About Us

[email protected]

wrote:
From: on Wed, Oct 11 2006 3:38 am
Opus- wrote:
On 5 Oct 2006 17:05:58 -0700, spake thusly:
Opus- wrote:
On 5 Oct 2006 04:26:28 -0700, spake thusly:
Opus- wrote:

But when you really listen to the way most people speak, the speed is
limited by many things. There's a lot of redundancy in the way many
people speak, pauses, repeats, "ums" and "ahs', and little phrases
tossed in while the person thinks of what to say next. Meanwhile, the
skilled Morse Code operator is using abbreviations and other shortcuts
that effectively increase the speed way beyond the raw wpm.

A comparison between a poor speaker and a skilled
radiotelegrapher is worthy HOW? To shine up the
"skilled radiotelegrapher?" [of course...]

Listen to the way *most people* speak, Len. There's a lot of redundancy
in the way many
people speak, pauses, repeats, "ums" and "ahs', and little phrases
tossed in while the person thinks of what to say next.

Compare a good speaker and a poor, unskilled radio-
telegrapher's sending and speech becomes way, way
faster.

So? Most people don't speak like they're reading a script.

With todays electronics, size and weight really aren't much of an
issue.

I disagree to a point! Look at the size, weight and performance of HF
rigs that you can carry with you. Is there any HF ham rig that's
SSB-capable that can compete with the Elecraft KX-1?

AN/PRC-104...back-pack HF SSB transceiver, operational
since 1984. Built by (then) Hughes Aircraft Ground
Systems (Hughes purchased by Raytheon).

Let's see...

The AN/PRC-104 weighs at least 14 pounds, according to the literature.
Some writeups say as much as 28 pounds. It's a pretty big set - you
don't just slip it in a pocket.

How much do the batteries weigh? How long will the set will run on one
set of batteries?

Battery voltage is nominally 24 volts, and the thing draws about 350 mA
on *receive*. So you can't just hook it to a 12 volts source, and the
power consumption on receive is about 8 watts.

Now the biggie: How much does one cost new? I found some for $2500 -
reconditioned.

For civilian-only, try the SGC 2020 SSB HF transceiver
used by private boat owners as well as hams.

Weighs 8 pounds without batteries. Not as big as a PRC-104 but still a
lot bigger than a KX-1. Draws over 300 mA on receive, but runs on 12
volts. Costs $800 new, last time I looked. Tuner and such are extra.

The KX-1 weighs under a pound and is much smaller and lighter. Receive
current is less than 50 mA. Costs $299 new.

So the rigs that "compete" with the KX-1 cost a lot more money (twice
to ten times the price or more), are far larger and heavier (8 to 20
times the weight or more), and the battery life is much less.

Thanks for proving my point, Len.

For fixed-station use, there isn't much size/weight difference, if any.
But when you need to carry the rig and batteries any real distance, the
differences become apparent. This is also when you will find that the
difference in low power performance really matters.

The PRC-104 has an integral automatic antenna matching
package (to the right of the transceiver itself). This
insures that the manpack set's whip antenna is always
tuned for optimum radiated transmission power.

The KX1 can be equipped with an ATU. Costs a lot less, weighs a lot
less, takes up a lot less space.

SGC has several antenna autotuner models available;
separate equipments.

All weigh more, use more power, cost more money.

Or consider this analogy: It's one thing to drive a car with all the
modern conveniences - power steering, automatic transmission, power
brakes, cruise control, climate control, etc., and doing it on a smooth
straight highway. It's a different experience to drive a car without
all those things, on a winding country road where the driver's skill
makes a big difference.

You have much experience on "winding country roads?" :-)

Yes. Do you?

[of course you do, you are an amateur extra morseman...]

Are you advocating "no-frills" personal vehicles? Why?

Why not?

I learned to drive in a 1939 Ford, NO automatic trans-
mission, NO power steering, NO power brakes, No cruise
control, NO "climate control" other than the standard
heater.

Sounds like the car I learned to drive in.

Training ground was an abandoned army camp, one
which DID have a few "winding (dirt) roads." If you
think for one minute that I would give up a nice,
comfortable, well-equipped 2005 Chevy Malibu MAXX just
to "rough it" for SOMEONE ELSE'S IDEA of what constitutes
"good driving," you've got your head up your ass.

It's not about *you*, Len.

Having earned my Army driving license, I will personally
challenge you to a Jeep gymkhana (Jeep circa 1940s-1960s)
at everything from "smooth straight highways" through
"winding country roads" on to OFF-ROAD ANYTHING.

Why would you give up a nice, comfortable, well-equipped 2005 Chevy
Malibu MAXX just
to "rough it", Len?

I will WIN.

Maybe. Maybe not. You don't really know, you're just bragging because
you know it won't happen.

Been there, did that, got T-shirts, etc.

That doesn't mean you would win.

That standard issue Jeep had NO amenities except for the
post-1950 winch and cable over the front bumper. "Climate
control" was whatever the climate was outside. The "power
transmission" was a couple gear shifts operated by arm
strength and experienced clutch operation. Ptui.

What's your point - that you spit at Jeeps?

HOW MANY personal vehicles have YOU DESIGNED and BUILT?
Include auto kits if you need to.

What does it matter? I could tell you about the time I took two junker
cars and made one good one out of them, but you'd find fault with that,
somehow.

HOW MANY thousands of miles have YOU driven?

Gosh, Len, I don't really know. Probably more than you, though.

Over "winding
country roads?"

Enough.

[I don't think so unless you count the
old driveway to the Doylestown Barn Cinema...] I've driven
the VERY winding country road (rough surface) to a Wyoming
working ranch (cattle brand registered in Wyoming is "B-1
Bomber") from/to highway.

What does that have to do with anything, Len?

Perhaps the typical ages of people who prefer code could be a factor.
It does tend to be considerably older people who prefer code.

I disagree - for two reasons!

First I have found amateurs of all ages who are interested in Morse
Code.

If all you have is a hammer, naturally everything looks
like a nail to you...

I've got a lot more tools than just a hammer. I know how to use them,
too.

I have found that young people are interested *if* Morse Code is
presented correctly.

Sado-masochism is still prevalent in the human condition.

And yet you claim you have no problem with people using Morse Code....

Some say that, in the modern world, young people who grew up with cell
phones and the internet aren't going to sit still for something like
Morse Code - or amateur radio. And many won't.

Unquantified numbers. You are waffling on your emotional
reasons.

"Amateur" is derived from the Latin word for "love". Means to do
something for the love of the thing alone. Emotional reasons, IOW.

The fact is that there are plenty of young people who like Morse Code
and learn it readily. I think that's one reason you want an age limit
for an amateur radio license - so those code-skilled young folks can't
get a license until they're 14.

However, the very fact that Morse Code is unusual is a big attraction
to some of them - *because* it's so different and unusual. They've seen
voice comms - they all have cellphones! Typing on a keyboard and
reading a screen is something they've seen since they were babies.

One in three Americans has a cell phone. Census Bureau said
so in a public statement in 2004.

So what?

When I was a teenager, practically everyone had a telephone. Why should
anyone have a ham rig at home when they can just talk on the telephone?

Back in the late 1940s - a time well before cell phones, personal
computers, with (mostly) only sound broadcasting - there was NO
great "novelty" or "interest" in morse code communications.

Sure there was. Ham radio was growing by leaps and bounds then. You
were not part of it.

Been
there, seen that, see no difference now.

IOW, nobody should do what *you* don't enjoy.

But
Morse Code is completely different. That's what draws many young people
- just look at the acceptance of the Harry Potter books.

So, write the author of the "Harry Potter" series and have
her (J. K. Rowling) "introduce" morse code as "magic." :-)

BWAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHAA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

* M A G I C M O R S E *

BWAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHAA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

??

But some things can be preserved - values, skills, culture. Even if the
people and places change.

Preservation of the Past is the job of MUSEUMS.

Preservation of values, skills and culture is everyone's job.

Why do you insist on keeping a "living museum" in amateur
radio through federal license testing for morse code in
only AMATEUR radio?

It's not a living museum.

YOU had to test for it so everyone else has to...

Nope. Morse Code should be a license requirement because amateurs use
it. The skill is part of being a qualified radio amateur. Simple as
that.

Fraternal order HAZING having NO tangible value
except to amuse those ALREADY tested for code.

It's not about hazing, Len. It's about being qualified. You're not
qualified.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?	Slow Code	Antenna	140	November 14th 06 01:55 AM
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?	Slow Code	Policy	287	November 14th 06 01:55 AM
Is the code requirement really keeping good people out of ham radio?	Slow Code	Scanner	124	October 31st 06 01:32 AM
BR330T Hidden commands	init_null	Scanner	0	February 22nd 06 07:03 AM

Menu

About Us