided it needed to test radio amateurs as part of their task of regulating all U.S. civil radio. 2. The VEC Question Pool Committee decides WHAT the questions are; FCC only specifies a total number and the percentage correct for passing. 3. Any other reason is meaningless... ;-) For the same reason hams have to pass written tests on VHF/UHF to operate HF, high-power RF exposure questions to operate QRP, etc. FCC doesn't mandate morse code skill as being necessary to operate about 30 MHz. Technician class licensees don't have to take morse code tests and they are banished to the radioland above 30 MHz. And because code is a big part of amateur radio, and a ham who doesn't know any just isn't fully qualified. " F U L L Y Q U A L I F I E D ! " G o t t a l o v e i t ! Olde tymers had to test for morse..."ergo," newbies have to test for morse code!!! Excellence in U.S. amateur radio is all about morse code ability!!!! "Real" hams are MORSEMEN! U.S. radio amateurs are the keepers of the living museum of morsemanship! [all other radio services have given up on morse code for main communications] Olde tyme hamme morsemen need playmates. Keep the test to subsidize the "CW" playground for the olde tymers! Screw the newbies to HF...MAKE them learn code to please the elitist olde tymers! |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Your Sing, Africa, ReSpirit the World | Shortwave | |||
IBRA Radio B04 | Shortwave | |||
Channel Africa A04 | Shortwave | |||
Channel Africa A04 | Shortwave | |||
( OT ) Quite a bit... ;-) | Shortwave |