QRZ! Ham Radio 4/QRZ Ham Radio Callsign Database - Volume 4.iso/digests/policy/940343.txt

Internet Message Format | 1994-11-13 | 23KB

Date: Tue,  2 Aug 94 04:30:18 PDT
From: Ham-Policy Mailing List and Newsgroup <[e-mail]>
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
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: <[e-mail]>
Send subscription requests to: <[e-mail]>
Problems you can't solve otherwise to [e-mail].

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![e-mail]
Subject: A quiet voice for Novice Class NOT time-limited
To: [e-mail]


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] ([e-mail]) writes:
>Michael Silva <[e-mail]> 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![e-mail]
Subject: CW ...IS history!
To: [e-mail]

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: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] 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![e-mail]
Subject: What is wrong with h
To: [e-mail]

Alan Wilensky ([e-mail]) 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    [e-mail]
 Berkeley, California                home    [e-mail]
     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: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (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 ([e-mail])

------------------------------

Date: Mon,  1 Aug 94 19:44:00 -0400
From: news.sprintlink.net!coyote.channel1.com!channel1![e-mail]
Subject: What is wrong with h
To: [e-mail]

JH>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
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.
[e-mail]
---
■ 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![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>ic
Subject : Re: CW is FUN!! reprise

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:



>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (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
[e-mail]

=========================================================================
= 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![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <31j949$[e-mail]>ate.w
Subject : Re: What is wrong with ham radio

[e-mail] 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."
->[e-mail]   |         -- 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![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <31egj6$[e-mail]>, <31gssb$[e-mail]>ool
Subject : Re: What is wrong with h

[e-mail] (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."
->[e-mail]   |         -- 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![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <318of3$[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Subject : Re: What is wrong with ham radio

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dan Pickersgill) writes:

>[e-mail] (C. C. Wynn) writes:

>>In article <318of3$[e-mail]> [e-mail] 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
[e-mail]

=========================================================================
= Cooperation requires participation.  Competition teaches cooperation. =
=========================================================================
       ..._  .. ..._  ._   _ . ._.. . __. ._. ._ .__. .... _.__

------------------------------

Date: 1 Aug 94 19:11:22 GMT
From: agate!headwall.Stanford.EDU!abercrombie.Stanford.EDU![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>prima
Subject : Re: What is wrong with h (what was this word?)

[e-mail] (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."
->[e-mail]   |         -- Gen. William "Wild Bill" Donovan

------------------------------

Date: 1 Aug 1994 21:42:45 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!col.hp.com![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <318of3$[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Subject : Re: What is wrong with ham radio

: [e-mail] (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![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <318of3$[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <31bobe$[e-mail]>■¥
Subject : Re: What is wrong with ham radio

In article <31bobe$[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:



>In article <[e-mail]>, C. C. Wynn <[e-mail]> 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
[e-mail]

=========================================================================
= 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![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>,<319k98$[e-mail]>, <31avfv$[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Subject : Re: Digital mode subbands

Andy Domonkos ([e-mail]) 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
[e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: 2 Aug 1994 02:32:21 GMT
From: noc.near.net!chaos.dac.neu.edu!lynx.dac.neu.edu![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>,<319k98$[e-mail]>, <31avfv$[e-mail]>
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
******************************