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

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


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


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 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?

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

wrote in news:1109065656.859950.28030
@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:


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



I think we can agree to differ on that last point.

As a matter of fact, even directly after passing the US 20wpm test I
couldn't have passed the UK 12wpm test.

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.

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. 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.

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. 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. 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? 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 .

73 de Alun

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

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

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

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

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

"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.

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!