Len:

Unfortunately, the only things more dead than CW is the brain dead
amateurs too dumb to stop sounding ignorant, I mean, before they opened
their mouths (or fingers on the keyboard) we only wondered, now we know,
having been shown time and time again... frown

John

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 15:23:00 -0700, wrote:

From: W2DNE on Aug 27, 6:58 am

....why do the US Army Field Manuals provide instructions for setting up
SINGCARS-V radios in CW mode?

https://atiam.train.army.mil/soldier...iew/public/479...

Answer: THEY DO NOT for manual radiotelegraphy ("morse code").

FM 24-18 is a basic PRIMER on radio communications, an introductory
text which has been around for at least three decades. The version
approved for public distribution is dated 30 Sep 87, superseding
the one for 13 Dec 84. Much of the equipment mentioned is OBSOLETE
now and has been for decade(s). The AN/GRC-26D, for example, (an
HF station in a hut on the bed of a 2 1/2 ton truck) dates back to
the first half of the 1950s! The AN/PRC-70 manpack HF set went bye-
bye in the 1980s, replaced with the AN/PRC-104 designed by Hughes
Aircraft Ground Division.

There is NO "SINCGARS-V" in the U.S. military. You are confusing
"single-channel" as in one set, one operator, with the SINCGARS
family of SINgle Channel Ground Air Radio System that begins with
the manpack AN/PRC-119 (first operational 1989) and continues on
through two ground/vehicular versions (using same R/T) and two
airborne avionics versions. Just as the AN/PRC-77 replaced the
AN/PRC-25 VHF portable FM transceiver, the frequency-hopping
digitized voice/data (with selectable COMSEC internal) AN/PRC-119
replaced the PRC-77. The PRC-25 and PRC-77 were both used in the
Vietnam War that ended 30 years ago. The SINCGARS family is
perhaps the most produced of any military radio communications set
with 250 Thousand produced and fielded between 1989 and end of
2003 by ITT Fort Wayne, IN, and General Dynamics Ground Division
(now dissolved) in Florida. The PRC-119 is expected to be replaced
by the PRC-150 designed and built by Harris Corporation, NY.

SINCGARS sets, along with nearly every HF-VHF-UHF radio set designed
and built since WW2, have provisions for remote operation through
various interface-control equipments. When remote operation talks
about "CW" they do NOT mean manual radiotelegraphy as is common
in radio amateur parlance. "CW" in the military manual sense is
control over the basic CARRIER transmission. In actual practice
SINCGARS is used in small-unit operations (a few vehicles, squads)
and many may be in the same radio-range area but "separated" (non-
interference operation) by their digital/frequency-hopping option.
SINCGARS sets, manpack through airborne, have NO provision for
connecting any manual "morse code" key or sending any "morse code"
radiotelegraphy signals.

The U.S. military does NOT teach any manual radiotelegraphy skills
for communications purposes. It does teach radiotelegraphy
cognition for ELINT intercept-analysis as part of four MOSs for
Military Intelligence operations at the M.I. School in Fort
Huachuca, AZ.

FM 24-18 is a fairly good introductory handbook on radio for anyone
who wishes to learn basic radio facts and radio wave propagation
along with several types of antennas. It is a free download through
the Army Training and Doctrine Digital Library (in the given link)
and may be copied from military CDs containing Field and Techmical
Manuals (not fully public distribution) through LOGSA (LOGistics
Supply Agency). In particular, the "nevis" (pronounced version of
NVIS or Near Vertical Incidence Skywave) techniques used by U.S.
land forces radio since the 1970s; known colloquially as "cloud
burners" by amateurs.

Manual radiotelegraphy for communications is essentially "dead" for
every other U.S. radio service...except amateur radio. Accept that
and carry on. As you were...

Jim:

Did you have a job where you were paid to state the obvious, or is this a
new career for you? A mental disorder? A fad?

hmmmmm......

John

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 21:38:43 +0000, Jim Hampton wrote:


"John Smith" wrote in message
news
Mike:

Text-to-speech and speech-to-text should be thought of in the same way as
the internet in regards to the pony-express or the US Postal System...

While in the future there will be keyboards, it would make as much sense
to use them as attempting to participate in this newsgroup via us postal
mail--worse, get someone on horseback to deliver your post!

... some adapt easier than others ...

John


Hello, John

It is all a matter of the proper tool at the proper time. Sure, you can
order a new computer via the Internet, but the Internet cannot deliver it.
They you go to the post office or UPS.

One tool doesn't work for everything LOL.


73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA

Nobody ever claimed that it is a dead mode. Model Ts aren't dead.
Tailwheel airplanes aren't dead. Neither is CW.

However, the driver's license test doesn't include hand-cranking Model T
engines, nor does the airplane certificate test include 3-point landings in
tailwheel airplanes. Why hang on to an obsolete technology on the EXAM for
those who choose not to participate in the obsolete mode?

Moreover, there aren't special lanes on the road for Model Ts, nor are there
special runways for tailwheel airplanes. Why are there special segments of
the band for CW. Makes no sense to me.


Jim



"Dan/W4NTI" wrote in message
k.net...

Not bad for a dead mode, eh?

Hello, John

One thing that I hadn't thought of is Windows and Linux/Unix. Just wait
until the unthinkable happens and you get dropped into the command line
interface. Then you either know what you are doing and start typing, or you
drop in the bootable cdrom, reboot, reformat, and start over.

Been there, worn that t-shirt LOL.


Best regards from Rochester, NY
Jim



"John Smith" wrote in message
news
Jim:

Yes, I thought "typing by touch" was a given, I thought it a waste of time
in mentioning to anyone using a keyboard...

However, once it is necessary to present the blind with text-to-speech it
is only obvious they can make excellent use of speech-to-text--especially
since the text is usually spelled back to them for checking...

We used to have a blind coder at a kernel driver shop I worked for, that
was ten years ago, and he was using the both engines... I don't even have
a concept of how far all that has advanced in a decade.

But, I take it for granted, the only reason I am still using a keyboard is
because of my religious devotion to it... on IRC chat I come into contact
with those using the speech-to-text engines (many blind/disabled use
IRC for social contact)--if they did not make me aware, I would only
believe they were faster typists than myself...

John

"John Smith" wrote in message
news
Jim:

Did you have a job where you were paid to state the obvious, or is this a
new career for you? A mental disorder? A fad?

hmmmmm......

John

Of course not. However, it seems just as silly for someone to argue that
any one thing has no purpose. So ... )


73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA

"RST Engineering" wrote in message
...
Nobody ever claimed that it is a dead mode. Model Ts aren't dead.
Tailwheel airplanes aren't dead. Neither is CW.

However, the driver's license test doesn't include hand-cranking Model T
engines, nor does the airplane certificate test include 3-point landings
in
tailwheel airplanes. Why hang on to an obsolete technology on the EXAM
for
those who choose not to participate in the obsolete mode?

Moreover, there aren't special lanes on the road for Model Ts, nor are
there
special runways for tailwheel airplanes. Why are there special segments
of
the band for CW. Makes no sense to me.


Jim

Well, that sounds like a good deal (eliminate the cw only bands) for the
no-codes, but it would end up a very *good* deal for the cw enthusiasts.
Believe me, ssb would get clobbered from one end to the other by cw stations
simply because of the wide spectrum that ssb occupies (compared to cw, that
is). I have a feeling that if the cw bands were eliminated, a lot of phone
folks would be screaming to bring them back. I'm not sure, but based upon
my 75 watts being able to cut through a kilowatt station trying to clobber
me and another station ..... both of us maintained a solid qso for half an
hour at 35 to 45 words per minute cw whilst Mike, W2OY, was trying to jam us
with a kilowatt of am. Didn't work then and I doubt it would work now.
You're talking a 6 kHz wide am signal vs cw signals needing only a couple
hundred of Hertz. You're talking at least a 14 dB or so advantage for the
cw based upon bandwidth of the receiver.

For the protection of the phone stations, I believe you will want to keep
the cw bands intact.


73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA

Jim:

You put words in my mouth (or text on my fingers, rather) CW has a great
entertainment value for some... I would never choose to argue that...

I do not make light of that fact, some of the most important things I have
found in life are books, movies, songs, stories, hobbies--entertainment.

Things need to be no bigger than they are, nor diminished, they are as
they are...

I see now why you made the statement you did, however, it was not my point
CW was/is "worthless", it is just not what some attempt to make it...

John

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 01:49:27 +0000, Jim Hampton wrote:


"John Smith" wrote in message
news
Jim:

Did you have a job where you were paid to state the obvious, or is this a
new career for you? A mental disorder? A fad?

hmmmmm......

John

Of course not. However, it seems just as silly for someone to argue that
any one thing has no purpose. So ... )


73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA

Jim:

Strange how you place everyone who disagrees with you in a "wannabe"
category. I have always been "commandline material." As we speak right
now, I am compiling my linux 2.4.20 (yes, I should get the new 2.6.9x
kernel.) In windows xp I drop to the command line to move files, program
(in the old borlandbuilder c++ commandline compiler) my "personal stuff",
etc...

However, the commandline is dead, I know it, there is nothing you can do
at the commandline which cannot be done in gui, launchers and installers
do exist... in the future there will be no commandline, I just have a
religious devotion to the commandline--if I followed that in my
employment--I would soon be unemployed--like it or not the gui does make
me more productive... still, once in awhile, I can come up with an excuse
to use it... in my personal life, I will probably die using the
commandline, some who follow after me will only know it from books... so
it is with CW... the brave men call the truth for what it is, the
cowards still just die a thousand deaths, and look pitiful as they snivel...

John

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 01:48:11 +0000, Jim Hampton wrote:

Hello, John

One thing that I hadn't thought of is Windows and Linux/Unix. Just wait
until the unthinkable happens and you get dropped into the command line
interface. Then you either know what you are doing and start typing, or you
drop in the bootable cdrom, reboot, reformat, and start over.

Been there, worn that t-shirt LOL.


Best regards from Rochester, NY
Jim



"John Smith" wrote in message
news
Jim:

Yes, I thought "typing by touch" was a given, I thought it a waste of time
in mentioning to anyone using a keyboard...

However, once it is necessary to present the blind with text-to-speech it
is only obvious they can make excellent use of speech-to-text--especially
since the text is usually spelled back to them for checking...

We used to have a blind coder at a kernel driver shop I worked for, that
was ten years ago, and he was using the both engines... I don't even have
a concept of how far all that has advanced in a decade.

But, I take it for granted, the only reason I am still using a keyboard is
because of my religious devotion to it... on IRC chat I come into contact
with those using the speech-to-text engines (many blind/disabled use
IRC for social contact)--if they did not make me aware, I would only
believe they were faster typists than myself...

John

"Cmdr Buzz corey" wrote in message
...
Jim Hampton wrote:


Hello, John

It is all a matter of the proper tool at the proper time. Sure, you can
order a new computer via the Internet, but the Internet cannot deliver
it.

Darn, and I just ordered a pizza over the Internet but couldn't figure
out how to download it.

Downloading is easy. Once it is delivered, you open your mouth and download
the thing, one byte at a time


73,
Jim AA2QA

RST Engineering wrote:
Nobody ever claimed that it is a dead mode.

Yes, they have. Obviously they haven't actually
listened to the parts of the ham bands where
Morse Code is used.

Model Ts aren't dead.
Tailwheel airplanes aren't dead. Neither is CW.

True enough.

However, the driver's license test doesn't include hand-
cranking Model T
engines, nor does the airplane certificate test include 3-point landings in tailwheel airplanes.

That's because the percentage of autos with handcranks is very
small. So is the percentage of taildragger aircraft.

But the percentage of ham stations on HF/MF using Morse Code
is much, much higher.

However, the remaining Morse Code test is probably going away
soon.

Why hang on to an obsolete technology on the EXAM for
those who choose not to participate in the obsolete mode?

"Obsolete"? Morse Code is the second most popular mode
in HF amateur radio.

Why are there written exams with questions on electronics for
those who chose not to build their radios?

Moreover, there aren't special lanes on the road for Model Ts, nor are there
special runways for tailwheel airplanes.

But there are special lanes on some roads for cars only, high-occupancy
vehicles only, etc.

There are sidewalks and trails on which motor vehicles are banned.

Why are there special segments of
the band for CW.

The only CW-only parts of the US ham bands are 50.0-50.1 MHz and
144.0-144.1 MHz. All other HF "CW" subbands are shared with
digital/data modes.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Jim



"Dan/W4NTI" wrote in message
k.net...

Not bad for a dead mode, eh?