mpackard@uok.UUCP (06/25/84)
#N:uok:2800003:000:1187 uok!mpackard Jun 24 19:40:00 1984 :-) I would like to start an argument on net.ham-radio as it seems there is no food for thought on this note. The subject is no-code on 50 Mhz and up. I believe the requirement for an amatuer to learn morse code for these frequencys is pure hogwash. The number of radios available on these frequencys is more than enough to eliminate the need. When was the last time you saw a jack on a two-meter handheld that said 'key' on it? The poor users couldn't do morse if they wanted too. The above statement refers to the fact that in this day and age the only concievable purpose of morse would be for emergencys when your microphone broke and for practice to maintain currency. Wayne Green says if hams want morse than by god they better be current and able to operate with it. A person should retest every year and even be required to show a speed improvement also. I believe this would be fair. My interest is in microwaves and I just don't see where the ham community would benifit from my knowing morse code. Hell you guys don't use morse actively up on these frequencys anyway. Don't send me any mail on this subject but go ahead and start arguing (sp?). uok!mpackard
gls@inuxd.UUCP (Gary Spahn) (06/27/84)
The reason you don't see alot of arguing on this net is that this is not
CB. The majority are interested in exchanging information on various aspects
of the hobby or help newcomers as yourself get started. I didn't get into
the hobby until recently because I "didn't have time" to learn the code. Two
years ago, my 13 year-old daughter enrolled in an electronics class in school
which would lead to a novice license. I got on the stick and got my ticket,
then upgraded. She got her license and worked her first Field Day contest.
My older daughter and wife also now have their tickets. Are you going to let
THEM show YOU up????? Come-on!!!! Find a ham at work or in your neighborhood.
Join the crowd. You are very welcome.
'73s de KA9MQI
Garypiety@hplabs.UUCP (Bob Piety) (06/28/84)
I'd be happy with a more thorough technical test to separate those who REALLY know radio & electronics theory from those who Bash their way into ham radio. The basic idea of the code is to keep the hobby clean-- unlike CB. While the code test has served that purpose in the past, a comprehensive technical test could be used today, when knowing ASCII is more useful than morse code. Bob KG6HV
labelle@hplabsc.UUCP (WB6YZZ La Belle) (06/28/84)
Agreed. Morse code should be just another available mode. I
don't have to learn ascii to operate a tty station!
Technical expertise should be the only mandantory requirement
for a liscence to operate!stephany.WBST@XEROX.ARPA (06/29/84)
To have Morse or not to have Morse that is no longer the question. Morse is here to stay. I do not think 4 Hrs of work and $4.98 for a cassette is too much to ask for to qualify for a Ham Licese. The Boy Scout Merit badge award requires 5 WPM, so you guys out there want a Ham License that has less of a requirement than a Boy Scout Merit Badge ?? Oh, Oh, there I go again. Sorry Guys. Joe N2XS "Spark Forever" PS I still think tubes are classy
Rturner@darcom-hq.arpa (06/29/84)
Nope...Boy Scout Radio Merit Badge is tougher. 7WPM! rick/nf4t
glc@akgua.UUCP (G.L. Cleveland [Lindsay]) (07/01/84)
I thought this topic was well chewed over during the days when
the FCC was considering a no-code license. Anyway, I'll drop in
some observations.
Just because a hand-held doesn't have a Key jack doesn't mean
that the Morse Code isn't used on VHF. I have an HF transmitter
that doesn't have a SSB mode. By using that sort of logic, should
one assume that SSB is not used on 40 meters? The point is: Morse
Code *is* used on VHF! Just because you only have an FM rig and
don't listen to the DX'ers and satellite buffs doesn't mean that
a particular mode is not in use.
Do some reading in some of those sections of Worldradio or QST
that you usually skip over. You'll find lots of instances where
knowledge of the Code saved life or property. Without our large
pool of world-wide "Code Readers", many of those instances would
not have turned out so well.
And a final note...not all the world is affluent! Remember the
project the ARRL advocated some years back of encouraging clubs and
individuals to sponsor a $50.00 rcvr/xmtr kit to be sent to various
third-world locales? If the U.S. went no-code we would be
effectively saying to the less-affluent hams of the world "We don't
want to talk to you unless you can do SSB or ASCII!"
Ham Radio has many facets. Your license allows you to enjoy any
and all. Getting it means you are *qualified* to use any mode.
Just because you aren't interested in a particular mode today
doesn't mean you won't be next month.
From the laid-back (lassiez-faire) ham shack of W4IZI.
Lindsayyba@mit-athena.ARPA (Mark H Levine) (07/02/84)
I was not a net reader when you (plural) were chewing over the codeless license. I have read parts of the rehash and would like to know how people with my particular view were answered by the majority. I know several people, most of whom are EEs, especially in microwave engineering, who would apply for a code-less VHF-UHF license and bring some of their expertise into amateur radio. They cite the stumbling block of the code as the reason they will not apply. Now personally I agree that once in the ham fraternity such folks would find incentives to learn the code. I didn't really like it myself for quite awhile, and then some friends at W2SZ took me on a moonbounce expedition. There is nothing like trying a VHF/UHF contest for proving your new 1.2 GHz amplifier either--not a whole lot of phone in that last I checked. I don't think whether code is useful or not is at issue--I think it is, and if I'm wrong we will all just plain stop using it and it will go away. The open question is whether to get people who will not learn the code a novice type ham license so that we can benefit from the new blood. Not all of us took up this hobby to be operators. Some are mainly equipment builders, or interested in public service, or even chess. I feel that it takes all kinds, and that we want the kind that will contribute, even without the code. We seem to have enough appliance operators to go around. I believe that making the codeless license require a tough technical test and limiting privileges will make sure we get good technicians, and not CBers. Aside from the "No one gets into this club unless he passes the same initiation I had to pass" arguments, what were the objections to the codeless experimenter license? Please feel free to use direct mail for responses, and flame at me if you wish. I'd really like to know what drives League policy here, as the FCC seemed ready to go for this idea before ARRL started lobbying--does anyone think that impression wrong? WA2YBA/1 -- yba%mit-heracles@mit-mc.ARPA UUCP: decvax!mit-athena!yba
allan@noao.UUCP (07/02/84)
I really don't see what the problem is with learning morse code. The argument
was that it is not used much on vhf and uhf frequencies. Well if you are
only interested in these frequencies then a technician license will give
you all the privileges that you need. You are not telling me that 5 wpm
is too much to cope with are you?
Peter Allan (KA7RFO)
Kitt Peak National Observatory
Tucson, Az
UUCP: {akgua,allegra,arizona,decvax,hao,ihnp4,lbl-csam,seismo}!noao!allan
ARPA: noao!allan@lbl-csam.arpachuckb@fluke.UUCP (Chuck Bowden) (07/03/84)
urs have a great deal of
responsibility with their generous HF spectrum space. And that includes
taking the time to learn Morse Code, the most reliable and efficient
mode in radio communication.
/Chuck Bowden, kd7lz
{uw-beaver,microsof,sun,allegra,ssc-vax} !fluke!chuckbron@brl-tgr.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (07/03/84)
What separates Amateur Radio from Children's Band is not the increased technical knowledge. C'mon, the written exam for the so-called general license doesn't assure any great level of technical competance. The difference between ham and CB is effort. You have to spend some type of effort to get your license, unlike just mailing back the form when you buy your radio (if the average CBer even bothers to do that). -Ron
stekas@hou2g.UUCP (J.STEKAS) (07/05/84)
As an ex-ham who worked CW exclusively (~30wpm) I vouch that it can't be beat for inexpensive, reliable communications. But as far as the code requirement goes - it serves little purpose. Certainly, it keeps out the CBers. But wouldn't a more difficult technical exam be just as effective? And as for emergency communications, how much proficiency is needed to copy QRRR or SOS at 5WPM and call the authorities? Even the most die-hard, 60WPM, CW op would slow down to make sure his distress signal was copied. The fact is, one no longer needs to know the code to use it. For $100 a box can be had which will turn a home computer into a RTTY/Morse terminal. It's true that the box needs a higher S/N than a good operator, but you can't beat it for armchair copy. So I move that code requirements be dropped to 5WPM and the technical requirements raised. Then maybe every ham will know enough to keep his modulation <100% and all those 5WPM distress now obscured by splatter could be copied! :-) Jim ex- WA2IAA
stephenc@tektronix.UUCP (Stephen Coan ) (07/05/84)
NO-CODE will turn the 2 meter and possibly 40 cm bands into a junkpile. Those that think a tough technical test should remember how many books are out there to help people pass the present technical tests, all the way to extra. I knew of a woman, totally non-techninical, who went and got a First Class ticket by reading a book. She did this back in the late 60's because she was working a night shift at a radio station, and this would help keep the costs down. Do you think she would have been able to perform any First Class ticket functions if required? They told her what to do, and to have her call the engineer if anything happened. I was one of those who complained about the code requirement for years until I sat down and did it. When you realize that 5 wpm is only one character in about two seconds, all you have to do is learn to recognize the characters and numbers of the code. Two seconds is a fairly long time to recognize a character. At least it shows that a person is genuinely interested in the service. Also, for those that think that code doesn't get used on VHF, there are many places where the code is used. For one, it identifies most of the repeaters that are in use. When in an unfamiliar area, this may be the only way to know which call sign for the repeater is current. Also, those repeaters that have autopatch capabilities usually send the number information back in code as a check prior to dialing the number. Code exists most everywhere in Amateur radio, and you only have to listen to find some.
ron@brl-tgr.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (07/06/84)
I really suprised the control stations on our repeater system here in Baltimore that I noticed they changed the Call Sign on the repeater. Not many people notice the morse code identifier changed. I don't think many can copy it. -Ron
mpackard@uok.UUCP (07/06/84)
#R:uok:2800003:uok:2800006:000:287 uok!mpackard Jul 5 19:58:00 1984 Peter allan, 1 WPM would be too much to ask for! Even 1 word per week gets my anger when you require it. I think the requirements to get a licsense should be to build your own station or be able to fix your radio instead of sending it back to japan. But this is just as rediculas.
nathanm@hp-pcd.UUCP (07/06/84)
> I'd be happy with a more thorough technical test to separate those who > REALLY know radio & electronics theory from those who Bash their way into > ham radio. > > The basic idea of the code is to keep the hobby clean-- unlike CB. While > the code test has served that purpose in the past, a comprehensive technical > test could be used today, when knowing ASCII is more useful than morse code. > > > Bob KG6HV Alright, I confess, I've never learned code. Perhaps that's one of the few reasons I am not a ham at this moment. But while I don't want to take on the establishment and all that implies, I am a little bothered by the "keep the hobby clean" attitude. Yes, I agree, let's keep the idiots off the air. As a pilot, I am similarly interested in keeping idiots out of the sky. But I don't believe in the "I had to do it, so you have to do it also" attitude. It's too damn self-serving. If anything, I notice aviation magazines increasingly alarmed at the growing difficulty of getting an airmans certificate, worried that too many people are being scared away from aviation. How exclusive do you want amateur radio to be? I found the comment about CB quite telling. No, I'm not one, but I read a most interesting comment in net.auto. In an article entitled something like "an inexpensive radar detector", the author touted the advantages of CB as a radar detector (channel 19 or thereabouts) and in emergencies. The author also pointed out that the crap that congested the airwaves during the height of CB's popularity has, by and large, disappeared. In other words, the problem pretty much corrected itself once people got over the novelty of being radio operators. Times have changed. Amateur radio operators are no longer blazing the trails they once did. DX'ing halfway around the world, while still not trivial, is about as innovative as, well, crossing the Atlantic. I've done the latter in a 747 and it's *really* dull. I hope I'm not being too critical in suggesting that amateur radio has passed its pioneering days in every way except in attitude. Maybe it's time to rethink the code requirement and ask whether it still belongs. Come to think of it, are they still asking questions about triodes on the tests? ---------- Nathan Meyers hplabs!hp-pcd!nathanm
cmm@pixadv.UUCP (cmm) (07/10/84)
I am for the morse code requirement. As a child, I watched my mother (K1UZG)
learn the code, and she had no particular problem with it. In fact, once
she got her license, she rarely used voice.
It seems from watching her during her active days, that morse almost entered
her brain through a channel completely unrelated to verbal speech. On many
occasions, she would be cooking supper with three attention hungry children
talking with her simultaneously, while she was carrying on a 60wpm+ QSO with
a friend on 80 meters. In spite of the sensory assault she was under, she
was still able to copy the code.
After I got my license (then WA1JMS), I found that I could communicate with
people whose signals weren't far enough above the noise to make a perceptable
beat note. I could copy signals that just barely changed the "texture" of the
noise, if they were slow enough.
I have found that code is a reliable communications means, working when all
else fails. Even the space missions, Mercury at least, had morse as a backup.
Yours, (KA1ZF)
--
____________________________________________________________________________
cmm (carl m mikkelsen) | (617)657-8720x2310
Pixel Computer Incorporated |
260 Fordham Road | {allegra|ihnp4|cbosgd|ima|genrad|amd|harvard}\
Wilmington, Ma. 01887 | !wjh12!pixel!pixadv!cmmlabelle@hplabsc.UUCP (WB6YZZ La Belle) (07/10/84)
How about 5 wpm to obtain any class license, with the
higher classes being obtained through tougher technical and maybe
operational examination? That would fulfill the emergency-jury rigged
cw station requirement while making it much easier for the technically
qualified (badly needed in our hobby) to get into amateur radio.
I would have had a ham license 5 yrs before I finally
obtained one if not for cw. I used to have an exclusively homebrew
station! GEORGEtech@auvax.UUCP (Richard Loken) (07/12/84)
I obtained the Canadian Amateur Operator's Certificate in 1969 - this licence allows only HF CW and most modes above 6 metres. I have never bothered to get a higher class licence because in my rather caustic view, phone is B-O-R-I-N-G. Why not have licences that do not have CW privileges so you upgrade to CW? In spite of Wayne Green's wild views about wildly complex equipment saving us all during a nuclear war...I see only CW being much use when the chips are down. I can build a CW transmitter or receiver out of just about anything if I have to. We will all die in the year long winter anyway. Eliminate the code exam. If a person is interested in morse, he will learn the code. Richard Loken
mpackard@uok.UUCP (07/13/84)
#R:uok:2800003:uok:2800009:000:197 uok!mpackard Jul 12 20:43:00 1984 () I don't know why you guys insist on operating in the 60's. It's 1984 and any repeater worth the name uses an IC to send a voice identification. Just because it uses CW doesn't mean it has to.
ron@brl-tgr.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (07/16/84)
Sorry, but voice id's are obnoxious. If they are loud enough to be legal they will obliterate the traffic on the repeater. The reason for CW besides being easy to build and easy to set remotely, is that most people, who are uninterested in the ID, can mentally tune it out. -Ron
stephany.WBST@XEROX.ARPA (07/18/84)
ANSWER TO N. MEYERS MESSAGE: "... ARE THEY STILL ASKING QUESTIONS ABOUT TRIODES ON THE TESTS ?" There are still a few vacuum tube questions on the FCC tests. Remember many if not most of the Ham rigs still use vacuum tubes in the final because they are cheaper and more rugged than transistors. Under overload (what is a Ham if he does not overload his equipment?) a vacuum tube will run until it melts (and I have done that). A transistor will pop right away. also: all high power transmitters use vacuum tubes including all local TV,FM, and AM stations. The worlds bigest (VOA) uses ten in the final of its 2 MegaWatt Xmitters. Also the worlds most expensive high fi (cheapest set is $5000 and up, they install it in your house themselves) went back to vacuum tubes because they sounded better and laster longer (!). Also remember, every CRT is a vacuum tube. In Switzerland, they went back to their old ignitrons because the solid state control devices on their electric railway locomotives wiped out TV reception in the whole country. So don't run vacuum tubes down as old hat, there are still a lot of them around because in some applications they are better than transistors. You use the technology that is best, you dont run a style show to impress people how up-to-date you are. Joe N2XS Spark Forever PS I wonder if those awful stations in Cuba are Spark Gap? The hams have to build their own rigs down there. Are they using the "available technology"?