When you passed the FCC exam - you are an Amateur Radio Operator period --
plain and simple.

Whether you passed a 20 wpm code test or no code - you are a Ham

Whether you had to draw the schematic for a Colpitts Oscillator or not - you
are a Ham

Whether you faced the steely-eyed FCC examiner or a VE -- you are a Ham

Those who say otherwise are shrouded in elitism and a synonym for elitism
is snobbery - plain and simple

This is 2006, not 1920

CL

Caveat Lector wrote:
When you passed the FCC exam - you are an Amateur Radio Operator period --
plain and simple.

Whether you passed a 20 wpm code test or no code - you are a Ham

Whether you had to draw the schematic for a Colpitts Oscillator or not - you
are a Ham

Whether you faced the steely-eyed FCC examiner or a VE -- you are a Ham

Those who say otherwise are shrouded in elitism and a synonym for elitism
is snobbery - plain and simple

This is 2006, not 1920

CL

You got that right.

Slow Code wrote:
Chuck Harris wrote in
:
Slow Code wrote:
Chuck Harris wrote in

While you are being all holier than thou, what did you design and
build for your main rig? I'm hoping to be impressed, but expecting to
be disappointed.

Did the code help you with the design?

I took my Advanced class test down at 1919 M street 36 years ago. I
had to sit at the desk and copy one solid minute out of five error
free at 13WPM. I passed it on the first try. I almost failed the
sending test, as I had never spent much time doing that. I had never
made a code contact before my test, and I have only made a couple
since.

The thing about code contacts is they never seem to want to say
anything beyond:

WA3XXX DE W6XX RST 5NN WX FB 73 W6XX SK

That's not the case when I operate Morse Code.

How does that help the cause of amateur radio?

I have designed and built numerous rf receivers and transmitters, many
are employed by the US Army for various uses. I have fixed many
different radios from tube stuff through DSP driven affairs.

How exactly did the code help me to do this?

For me code was a means to an end. I wanted my license, so I learned
the code.

There were plenty of rude, profane, and generally unpleasant hams on
the air back when all had to pass the test in the offices of the FCC.

I don't remember that at all.

I haven't noticed that things are any worse now. About the only real
difference is in the quality of the gear folks are running. It is
much better than the crappy stuff that was on the air back in the
early 70's.

There were good and bad rigs then as well as now.

Are conversations on repeaters as technical as they were twenty-five
years ago?

Oh, easily. 25 years ago, technical conversations were dominated by
such earth shatteringly important stuff as having a ham down at the
repeater site helping other hams tune their transmitters to be on
frequency. Other wonderkind were hitting the repeater with a full
quieting signal, and turning their power up to try and get a better
signal to that DX mobile that breaking up.

If it wasn't that, it was an endless sea of autopatches calling the xyl
to tell her that traffic was bad, could she start dinner... or ordering
pizza.

Me? I hear no-codes and nickle extras arguing how long a half wave
dipole should be.

I heard the same things 25 years ago from Generals that got their
licenses at the offices of the FCC.

Even 34 years ago, there were study guides that had questions from the
pool used by the FCC. If you could memorize the answers to those
questions, you were virtually assured of passing. I used the ARRL
handbook as my guide.

Do you mean the License Manual?

It did not have the exact questions and answers in it.

You didn't answer my questions about the home brew rig you are using.

Construction projects you or I have done aren't important.

Yes they are!

Working to
insure ham radio doesn't turn into CB is important. Agreed?

*BOTH* are important.

If you're not running a homebrew or at least home-assembled rig, who
are you to call someone else an appliance operator?

What good are technical *discussions* if they don't translate into
actual working radio systems?

wrote:
Slow Code wrote:
Chuck Harris wrote in
:
Slow Code wrote:
Chuck Harris wrote in

While you are being all holier than thou, what did you design and
build for your main rig? I'm hoping to be impressed, but expecting to
be disappointed.

Did the code help you with the design?

I took my Advanced class test down at 1919 M street 36 years ago. I
had to sit at the desk and copy one solid minute out of five error
free at 13WPM. I passed it on the first try. I almost failed the
sending test, as I had never spent much time doing that. I had never
made a code contact before my test, and I have only made a couple
since.

The thing about code contacts is they never seem to want to say
anything beyond:

WA3XXX DE W6XX RST 5NN WX FB 73 W6XX SK

That's not the case when I operate Morse Code.

I have listened to hundreds of CW contacts, and the above is mostly the norm.
I exaggerate a bit, but it is rare that anyone talks about anything other
than a few very simple things. I have yet to listen to a complex conversation
on CW... The most complicated thing I have heard is W1AW code practice, and
some of the traffic nets.


How does that help the cause of amateur radio?

I have designed and built numerous rf receivers and transmitters, many
are employed by the US Army for various uses. I have fixed many
different radios from tube stuff through DSP driven affairs.

How exactly did the code help me to do this?

For me code was a means to an end. I wanted my license, so I learned
the code.

There were plenty of rude, profane, and generally unpleasant hams on
the air back when all had to pass the test in the offices of the FCC.

I don't remember that at all.

Well, you wouldn't if you spent all of your time on CW. Things are very
polite on those subbands. If however, you ever listened to 20 meters
around 14.313, you might have a different idea of what ham radio was about.
For some reason that frequency was full of profane garbage mouthed hams,
and lots of infighting in the '70s and '80s.


I haven't noticed that things are any worse now. About the only real
difference is in the quality of the gear folks are running. It is
much better than the crappy stuff that was on the air back in the
early 70's.

There were good and bad rigs then as well as now.

Perhaps, but nothing like some of the very cheap sweep tube transceivers of
the late 1960's, and early '70's. Swans that drifted furiously, and practically
invented the term TVI...

What are the bad HF SSB rigs of today? I would bet that even the absolute
worst is cleaner than anything that was available in the '60's, and '70's...
If only because the regulations got tighter on spurious emissions from new
gear.

....
Even 34 years ago, there were study guides that had questions from the
pool used by the FCC. If you could memorize the answers to those
questions, you were virtually assured of passing. I used the ARRL
handbook as my guide.

Do you mean the License Manual?

Nope, I did my Advanced from basic principles. I used the ARRL Radio
Amateur's Handbook as my guide to rules and regulations. The technical
side of my studying came from the handbook, and a variety of other radio
and engineering sources.


It did not have the exact questions and answers in it.

I looked at friend's copy of one of the the license manuals that was available
after my test, and the questions and answers were very close. It was nothing
like the manuals that are available today, but still so close as to be a cheat.


You didn't answer my questions about the home brew rig you are using.

Construction projects you or I have done aren't important.

Yes they are!

That was Slow Code talking, not me. Are you perhaps confusing attributions?

Working to
insure ham radio doesn't turn into CB is important. Agreed?

*BOTH* are important.

Again, Slow Code...

If you're not running a homebrew or at least home-assembled rig, who
are you to call someone else an appliance operator?

What good are technical *discussions* if they don't translate into
actual working radio systems?

I have built and operated a number of entirely home brew radios. Slow Code
is the one complaining about appliance operators, of which it appears
he is one.

-Chuck

Chuck Harris wrote:
wrote:
Slow Code wrote:
Chuck Harris wrote in
:
Slow Code wrote:
Chuck Harris wrote in

While you are being all holier than thou, what did you design and
build for your main rig? I'm hoping to be impressed, but expecting to
be disappointed.

Did the code help you with the design?

I took my Advanced class test down at 1919 M street 36 years ago. I
had to sit at the desk and copy one solid minute out of five error
free at 13WPM. I passed it on the first try. I almost failed the
sending test, as I had never spent much time doing that. I had never
made a code contact before my test, and I have only made a couple
since.

The thing about code contacts is they never seem to want to say
anything beyond:

WA3XXX DE W6XX RST 5NN WX FB 73 W6XX SK

That's not the case when I operate Morse Code.

I have listened to hundreds of CW contacts, and the above is mostly the norm.
I exaggerate a bit, but it is rare that anyone talks about anything other
than a few very simple things. I have yet to listen to a complex conversation
on CW... The most complicated thing I have heard is W1AW code practice, and
some of the traffic nets.

Listening is one thing, participating is another. I've had many, many
CW QSOs that were far more complex than your example. Discussions of
rigs, antennas, jobs, family, plans for the near future (vacation, home
improvement, etc.), experiences in the other's location, and much more.


The stereotypical hello/goodbye QSO is usually the result of these
factors: poor conditions, unskilled operator(s), nature of the QSO (DX,
contest, just checking a new rig)

Of course somebody has to initiate - to say something beyond hello...

How does that help the cause of amateur radio?

I have designed and built numerous rf receivers and transmitters, many
are employed by the US Army for various uses. I have fixed many
different radios from tube stuff through DSP driven affairs.

How exactly did the code help me to do this?

Well, I don't know about you. But for me, knowing Morse Code meant I
could build and use simple(r) radio systems to try out an idea.

If someone who isn't a trained electronics person wants to design and
build their amateur radio station, what sort of project should they
build? A complete multiband SSB transceiver? Or a simple CW rig?

For me code was a means to an end. I wanted my license, so I learned
the code.

There were plenty of rude, profane, and generally unpleasant hams on
the air back when all had to pass the test in the offices of the FCC.

I don't remember that at all.

Well, you wouldn't if you spent all of your time on CW.

Good point!

Things are very
polite on those subbands.

Isn't that a reason to promote the mode?

If however, you ever listened to 20 meters
around 14.313, you might have a different idea of what ham radio was about.
For some reason that frequency was full of profane garbage mouthed hams,
and lots of infighting in the '70s and '80s.

Sure. But how many hams were involved, out of the hundreds of thousands
on the air?

I haven't noticed that things are any worse now. About the only real
difference is in the quality of the gear folks are running. It is
much better than the crappy stuff that was on the air back in the
early 70's.

There were good and bad rigs then as well as now.

Perhaps, but nothing like some of the very cheap sweep tube transceivers of
the late 1960's, and early '70's. Swans that drifted furiously, and practically
invented the term TVI...

Sure - but remember that those rigs were designed 40+ years ago. They
should be judged by the standards of their time.

What are the bad HF SSB rigs of today? I would bet that even the absolute
worst is cleaner than anything that was available in the '60's, and '70's...
If only because the regulations got tighter on spurious emissions from new
gear.

It depends on what you consider "bad". Last FD we had some rigs that
were unusable because they put out wideband phase noise that messed up
stations on adjacent bands! Those rigs might have met the letter of the
law when new, but they sure made a lot of hash in the real world.

OTOH, serviceability of many ham rigs is very low. Even if you can deal
with SMT, a lot of them use house-numbered parts that become unobtanium
in a few years.
...
Even 34 years ago, there were study guides that had questions from the
pool used by the FCC. If you could memorize the answers to those
questions, you were virtually assured of passing. I used the ARRL
handbook as my guide.

Do you mean the License Manual?

Nope, I did my Advanced from basic principles. I used the ARRL Radio
Amateur's Handbook as my guide to rules and regulations. The technical
side of my studying came from the handbook, and a variety of other radio
and engineering sources.

Same here - all the way to Extra in 1970.

It did not have the exact questions and answers in it.

I looked at friend's copy of one of the the license manuals that was available
after my test, and the questions and answers were very close. It was nothing
like the manuals that are available today, but still so close as to be a cheat.

There were a couple of different license manuals available back then.

The ARRL LM was a reprint of FCC's study guide. Those FCC study guides
were produced by FCC to indicate the areas of knowledge you needed to
have for the test. They were essay format even though the tests were
multiple-choice.

AMECO and others rewrote them into multiple choice format.

A fellow named Dick Bash stationed himself outside FCC offices and
bought information from people who had just taken the tests. He was
able to recreate a pretty close version of the actual test by that
method. FCC decided not to prosecute him even though he published books
that were very close to the actual tests.

Then it all became academic with the VE system.

You didn't answer my questions about the home brew rig you are using.

Construction projects you or I have done aren't important.

Yes they are!

That was Slow Code talking, not me. Are you perhaps confusing attributions?

I was responding to both of you. I disagree with "Slow Code"'s claim.

Working to
insure ham radio doesn't turn into CB is important. Agreed?

*BOTH* are important.

Again, Slow Code...

Yup.

If you're not running a homebrew or at least home-assembled rig, who
are you to call someone else an appliance operator?

What good are technical *discussions* if they don't translate into
actual working radio systems?

I have built and operated a number of entirely home brew radios.

Exactly. *You* are not an appliance operator - nor are you calling
anybody else an appliance operator.

Slow Code
is the one complaining about appliance operators, of which it appears
he is one.

Exactly. I didn't mean to imply that *you* were an appliance operator,
Chuck. Just that if "Slow Code" is going to call other people names, he
should be ready to back up his claims with actions. So far, we see
nothing.

Of course, one should not take "Slow Code" too seriously - if at all.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Slow Code wrote:
gwatts wrote in
:


Slow Code wrote:

gwatts wrote in
:



Slow Code wrote:


What do you like best about appliance operating?

All the crotchety old farts are either off somewhere beep-beep-beeping
away on CW or bitching to each other on the lower half of the 80m phone
band, so it's easy to avoid them and talk to someone who enjoys ham
radio as it is instead of whining about how it was.



Big Ten-Four on that Good Buddy.

It sounds like you run a lot of 11m, not surprising considering how much
you whine, and it's not alternator whine.



I only typed like because I knew you would understand that style of
communicating. So, after your license came in the mail what I appliance
did you decide to buy? MFJ? Alinco? Cobra?

Kenwood TS-820S. I got a good deal because it had a few bugs. I spent
some of the evenings between the exam session and my ticket arriving
(that would be my GENERAL ticket, I skipped Novice and Technician) going
through it cleaning switches, adding ground straps to a couple circuit
boards and adding 17m to the 'AUX' position on the band switch. By the
time my ticket arrived in the mail it was ready. I worked Clipperton
Island the second day I was on the air and didn't realize it was quite
the DX catch until months later.

So, after your license came in the mail what did you start weenie
whining about first?

W8LNA

wrote:
Chuck Harris wrote:

I don't remember that at all.
Well, you wouldn't if you spent all of your time on CW.

Good point!

Things are very
polite on those subbands.

Isn't that a reason to promote the mode?

To promote the mode, sure, but to require it no. I could make the same claim
about RTTY, and Slow Scan. When they were popular, folks on those modes were
all as polite as could be.

The impolite behavior seems to center around SSB. Probably because the mode
requires essentially no effort.

If however, you ever listened to 20 meters
around 14.313, you might have a different idea of what ham radio was about.
For some reason that frequency was full of profane garbage mouthed hams,
and lots of infighting in the '70s and '80s.

Sure. But how many hams were involved, out of the hundreds of thousands
on the air?

It only takes a few. As I remember from those SSB wars in the '70's and
'80's, a several hams were prosecuted. They were all General Class or higher.
And because of the time frame, in which they were licensed, they had passed
the CW hurdle. I recall that playing with their keyers on the SSB segment was
part of their hijinks. A whole lot of "FU" and other acronyms were mixed in
with the echo boxes, and microphone raking.

I haven't noticed that things are any worse now. About the only real
difference is in the quality of the gear folks are running. It is
much better than the crappy stuff that was on the air back in the
early 70's.
There were good and bad rigs then as well as now.
Perhaps, but nothing like some of the very cheap sweep tube transceivers of
the late 1960's, and early '70's. Swans that drifted furiously, and practically
invented the term TVI...

Sure - but remember that those rigs were designed 40+ years ago. They
should be judged by the standards of their time.

And I was. But today's rigs, when judged by the ear are more pleasant to
listen to.

What are the bad HF SSB rigs of today? I would bet that even the absolute
worst is cleaner than anything that was available in the '60's, and '70's...
If only because the regulations got tighter on spurious emissions from new
gear.

It depends on what you consider "bad". Last FD we had some rigs that
were unusable because they put out wideband phase noise that messed up
stations on adjacent bands! Those rigs might have met the letter of the
law when new, but they sure made a lot of hash in the real world.

Fortunately, that wideband phase noise doesn't carry beyond a few hundred
yards from the radio. It used to be a really big problem with the early
solid state radios... But not so much so with the newer rigs. Field Day was
where I first noticed the effect.... Key the mike, and all bands were awash
in hiss, even before the first word was spoken. Icom comes to mind.
Having a Clegg FM27B around on field day is a real treat too...not!

OTOH, serviceability of many ham rigs is very low. Even if you can deal
with SMT, a lot of them use house-numbered parts that become unobtanium
in a few years.

Entirely the result of meeting the customer's demands for in expensive
feature laden radios that fit in packages smaller than a dictionary.

....
It did not have the exact questions and answers in it.
I looked at friend's copy of one of the the license manuals that was available
after my test, and the questions and answers were very close. It was nothing
like the manuals that are available today, but still so close as to be a cheat.

There were a couple of different license manuals available back then.

The ARRL LM was a reprint of FCC's study guide. Those FCC study guides
were produced by FCC to indicate the areas of knowledge you needed to
have for the test. They were essay format even though the tests were
multiple-choice.

AMECO and others rewrote them into multiple choice format.

I think my friends "manual" might have been Ameco.

A fellow named Dick Bash stationed himself outside FCC offices and
bought information from people who had just taken the tests. He was
able to recreate a pretty close version of the actual test by that
method. FCC decided not to prosecute him even though he published books
that were very close to the actual tests.

I don't think Bash was doing that until after the VE system came on line...
but I don't recall for sure.

....
What good are technical *discussions* if they don't translate into
actual working radio systems?
I have built and operated a number of entirely home brew radios.

Exactly. *You* are not an appliance operator - nor are you calling
anybody else an appliance operator.

Actually, these days for what little operating I do, I am an appliance
operator. Because of my early ham experience, and the fact that I am
an EE, I know how to design and build, even if I don't chose to do so
right now. Ham radio probably figures heavily in my being an EE.

My general belief is if you have passed the test that is in force, you
are a ham... period. Beyond passing whatever is required, I don't care
how you got here, just what you do now that you are here.

-Chuck

Slow Code wrote:
What do you like best about appliance operating?

SC

+-------------------+ .:\:\:/:/:.
| PLEASE DO NOT | :.:\:\:/:/:.:
| FEED THE TROLLS | :=.' - - '.=:
| | '=(\ 9 9 /)='
| Thank you, | ( (_) )
| Management | /`-vvv-'\
+-------------------+ / \
| | @@@ / /|,,,,,|\ \
| | @@@ /_// /^\ \\_\
@x@@x@ | | |/ WW( ( ) )WW
\||||/ | | \| __\,,\ /,,/__
\||/ | | | jgs (______Y______)
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\//\/\\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
================================================== ====================

Chuck Harris wrote:
wrote:
Chuck Harris wrote:

I don't remember that at all.
Well, you wouldn't if you spent all of your time on CW.

Good point!

Things are very
polite on those subbands.

Isn't that a reason to promote the mode?

To promote the mode, sure, but to require it no. I could make the same claim
about RTTY, and Slow Scan. When they were popular, folks on those modes were
all as polite as could be.

The impolite behavior seems to center around SSB. Probably because the mode
requires essentially no effort.
funny how the result now is to transfer a lot of the rudeness to CW

Chuck Harris wrote:
wrote:
Chuck Harris wrote:

Things are very
polite on those subbands.

Isn't that a reason to promote the mode?

To promote the mode, sure, but to require it no.

One way to promote a mode is to give it significant band space.

I could make the same claim
about RTTY, and Slow Scan. When they were popular, folks on those modes were
all as polite as could be.

The difference is that only Morse Code requires skills that the average
person does not have.

The impolite behavior seems to center around SSB. Probably because the mode
requires essentially no effort.

Maybe. I think there are many causes.

If however, you ever listened to 20 meters
around 14.313, you might have a different idea of what ham radio was about.
For some reason that frequency was full of profane garbage mouthed hams,
and lots of infighting in the '70s and '80s.

Sure. But how many hams were involved, out of the hundreds of thousands
on the air?

It only takes a few. As I remember from those SSB wars in the '70's and
'80's, a several hams were prosecuted. They were all General Class or higher.
And because of the time frame, in which they were licensed, they had passed
the CW hurdle. I recall that playing with their keyers on the SSB segment was
part of their hijinks. A whole lot of "FU" and other acronyms were mixed in
with the echo boxes, and microphone raking.

They were a few out of hundreds of thousands.

And yes, they all passed the Morse Code test - supposedly, anyhow. But
they also passed one or more *written* tests which included questions
on acceptable on-air behavior. Why don't the written tests get the
blame?

Look at the recent case of Jack Gerritsen, ex-KG6IRO. What possible
reason is there for his behavior?

I haven't noticed that things are any worse now. About the only real
difference is in the quality of the gear folks are running. It is
much better than the crappy stuff that was on the air back in the
early 70's.
There were good and bad rigs then as well as now.
Perhaps, but nothing like some of the very cheap sweep tube transceivers of
the late 1960's, and early '70's. Swans that drifted furiously, and practically
invented the term TVI...

Sure - but remember that those rigs were designed 40+ years ago. They
should be judged by the standards of their time.

And I was. But today's rigs, when judged by the ear are more pleasant to
listen to.

Some are, some aren't - IMHO.

What are the bad HF SSB rigs of today? I would bet that even the absolute
worst is cleaner than anything that was available in the '60's, and '70's...
If only because the regulations got tighter on spurious emissions from new
gear.

It depends on what you consider "bad". Last FD we had some rigs that
were unusable because they put out wideband phase noise that messed up
stations on adjacent bands! Those rigs might have met the letter of the
law when new, but they sure made a lot of hash in the real world.

Fortunately, that wideband phase noise doesn't carry beyond a few hundred
yards from the radio. It used to be a really big problem with the early
solid state radios... But not so much so with the newer rigs.

The rigs that gave us headaches were only a few years old.

Field Day was
where I first noticed the effect.... Key the mike, and all bands were awash
in hiss, even before the first word was spoken. Icom comes to mind.

Bingo.

Having a Clegg FM27B around on field day is a real treat too...not!

OTOH, serviceability of many ham rigs is very low. Even if you can deal
with SMT, a lot of them use house-numbered parts that become unobtanium
in a few years.

Entirely the result of meeting the customer's demands for in expensive
feature laden radios that fit in packages smaller than a dictionary.

Are those really customer demands, or are they driven by the
manufacturers who want to sell more radios?

...
It did not have the exact questions and answers in it.
I looked at friend's copy of one of the the license manuals that was available
after my test, and the questions and answers were very close. It was nothing
like the manuals that are available today, but still so close as to be a cheat.

There were a couple of different license manuals available back then.

The ARRL LM was a reprint of FCC's study guide. Those FCC study guides
were produced by FCC to indicate the areas of knowledge you needed to
have for the test. They were essay format even though the tests were
multiple-choice.

AMECO and others rewrote them into multiple choice format.

I think my friends "manual" might have been Ameco.

Very possible.

A fellow named Dick Bash stationed himself outside FCC offices and
bought information from people who had just taken the tests. He was
able to recreate a pretty close version of the actual test by that
method. FCC decided not to prosecute him even though he published books
that were very close to the actual tests.

I don't think Bash was doing that until after the VE system came on line...
but I don't recall for sure.

It was the other way around. Bash did his thing in the early 1970s. The
VE system came to be in the early 1980s. The VE system put Bash out of
business because the question pools became public then.

...
What good are technical *discussions* if they don't translate into
actual working radio systems?
I have built and operated a number of entirely home brew radios.

Exactly. *You* are not an appliance operator - nor are you calling
anybody else an appliance operator.

Actually, these days for what little operating I do, I am an appliance
operator. Because of my early ham experience, and the fact that I am
an EE, I know how to design and build, even if I don't chose to do so
right now. Ham radio probably figures heavily in my being an EE.

Same here - except I'm still homebrewing.

My general belief is if you have passed the test that is in force, you
are a ham... period.

Agreed!

Beyond passing whatever is required, I don't care
how you got here, just what you do now that you are here.

Agreed again!

73 de Jim, N2EY