QRZ! Ham Radio 4/QRZ Ham Radio Callsign Database - Volume 4.iso/digests/policy/940413.txt

Internet Message Format | 1994-11-13 | 18KB

Date: Fri,  2 Sep 94 04:30:08 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 #413
To: Ham-Policy


Ham-Policy Digest           Fri,  2 Sep 94       Volume 94 : Issue  413

Today's Topics:
                        CW ...IS NOW! (2 msgs)
                 CW Transmitters ARE Simple (2 msgs)
    Simplicity of gear (was Re: Code Must GO! or stay!?) (2 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: Thu, 1 Sep 1994 03:06:54 GMT
From: news.Hawaii.Edu!kahuna![e-mail]
Subject: CW ...IS NOW!
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Alan Wilensky) writes:

>just worked a USCG cutter on 2m. Radio officer says, yes, no more code
>training, no key on ship. They do not handle distress traffic by CW,
>they use SELCAL RTTY. His words, "a far superior mode than CW for
>handling all types of routine and distress traffic". His call was N1KTG.

There is no `radio officer' on a cutter.  He was a `radioman'.

I wonder how much code this N1KTG has worked on the maritime bands
to be able to compare CW with RTTY. When I was in the Coast Guard
I would rather have passed traffic via CW than RTTY since we
never seemed  to get solid copy with TTY, and at times we'd take
a hit and the remainder of the msg would be garbled; that would
entail having the other op resend his traffic

I wonder if  N1KTG even knows code...

But none of this has anything to do with the fact that about 50%
of the QSO's on the HF ham bands are conducted using CW.

Alan, did you know that CW is the only kosher mode? ;)

Jeff  NH6IL

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

Date: Thu, 1 Sep 1994 03:15:16 GMT
From: news.Hawaii.Edu!kahuna![e-mail]
Subject: CW ...IS NOW!
To: [e-mail]

(C. C. (Clay) Wynn, N4AOX) writes:

>with your pro-no-code pen pals, Al.  Something or someone has them stirred
>into a frenzy.
>
>Could it be that they are upset with the Conference of European Postal and
>Telecommunications Administrations' new trans-europe ham license where they
>decided that "...radio amateurs shall not be allowedto transmit on frequencies
>below 30 MHz unless they have proved their ability to send correctly by hand,
>and to receive correctly by ear, text in Morse code signals.".
>
>Or maybe it was the realization that most of the long distance VHF/UHF records
>set earlier this summer were accomplished using Morse code keyed CW.  Can you
>imaginebeing on the receiving end of a 10,000 km 6 meter "CQ" and not being
>ableto respond because of your deficiency in CW?

I thought it would  be a good idea to repost this in case anyone missed
it.

Why are the Europeans so enlightened?

Jeff NH6IL

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

Date: Thu, 1 Sep 1994 03:50:12 GMT
From: news.Hawaii.Edu!kahuna![e-mail]
Subject: CW Transmitters ARE Simple
To: [e-mail]

Oh. Maybe that 20M xmtr was too complicated. Here's one for 40M that'll
get you on the air in an hour. But only if you know the code.

Jeff NH6IL


*****************************************************************
Subject: PROJECT 1: 40M QRP TRANSMITTER

   Project 1 is a simple 40 meter xmtr; it should only take 15 minutes
to build it (if you've got the parts). I wasn't able to draw the symbol
for each part on this terminal, so I put the part number in it's
place. Hope you don't mind... Note that the case of Q1 should be
grounded. Here's the text for this project, taken from "101 EASY
HAM RADIO PROJECTS"  by Robert M. Brown, k2zsq/w9hbf and Tom Kneital,
k2aes/wb2aai:

   "Want to really shake up your next contact? Just tell him you are
using this one-transistor CW rig! Most Novices and other hams shy
away from these little gems thinking they are hopelessly underpowered.
Not so! More than 50 contacts - all located over 75 miles distant -
have been logged with this rig connected to the backyard longwire!
   "Construction is quite simple and, in fact, there is not much to
say about it. Reason: there isn't very little that can go wrong!
   "L1 should be adjusted for maximum deflection on an FSM as the
key is depressed. Crystal should be a fundamental frequency type
for 40-meter operation."

Parts list:

C1   68 pF capacitor
C2   .015 uF capacitor
C3   10 pF capacitor
L1   25 turns of No. 26 enameled wire wound on a 3/8 in. slug-
     tuned form (National XR-91 or equiv.)
M1   4.5 volt battery
M2   40-meter fundamental freq. crystal
Q1   GE-9 transistor
R1   91K resistor


+-------M2--------*----------*-----------*----------C3-----------ANT.
|                 |          |           |
|                 |          |           |
|                 C          C1          L1
*--------------B Q1          |           |
|                 E          |           |
|                 |      +---*-----------+
|                 |      |   |
R1               GND     |   |
|                       C2   |
|                        |   |
|                       GND  |
|                            |
+----------------------------*----------M1+---KEY-------GND


That's it! Note that GND = ground (and note the polarity of M1).
For Q1, I've labelled its leads B = base, C = collector, E = emitter.
* indicates a junction of 3 or more leads.


Jeff NH6IL

Jeffrey Herman, University of Hawaii Mathematics, [e-mail]
******************************************************************************

Ah yes, a picture *is* worth a thousand words. Now, I'm waiting for you
pro-no-code folks to provide us with some non-CW circuits of
such simplicity. Dana says AM is simple, but with whom will our
newly licensed ham talk to? Yet the know-code will have
thousands of folks to have CW QSO's with.

Jeff

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

Date: 1 Sep 1994 05:49:06 GMT
From: ihnp4.ucsd.edu!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!news.duke.edu!eff!news.kei.com!ssd.intel.com!chnews!sedona![e-mail]
Subject: CW Transmitters ARE Simple
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>,
Jeffrey Herman <[e-mail]> wrote:

>Here's one of the transmitter projects I posted to .homebrew last year.
>Jeff NH6IL

Hi Jeff, I got a question... are you going to try to get the FCC to
force all HF hams to build this rig... if not... why not? Makes sense
to us pro-coders.

I can assume a biased point of view just as well as you can. I say we
eliminate the CW requirement and install a BSEE requirement... nope,
a math degree is not good enough... sorry. What? a BSEE requirement
would be unfair? You maintain exactly the same argument regarding CW,
and I would tend to believe that a BSEE is a lot more important to ham
radio than CW. I've got both so I'm not all shook up (except during
the Intel talent show). But can you see how a BSEE RF designer with 40
years of experience plus a commercial radio license might feel left out
because he never experienced the dit-dah Cub Scout mentality. (I have to
admit that I did and have suffered bi-polar personality episodes ever
since). In fact, forget that I ever mentioned it.

73, Cecil, KG7BK, OOTC  (Not speaking for Intel)

--
 Intel, Corp.
 5000 W. Chandler Blvd.
 Chandler, AZ  85226

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

Date: Thu, 1 Sep 1994 03:30:03 GMT
From: news.Hawaii.Edu!kahuna![e-mail]
Subject: Simplicity of gear (was Re: Code Must GO! or stay!?)
To: [e-mail]

In article <342nob$[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:

>  Afterall, if a person builds a low-power HF AM transmitter,
>they can immediately communicate.


With whom? I hear a few AM QSO's nightly on 160M and even one or two
on 80M but that's about it.


>In other words, if the goal is encourage people to homebrew, maybe we should
>set aside some AM only spectrum on HF rather than require people to learn Morse
>code.


Oh. Delete the code requirement, then set aside spectrum for bandwidth-
eating AM in an effort to encourage people to build? I think CW already
provides one the opportunity to get a homebrewed xmtr on the air quickly
at a *MUCH* greater savings in bandwidth than AM.

Dana, this doesn't sound like an argument from someone with a 150+ IQ!

73 Buddy,
Jeff NH6IL

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

Date: 31 Aug 1994 20:04:27 GMT
From: news.cerf.net!nntp-server.caltech.edu!netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!gatech!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!zip.eecs.umich.edu!yeshua.marcam.com!charnel.ecst.@@ihnp4.ucsd.edu
Subject: Simplicity of gear (was Re: Code Must GO! or stay!?)
To: [e-mail]

In article [e-mail],  [e-mail] (Paul Flaherty) writes:
>
>Yes, I know what's available for FM components.  I also know we're discussing
>HF here, where FM is (mostly) irrelevant.  And you still have to build a
>stable oscillator for the multiplier, which is what you'd already have built
>if you were intent on operating HF CW.  Funny how that works.

Since a CW transmitter is simply a device capable of generating a carrier
at some chosen frequency, then it isn't surprising at all.  Every communications
mode consists of a carrier modulated with information.  In some cases, the
carrier disappears during the modulation process (i.e. SSB and DSB suppressed
carrier).

I'll agree that being able to generate a stable signal in the HF region is
commonly part of any radio design (though this signal may just be the
reference for a PLL synthesizer or a clock for a DDS).

However, this doesn't make Morse code the basis for all radio modulation
methods. Morse code uses a particular set of patterns of on-off switching
of a carrier.  If the goal is making it easy for people to have successful
homebrewing experiences, then it seems odd to me that Morse code even enters
into the picture.  Afterall, if a person builds a low-power HF AM transmitter,
they can immediately communicate.  They'd learned everything they would building
a CW transmitter and a little more, with little increase in complexity.  But,
requiring a person to learn Morse code in addition to the art of homebrewing
seems to erect an artificial barrier.

You'll have no argument from me that a CW transmitter is easier to
build, and I don't argue that once a person learns Morse code, they
will be able to communicate with a simple transmitter.  However,
arguing for the requirement of Morse code because it makes it easier to
homebrew is like the tail wagging the dog; it is easier for many people
to add an LM380 amplifier and audio transformer to a CW rig than it is
to learn Morse code.

In other words, if the goal is encourage people to homebrew, maybe we should
set aside some AM only spectrum on HF rather than require people to learn Morse
code.


---
 * Dana H. Myers KK6JQ, DoD#: j    | Views expressed here are    *
 * [phone]         | mine and do not necessarily    *
 * [e-mail]    | reflect those of my employer    *
 * "Sir, over there.... is that a man?"                         *

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

Date: Wed, 31 Aug 1994 20:48:12 GMT
From: walter!dancer.cc.bellcore.com![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <342b19$[e-mail]>ws.duk
Subject : Re: Learning CW, a newbie view

In article <342b19$[e-mail]>,
 <[e-mail]> wrote:
>In article <[e-mail]>,
Bruce Micales <[e-mail]> wrote:

>>What elements would you require for this second no-code license?  Which
>>bands would this new no-code license be allowed to operate?
>>Bruce Micales

>I would suggest Novice plus General HF Phone priviledges for
>anyone who has passed all the written tests through Extra and 5 wpm
>CW. This would not disturb the precious CW portions of the bands at
>all. I can't even imagine a rational counter-argument.
>73, Cecil, KG7BK, OOTC  (Not speaking for Intel)

And, please note,,,this would not be a NO-code test as the element
1a (5wpm) would still be retained as suggested by Cecil.

Likewise, I'd say give anyone who passes element 1c (20wpm) full
access to the CW extra class segments wiythout the theory as that'd
should certainly be acceptable to Jeff & Clay...wouldn't it?

Cheers,


--
Standard Disclaimer- Any opinions, etc. are mine and NOT my employer's.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Sohl (K2UNK) BELLCORE (Bell Communications Research, Inc.)
Morristown, NJ             email via UUCP      bcr!cc!whs70
201-829-2879 Weekdays      email via Internet  [e-mail]

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

Date: 31 Aug 1994 21:51:07 GMT
From: pa.dec.com!crl.dec.com!crl.dec.com!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!senator-bedfellow.mit.edu!vongole.MIT.EDU![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <33h72s$[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <342a64$[e-mail]>
Subject : Re: What is wrong with ham radio

[e-mail] wrote:
: In article <[e-mail]>,
: Jeffrey Herman <[e-mail]> wrote:

: >Thus code testing *is* relevant since about half the QSO's use it.

: Since those QSOers were _forced_ to learn CW, that statistic is
: meaningless. How many CW QSO's would there be if CW were not shoved
: down every ham's throat? (except techs)

Oh yes, CW is *so* unpleasant.  All of us sitting in the dark, tapping away
on our primitive little keys, we're *so* unhappy.  We wish we had not had
CW forced on us, then we would not feel compelled to carry on QSOs that way.

Sheesh.

(stuff excised)

: If CW is as good as you say, why are you afraid
: to change the requirements. Wouldn't a ham, exercising his/her free will,
: choose to learn CW even if it were not required.

By exercising "free will" any ham should be able to instantly overcome having
CW "shoved down their throat".

Free will aside, this does make some sense.  Despite my (largely satirical)
post "Quit whining and learn the damn code" I think the code requirement will
go someday.  Not soon, but someday.  And I have no problem with this as long
as a replacement test is developed that evaluates operating skills (which is
not to say that the current CW test does such a great job of this), and as
long as CW-ONLY subbands are established where there are currently
"gentlemen's agreements".

Code IS fun.  I doubt that removal of the test would spell its ultimate
demise.

73 de aa1hx

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

Date: 1 Sep 1994 05:11:11 GMT
From: pa.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!iamu.chi.dec.com![e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

References <[e-mail]>, <33h72s$[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>m
Reply-To : [e-mail] (Todd Little)
Subject : Re: What is wrong with ham radio


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jeffrey Herman) writes:
|>In article <33h72s$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Todd Little) writes:
|>
|>>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (C. C. Wynn) writes:
|>
|>>|>When it comes to HF, where the majority of QSO's are not Voice or RTTY/DATA,
|>>|>CW testing is relevant.
|>>
|>>Strange, I can't remember the last CW QSO I heard in the phone segments.  I
|>>know I have heard them, but as to being a majority???
|>
|>Todd, I don't see the connection between what Wynn wrote and your
|>comment. Wynn says correctly that the majority of HF QSO's are *not*
|>voice nor rtty/data, remembering that about 50% of HF QSO's are
|>conducted via CW.  Thus code testing *is* relevant since about half
|>the QSO's use it. Once any other mode gains this popularity then
|>delete the code test and test for the new `fad' mode.

The connection is that much more bandwidth is currently used by the phone/data
segments than the CW segments.  Certainly much more than the supposed
difference in QSO spacing.  You argue that the bands are over crowded.  That
leads one to the conclusion that the statement "When it comes to HF, where
the majority of QSO's are not Voice or RTTY/DATA" is false.  Your
unsubstantiated claims that 50% of HF QSO's are CW doesn't change that.

Aside from the listening that I've done and counted on going QSOs which
indicate that CW QSOs account for far less than the claimed 50%, I suggest
you look at the CW/phone contests.  In looking over contest scores for
contests such as the November Sweepstakes, there are certainly many more phone
contacts claimed than CW contacts.

|>Ever wonder why code has been The `fad' mode for over 80 years?

Care to translate that?  If you're asking why the ITU and FCC has favored
CW for 80 years, I can only hazard a guess based upon how screwed up most
government agencies are.  If you're saying it is the fad mode because of
your claim that it's the mode used by the majority of hams for the majority
of QSOs, then I simply ask you to provide verifiable evidence of that claim.

73,
Todd
N9MWB

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

End of Ham-Policy Digest V94 #413
******************************