Date: Tue, 2 Aug 94 04:30:18 PDT From: Ham-Policy Mailing List and Newsgroup Errors-To: Ham-Policy-Errors@UCSD.Edu Reply-To: Ham-Policy@UCSD.Edu Precedence: Bulk Subject: Ham-Policy Digest V94 #343 To: Ham-Policy Ham-Policy Digest Tue, 2 Aug 94 Volume 94 : Issue 343 Today's Topics: A quiet voice for Novice Class NOT time-limited CW ...IS history! (2 msgs) What is wrong with h (3 msgs) Send Replies or notes for publication to: Send subscription requests to: Problems you can't solve otherwise to brian@ucsd.edu. Archives of past issues of the Ham-Policy Digest are available (by FTP only) from UCSD.Edu in directory "mailarchives/ham-policy". We trust that readers are intelligent enough to realize that all text herein consists of personal comments and does not represent the official policies or positions of any party. Your mileage may vary. So there. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 02 Aug 1994 01:10:44 GMT From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!swiss.ans.net!malgudi.oar.net!witch!ted!mjsilva@network.ucsd.edu Subject: A quiet voice for Novice Class NOT time-limited To: ham-policy@ucsd.edu In article , darrylb@delphi.com (darrylb@delphi.com) writes: >Michael Silva writes: > >>The situation for a Novice is very different that that for a Tech. I >>think the Novice privileges are much more in line with the testing >>required than are the Tech privileges, where everything above 30MHz is >>awarded by taking what for many (most?) is an *easier* test. I think the >>carrot of more privileges is enough to motivate most Novices, but I don't >>feel the same about the Tech license > > >TheTech (no-code) takes the same written element as the Novice, plus one >more. The Novice passes one code element that the Tech (no-code) has not. >Seems like a fairly even trade off. Accepting those elements as equally difficult, the privileges awarded for passing 3A are vastly greater than those awarded for passing 1A. More importantly, the privileges awarded per hour of study are *far* greater for the Tech than *any* other class of license. Thus, instead of providing a high incentive for learning more and upgrading, the extremely high privilege/effort ratio of the Tech license provides a *disincentive* to upgrading. > >How do you feel about the Tech Plus? > I don't understand why anyone would stop at Novice when 50MHz-to-daylight is 25 simple questions away. Mike, KK6GM ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Aug 1994 21:13:05 GMT From: cadre!usenet@uunet.uu.net Subject: CW ...IS history! To: ham-policy@ucsd.edu Actually, there is no more reliable mode for communications under noisy conditions, than CW! Whether it be a weak signal (riding at or near the noise floor) or a signal subject to interference, it can be copied most effectively by the human ear. The human ear has an amazing ability to discriminate between unwanted noise and the desired code stream. When all other modes fail, CW is sometimes the only mode that can cut the musturd - providing you have a trained ear. I have bagged many a DX station on QRP that I am convinced I would not have had a chance of working using other voice or digital modes... It is for this reason and the natural enjoyment that people experience when conversing in a coded form, that CW will be around for a very very long time... Dan KB1JX ------------------------------ Date: 1 Aug 1994 19:22:02 GMT From: news.acns.nwu.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!convex!news.duke.edu!news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!panther.Gsu.EDU!gatech!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!newsrelay.iastate.edu!news.@@ihnp4.ucsd.edu Subject: CW ...IS history! To: ham-policy@ucsd.edu In article , brunelli_pc@delphi.com writes: Pete, I agree 100% with your post!! I, too, learned CW to get the priviledges. Now, I love it, and it is--or would be if I had the time and was able to set up an HF station in my apartment--my major mode. However, I agree that it is an outdated form of communication, and it should not have veto power on any amateur radio exam. ------------------------------ Date: 1 Aug 1994 18:16:39 -0700 From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!news.cerf.net!ccnet.com!ccnet.com!not-for-mail@network.ucsd.edu Subject: What is wrong with h To: ham-policy@ucsd.edu Alan Wilensky (alan.wilensky@channel1.com) wrote: : I would think, that in Mr. Herman's opinion, those SSB conversations are : being conducted by bootleg CB'ers....hand me the callbook Rochester, : "yes Mr. Benny, (wasnt Jack Benny a Ham)? : Is Vibroplex paying this guy Herman off? Come clean now Jeff. Not being one of the inovative no-code techs, Jeff is still building eighty meter transmitters from discarded color television sets. Since there are no microphones in these sets for proper ssb operation, Jeff keys his rigs with with preprogramed dots and dashes filed into the channel changer. This doesn't leave much for the content or qso but we are all having fun. Bob -- Bob Wilkins work bwilkins@cave.org Berkeley, California home rwilkins@ccnet.com 94701-0710 play n6fri@n6eeg.#nocal.ca.usa.noam ------------------------------ Date: 01 Aug 1994 18:22:52 GMT From: news.acns.nwu.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!csn!col.hp.com!sdd.hp.com!cs.utexas.edu!convex!news.duke.edu!news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!@@ihnp4.ucsd.edu Subject: What is wrong with h To: ham-policy@ucsd.edu In article wyn@ornl.gov (C. C. Wynn) writes: >I did have to switch the product detector on though to make sure I got >all of the CW QSO's. Maybe that is where the pro-no-code'rs are messing >up the count. Um, were you under the impression that the other modes are using AM? Rich -- Rich McAllister (rfm@eng.sun.com) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Aug 94 19:44:00 -0400 From: news.sprintlink.net!coyote.channel1.com!channel1!alan.wilensky@uunet.uu.net Subject: What is wrong with h To: ham-policy@ucsd.edu JH>In article <40.2607.2427@channel1.com> alan.wilensky@channel1.com JH>(Alan Wilensky) writes: JH>> JH>>I would think, that in Mr. Herman's opinion, those SSB conversations JH>are >being conducted by bootleg CB'ers....hand me the callbook JH>Rochester, >"yes Mr. Benny, (wasnt Jack Benny a Ham)? JH>Check the attribution line, Al! It wasn't me who asked why the JH>poster, wishing to convert his CB to 10M, wasn't listed in the JH>callbook. I don't even own a callbook. JH>Falsely attributing comments to someone isn't very nice. JH>>Alan Wilensky, N1SSO JH>Jeff NH6IL No, I did not mean to implicate you as the poster, I just clipped that quoted line out of your snipe at me (nauseating, etc.). No offense intended. Next time I'll track down the original poster. BTW, I dont totally disagree with the self policing notion, I just got a kick about how the guy was jumped on almost instantly. Alan Wilensky, N1SSO General Manager Interactive Workplace Division Vicom, LTD. Phone: Edmonton Office 11603 165 St. abm@world.std.com --- CmpQwk #UNREG UNREGISTERED EVALUATION COPY ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Aug 1994 11:58:43 GMT From: agate!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!jobone!ukma!rsg1.er.usgs.gov!stc06.CTD.ORNL.GOV!xdepc.eng.ornl.gov!wyn@ames.arpa To: ham-policy@ucsd.edu References , , <1994Jul31.231532.23856@ke4zv.atl.ga.us>ic Subject : Re: CW is FUN!! reprise In article <1994Jul31.231532.23856@ke4zv.atl.ga.us> gary@ke4zv.atl.ga.us (Gary Coffman) writes: >In article wyn@ornl.gov (C. C. Wynn) writes: >> >>In case you haven't noticed, starting sometime this fall or winter, approx. >>137 KHz of HF spectrum will be carved out for exclusive use of automatic >>packet stations. These frequencies will be taken from CW/RTTY/Novice >>operators. Think I am kidding? Check it out in the August QST. Who do you >>propose to take your frequencies from? How about picking on the voice modes >>for a change? >In case *you* haven't noticed, what is actually happening is that >automatic operation will become a *permitted* use on that small bit >of spectrum. That's quite a bit different from it becoming *exclusive*. In case you haven't noticed, when 50 automatic packet stations crank up on these frequencies (that is 50 machines with no reqard for anybody else that may be trying to used these frequencies) the effect will be the same: exclusive use of the frequencies. 73, C. C. (Clay) Wynn N4AOX wyn@ornl.gov ========================================================================= = Cooperation requires participation. Competition teaches cooperation. = ========================================================================= ..._ .. ..._ ._ _ . ._.. . __. ._. ._ .__. .... _.__ ------------------------------ Date: 1 Aug 94 18:46:26 GMT From: lll-winken.llnl.gov!overload.lbl.gov!agate!headwall.Stanford.EDU!abercrombie.Stanford.EDU!paulf@ames.arpa To: ham-policy@ucsd.edu References <072994182402Rnf0.78@amcomp.com>, , <31j949$qqq@chnews.intel.com>ate.w Subject : Re: What is wrong with ham radio Cecil_A_Moore@ccm.ch.intel.com writes: >You finally got it... I think those guys could be convinced to become hams >if it weren't for the CW requirement. It appears to me that the act of >learning CW tends to block an RF engineer's ability to innovate since most >RF innovations are coming from outside the ham community. You know, I'm actually going to enjoy watching you prove this conjecture. Not only is it false on the face of things (the *vast* majority of RF engineers are hams), but now you've claimed interference between a cognitive skill and creativity in an unrelated area. Let me guess, your next connection will be between the SL9-Jupiter collision and Green Card Lawyer spam? -- -=Paul Flaherty, N9FZX | "The Enemy of the Good is the Better." ->paulf@Stanford.EDU | -- Gen. William "Wild Bill" Donovan ------------------------------ Date: 1 Aug 94 19:08:02 GMT From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!news.acns.nwu.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!agate!headwall.Stanford.EDU!abercrombie.Stanford.EDU!paulf@network.ucsd.edu To: ham-policy@ucsd.edu References <40.2570.2427@channel1.com>, <31egj6$2rm@nyx10.cs.du.edu>, <31gssb$39m@news.tamu.edu>ool Subject : Re: What is wrong with h furuta@cs.tamu.edu (Richard Furuta) writes: >Well, it's not a *technical* innovation, but I suspect that there would be very >few SAREX missions without the No Code license---how many of the astronauts >have passed a CW test? Yes, but we're discussing *technical* innovations, like those heavly promised by the nuke-the-code crowd. Stop applying grease and stick to the topic. -- -=Paul Flaherty, N9FZX | "The Enemy of the Good is the Better." ->paulf@Stanford.EDU | -- Gen. William "Wild Bill" Donovan ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Aug 1994 12:33:38 GMT From: agate!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!cs.utk.edu!stc06.CTD.ORNL.GOV!xdepc.eng.ornl.gov!wyn@ames.arpa To: ham-policy@ucsd.edu References <318of3$3h6@chnews.intel.com>, , <072994182402Rnf0.78@amcomp.com> Subject : Re: What is wrong with ham radio In article <072994182402Rnf0.78@amcomp.com> dan@amcomp.com (Dan Pickersgill) writes: >wyn@ornl.gov (C. C. Wynn) writes: >>In article <318of3$3h6@chnews.intel.com> Cecil_A_Moore@ccm.hf.intel.com writes: >> >>Don't believe everything you read. Everyone's brain is capable of functioning >>as a modem. At least, you'd better hope. Visual and audible communications >>depend on it. >Thank you Doctor. >>>>In other words, the filter is working. >> >>>The filter is working to keep some of the brightest people out of ham radio. >>>Why should a spread spectrum expert with a PHD degree in electronics >>>have to learn Morse code? Nobody makes the CW people learn spread >>>spectrum. Is CW more important than all other modes combined? >> >>Some of the brightest people are in ham radio and work CW. >Yes, Your a legion in you own mind. ^^^^^^ Wow, a group or a multitude huh? OK, I can accept that. For a minute I thought you were stooping to name calling. >>>We are getting quantity at the expense of quality. >> >>You said it! Is this because the filter is working or not working? >Just listen to some areas of 14 MHZ sometime and PROVE that morse testing >is a GREAT lid filter..... NOT! Why is it that most NAL's go to General >and above? Morse filter in action. Seems that those with lower code speeds >do better with the FCC. So do you really believe that eliminating the CW would help the situation on HF? In other words if the current sad state of affairs on HF is due to the CW filter no longer working then let's throw all of the filters away. (Although I have never heard of one CW operator calling another one a "legion".) But then, there are those amongst the pro-no-code'rs who argue that CW is too effective a filter, and filters out all of those good, upstanding, would-be operators. Hmmm, its is hard to follow the logic, no? >>> The best Rf engineers ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>>I know are not hams because they can't be bothered with the triviality ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>of Morse code. A lot of competent engineers think ham radio is a big >>>joke because of the CW cub-scout mentality. (nothing against cub-scouts >>>but in general, they are a little immature) >> >>Some of the best RF engineers I know are hams. ***************************** >Most are not. Your point? ***************************** Things are starting to get a little confusing here Dan. Are you proposing that the best RF engineers that you and Cecil know are not Hams because they can't be bothered with the triviality of Morse code but would otherwise be Hams? Wow, it is too late on Friday night Dan! Try switching to those de-caf diet cokes. After the "Big Kahuna" has thoroughly thrashed the "pro-no-code'rs" several times with the old ploy of forcing them to prove a negative to make their point, you open yourself up. OK, I'll go easy. I'll name three now who I regard as among the best RF engineers that are Hams. You may choose to 1: prove that they are not among the best RF engineers (bad move) or 2: name six that are among the best RF engineers that are not Hams, wanted to be but lost interest because of the code (rough way out, I may come back with three more) or 3: just concede the point (easy way out). 1. KA2WEU 2. K9AY 3. W6SAI 73, C. C. (Clay) Wynn N4AOX wyn@ornl.gov ========================================================================= = Cooperation requires participation. Competition teaches cooperation. = ========================================================================= ..._ .. ..._ ._ _ . ._.. . __. ._. ._ .__. .... _.__ ------------------------------ Date: 1 Aug 94 19:11:22 GMT From: agate!headwall.Stanford.EDU!abercrombie.Stanford.EDU!paulf@ames.arpa To: ham-policy@ucsd.edu References <40.2553.2427@channel1.com>, , <073094235258Rnf0.78@amcomp.com>prima Subject : Re: What is wrong with h (what was this word?) dan@amcomp.com (Dan Pickersgill) writes: >There you go again Jeff. Stating as FACT something that is just your >biased observation. The latest survey stated only 38% regularly use morse. >Your 50% quote is imagined. There *you* go again, Dan, taking a quote out of context. Jeff said 50% of _QSOs_, not 50% of _hams_. And in fact, every time I've counted on 15 and 20 over the past three years, it's come to just that, namely that the number of CW QSOs equals the number of digital and SSB Qs during the sample period. -- -=Paul Flaherty, N9FZX | "The Enemy of the Good is the Better." ->paulf@Stanford.EDU | -- Gen. William "Wild Bill" Donovan ------------------------------ Date: 1 Aug 1994 21:42:45 GMT From: cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!col.hp.com!jms@uunet.uu.net To: ham-policy@ucsd.edu References <318of3$3h6@chnews.intel.com>, , <072994181451Rnf0.78@amcomp.com> Subject : Re: What is wrong with ham radio : jeffrey@kahuna.tmc.edu (Jeffrey Herman) writes: : And others can not confirm your account. Personally I worked 20 meters for : a good portion of field day and heard VERY little morse CW. Your receiver doesn't work on 20 meters. Mike, K0TER ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Aug 1994 12:08:08 GMT From: agate!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!cs.utk.edu!stc06.CTD.ORNL.GOV!xdepc.eng.ornl.gov!wyn@ames.arpa To: ham-policy@ucsd.edu References <318of3$3h6@chnews.intel.com>, , <31bobe$mch@chnews.intel.com> Subject : Re: What is wrong with ham radio In article <31bobe$mch@chnews.intel.com> Cecil_A_Moore@ccm.hf.intel.com writes: >In article , C. C. Wynn wrote: >>Everyone's brain is capable of functioning as a modem. >You said everyone... how about the late Helen Keller? She probably could have learned the code and become an excellent operator. I know several physically challenged people who have met the requirements, become excellent hams, use CW, and have a great public service record to show for it. Physical limitations are covered on the back of the 610 form. >You have missed the point entirely, Clay. The RF engineers that I mentioned >are not suffering because they are not hams... HAM RADIO IS SUFFERING >BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT HAMS. Some of these guys who can pass the Extra test >in their sleep would be barred from advancing beyond Tech because they don't >see the need to learn a mode that most other services have given up on. >This is a good example of the CW requirement contributing to the dumbing >down of ham radio. Knowledge and technical expertise shrink to insignificance >in the face of the almighty _MORSE_CODE_. I don't think so. At the risk of plagerizing other's comments, there are excellent RF engineers who are hams. Also, there are excellent RF engineers who are not hams. Ham radio is not for everybody. Ham radio is not necessarily and should not be just an enclave for RF engineers. 73, C. C. (Clay) Wynn N4AOX wyn@ornl.gov ========================================================================= = Cooperation requires participation. Competition teaches cooperation. = ========================================================================= ..._ .. ..._ ._ _ . ._.. . __. ._. ._ .__. .... _.__ ------------------------------ Date: 2 Aug 1994 02:39:28 GMT From: noc.near.net!chaos.dac.neu.edu!lynx.dac.neu.edu!dcassell@uunet.uu.net To: ham-policy@ucsd.edu References ,<319k98$ncg@chaos.dac.neu.edu>, <31avfv$5h2@news.iastate.edu>, Subject : Re: Digital mode subbands Andy Domonkos (domonkos@access.digex.net) wrote: : Not understanding the theory is ALL the justification needed to keep : un-qualified operators off HF. I'm getting tired of new-ops asking me : how to measure SWR on a 2M rig and the antenna. What was all that stuff : for in the study guides then? I would have been laughed : off the air (hell, I would've been ashamed to ask it) 17 years ago. These : folks should have bought their GMRS license and be satisfied w/that. : Andy Get off it. Ham radio, in it's most basic form, is about experimenting. The theory written does *NOT*, in any form, explain to new operators how to purchase one of the myriads of SWR meters, attach it to their rig, and measure the SWR off the antenna. It explains the theory behind SWR, but the question pools do not have any realistic guide to daily operation. I *DID* study the theory, and believe me, I had plenty of questions to ask, even after I earned my Extra Class. Even if you consider a new hams question "stupid" or whatever, are you not going to help because you are bitter that someone who was eager to get their license not only did so, but had the gall to ask you a question? You're attitude is an insult to ham radio operators and what they stand for. Perhaps you should have bought a GMRS license and confined your complaining to that. Damon Cassell, WU1T dcassell@lynx.dac.neu.edu ------------------------------ Date: 2 Aug 1994 02:32:21 GMT From: noc.near.net!chaos.dac.neu.edu!lynx.dac.neu.edu!dcassell@uunet.uu.net To: ham-policy@ucsd.edu References , ,<319k98$ncg@chaos.dac.neu.edu>, <31avfv$5h2@news.iastate.edu> Subject : Re: Digital mode subbands (was Re: CW is FUN!! reprise) : It does if you are suggesting--like an earlier poster--that digital operation : should not be allowed for any ham without a general class license. What makes : the general class so special? I am not saying that the General class should have digital privileges that lower classes cannot. I would actually be interested in seeing a class of license created (or an existing one modified) to allow limited HF digital and voice communications (beyond that which the Novice provides). I think it is time to create a license structure geared towards allowing a prospective ham to select his or her level of technical ability and take an exam that would reward the operating privileges that person desires. The currant caste system of heirarchal licensing is hopelessly outdated and does little to encourage actually learning the testing material. As for CW, why should hams who only desire voice communications on a spectrum limited only to an Extra Class be subjected to a 20 WPM exam if they are never going to see code again? Instead, why not create an alternative exam designed specifically for a voice or digitally oriented ham. Of course that would do little to foster the "tradition" of CW, but why do we need to foster a mode that is the technological equivelant of a dinousaur. In an age of high tech automobiles, airplanes, and spacetravel, why are we selling hams the Flintstone's footpowered car? As for the older generation of hams who "had to do it, so should you", perhaps we should subject them to rigorous examinations on digital modes such as packet. Most of the licensing debate comes from deep within an old generation of hams who are frightened at the prospect of losing their last frontier to the technology armed hams eager to share the airwaves. It's time to take stock in what matters and what does not. ------------------------------ End of Ham-Policy Digest V94 #343 ******************************