Dropping the Code Test

[Phil LaMarche]

Hi Jim,

That was interesting.  In 1958 I was on the National Geophysical Expedition
to the North Pole on Drift station Alpha.  KL7FLA and W9DVM/MM.  We were
floating.  When we had severe aurora and you could turn all gains wide open
and hear nothing, CW was always the first to be heard from Fairbanks and
then SSB.  That pattern never failed.  Rig was a Collins KWS-1 and 75A-4.
Just wanted to add another piece.

Phil
K2/KAT100


Philip LaMarche
LaMarche Enterprises, Inc.
www.instantgourmetspices.com
727-944-3226
800-395-7795 pin 02
FAX [phone]
NASFT #30210
W9DVM
-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email]
[mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Jim Wiley
Sent: Monday, September 05, 2005 2:43 PM
Cc: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Dropping the Code Test


OK, guys, get ready to hate me.


 Here in Alaska, (that's a bit North of Michigan, to our flatlander
friends) - Aurora is the norm.  As in - every day, 365 days a year.  
Some days it's no big deal, some days it eats your lunch,  it's just a fact
of life.


As often as not,  SSB will get through when CW won't.  FACT - not a typo!


Apparently, with rapid changes in path length, which is what is responsible
for the waterey sound of classic aurora reflection propagation,  CW signals
sometimes get lost in the process.  I think this might be because CW signals
are on just one frequency, and the destructive effects of multipath
(selective fading) can wipe out individual dits or dahs, making copy of CW
problematic.  


SSB, on the other hand, occupies a comparatively wide channel, and has
energy on any number of frequencies within that channel.  So, during times
when aurora is very active,  SSB apparently gets through because it has a
sort of built in frequency diversity.  If a hole gets punched in a SSB
signal at one spot, there are still hundreds of adjacent frequencies that
have an equal chance of being reinforced.  The net result is that SSB
suffers from rapid shifts in tonal balance as the "notched out" frequencies
shift rapidly within the SSB pass band, but enough energy still remains that
copy is possible.


You will note that I am not saying CW is totally disabled - often times
enough gets through that the incomparable DSP unit that sits on your
shoulders can make enough sense of what it gets to still come up with copy.
After all, VHF DX via auroral reflection is done all the time.  
But, and this is the important part,  there are indeed times when SSB gets
through when CW cannot.  Man - what a disgusting idea.  <grin>


High latitude propagation is very  different from what most "South 48"
hams take for normal.   It is nothing unusual for us to have total HF
shutdowns lasting days on end.   Even when bands are not being wiped out
by solar storms, we get caught between between lukewarm MUFs and elevated
LUFs - we frequently have access to only one band - 20 meters - because we
are caught  between the MUF / LUF squeeze, and even then we will hear only a
few of the strongest signals.  My station is not all
that bad either - I run a TH7 antenna at 75 feet.   When the band is
open, I can use my K2,  but when it's ratty even my Mark 5 driving an ACOM
2000A may not be enough.


Oh well, there's always Pinochle


- Jim, KL7CC



EricJ wrote:

It is my understanding from a communication with WB8RCR, a member of the
Michigan Net, that CW is used because of a geographical anomaly  . . . . .

<snip>

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Ron D'Eau Claire-2]

Phil wrote:
That was interesting.  In 1958 I was on the National Geophysical Expedition
to the North Pole on Drift station Alpha.  KL7FLA and W9DVM/MM.  We were
floating.  When we had severe aurora and you could turn all gains wide open
and hear nothing, CW was always the first to be heard from Fairbanks and
then SSB.  That pattern never failed.

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

The narrow-band nature of CW makes it audible long before a relatively
wide-band mode like SSB. That's simple physics. Narrower bandwidths mean
less noise power coming through, Less noise means it takes less signal to be
heard, provided the signal fits in that narrow bandwidth.

Here in Oregon it's rare Eu QSO that doesn't involve listening through
auroral flutter. Sometimes its TOUGH! But if the other guy'll QRS, it's
usually easy copy. That's one thing CW has that phone doesn't: easily
adjustable bandwidth and data rates. Saying words v-e-r-y s-l-o-w-l-y on SSB
doesn't help much.

I submit that the reason virtually ALL emergency nets are phone is that CW
requires a skill few Hams have today: even routine CW ops. Handling a QSO,
even a rag chew, is a far, far cry from participating in a controlled CW
net. That's a skill that takes time, more time, and even more time and a lot
of patience and dedication to master. Just ask Kevin Rock who runs the
Elecraft CW net!

Getting enough Hams current with the skills to do that efficiently has
always been a huge problem, even when every Ham had to be proficient at CW
to get a license. That's the real reason for all those routine traffic nets
we used to have across the bands every night. Even back then, how many of
those experienced ops would be in the middle of the disaster, ready to
handle traffic? Not many, not often.

It's the same reason CW was dropped from the Maritime service. It isn't that
the new satellite-based GMDSS system is cheaper to install, it's not. But
it's cheaper to operate: no CW operator required! No highly skilled people
need be present at the critical moment, like Phillips and Bride sending CQD
CQD CQD DE MGY MGY MGY from the Titanic that April night. Nowadays all
anyone has to do is hit a big red button on the bridge or pick up a
telephone handset.

In the Ham world, using phone means that more operators are available
everywhere, so there are likely more operators available any time and in any
place they are needed.

Ron AC7AC


_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Earl W Cunningham]

Jim, KL7CC wrote:

As often as not,  SSB will get through when CW won't.  FACT - not a typo!

==========
When I lived in Michigan (closer to the magnetic north pole than Alaska),
the aurora didn't make a hoot of difference on HF between SSB and CW --
weak CW was still easier to copy than weak SSB.

As for propagation via aurora on VHF, the difference was startling.  The
rapid doppler shift rendered SSB signals unreadable while CW signals were
still quite readable despite the buzz saw sound of their signals.

73, de Earl, K6SE
_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Phil LaMarche]

I wanted to add:  When the aurora conditions were so bad that it was like
having your receiver not plugged in, and I constantly monitored because of
being at the North Pole, it was always exciting to hear a signal somewhere
but unreadable, and then see
It come up little by little and WOW! There it was.  Music to your ears.

Phil


Philip LaMarche
LaMarche Enterprises, Inc.
www.instantgourmetspices.com
727-944-3226
800-395-7795 pin 02
FAX [phone]
NASFT #30210
W9DVM
-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email]
[mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Earl W Cunningham
Sent: Monday, September 05, 2005 5:55 PM
To: [hidden email]; [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Dropping the Code Test

Jim, KL7CC wrote:

As often as not,  SSB will get through when CW won't.  FACT - not a typo!

==========
When I lived in Michigan (closer to the magnetic north pole than Alaska),
the aurora didn't make a hoot of difference on HF between SSB and CW -- weak
CW was still easier to copy than weak SSB.

As for propagation via aurora on VHF, the difference was startling.  The
rapid doppler shift rendered SSB signals unreadable while CW signals were
still quite readable despite the buzz saw sound of their signals.

73, de Earl, K6SE
_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Kevin Rock]

Thank you Ron ;)
    My first experience with the Amateur Radio Service was through
participation in nets.  These were FM repeater nets initially, then SSB HF
nets, and finally CW NTS nets.  I learned to pass traffic for NTS both
using voice and via CW.  It takes practice.  Net procedures, phonetics,
prosigns (both CW and voice) are something which requires repetition.  
When an emergency occurs and one is required to work ECOM the training
needs to be so ingrained phonetics and procedures are automatic.
    Ms. Patricia and I have trained quite a number of folks in ECOM (ARECC
levels 1, 2, and 3) for the local ARES/RACES group.  I have been involved
in ARES and in MARS for a number of years.  One of the reasons I started
the Elecraft CW Net was to get folks used to the idea of using CW using
net procedures and getting them interested in contacts other than rag
chews or contests.  Tom, N0SS, and I have modified and adapted normal net
procedures and QN codes to our needs.  Working a CW NTS net is different
but not wildly so.
    Gaining proficiency in CW is one thing but passing accurate traffic is
another.  When Pat and I train folks we have them pass traffic in groups.  
Carter, N3AO, gave us some tips.  One of them was to have multiple people
pass traffic simultaneously in the same room to mimic the chaos in a comms
center.  It worked.  Our trainees have worked comms at the local sheriff's
office and at the county EOC where the noise level gets pretty high.  They
valued our training and told us so as soon as the emergency was over.  
Thank you Carter, you gave great advice.  Pat and I developed our hybrid
classroom material to cover ECOM for the Oregon and Pacific Northwest
area.  We don't get hurricanes but do have floods, typhoons, earthquakes,
and forest fires.  Handling traffic is an important part of our training.  
I have not had the chance to teach others CW ECOM work but I would love to
do so.
    We may have a call out of our local ARES group to assist some evacuees
 from New Orleans.  I am on the list.  I got to sell amateur radio and
ECOMs to the local TV station last week for some work I had done for the
SATERN folks.  I did not get a chance to view the interview since we
cannot receive television here but was told by an op I had never met that
the interview portrayed the service in a very good light.  I am thankful
for that.  I have worked in a newsroom before and know how a story can be
spun in various directions.  The reporter and camera man were both very
kind and caring individuals.  Hopefully they will send me a copy of the
spot.
    Kevin.  KD5ONS  (Still Net Control Operator 5th Class)


On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 14:32:25 -0700, Ron D'Eau Claire
<[hidden email]> wrote:

...

> I submit that the reason virtually ALL emergency nets are phone is that
> CW
> requires a skill few Hams have today: even routine CW ops. Handling a
> QSO,
> even a rag chew, is a far, far cry from participating in a controlled CW
> net. That's a skill that takes time, more time, and even more time and a
> lot
> of patience and dedication to master. Just ask Kevin Rock who runs the
> Elecraft CW net!
>
> Getting enough Hams current with the skills to do that efficiently has
> always been a huge problem, even when every Ham had to be proficient at
> CW
> to get a license. That's the real reason for all those routine traffic
> nets
> we used to have across the bands every night. Even back then, how many of
> those experienced ops would be in the middle of the disaster, ready to
> handle traffic? Not many, not often.

...
>
> Ron AC7AC
_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Leigh L. Klotz Jr WA5ZNU]

I've recently built at KAT100 to use with my HFPacker amplifier and K2.

I know not to use a pre-made serial cable to connect the KIO2 to a computer.

However, looking at the schematic for the KAT100 and J3, it looks like a
regular serial cable would work fine between the KAT100 and the K2, if
we leave the computer out of the picture.  Has anyone done this?

Leigh / WA5ZNU

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Craig Rairdin]

> I submit that the reason virtually ALL emergency nets are phone is that
> CW requires a skill few Hams have today: even routine CW ops.

> In the Ham world, using phone means that more operators are available
> everywhere, so there are likely more operators available any time and
> in any place they are needed.

It seems to me that the most likely use of ham radio in an emergency is to
quickly establish local communications in areas where all communication is
out. That's likely to be VHF, perhaps aided by a quickly deployed repeater
or two.

I think the more interesting philosophical question long-term revolves
around the ubiquitous Internet. Back 30 years ago when I was more involved
in handling traffic during natural disasters, it seems like most of what we
did was health/welfare inquiries. Now, if survivor lists can get to a
location with Internet access, these lists can be placed on the Web and
anyone in the world can access it directly.

Combine this with 24-hour cable news networks and you eliminate most of the
need for long-range communication. CNN, Fox, and MSNBC had *cameras* and
live reports deliberately placed in areas that were *about* to be hit, and
reported live while Katrina was hitting them. They then were *there* at the
Superdome and convention center in N.O. before the Red Cross, Salvation
Army, or local ham radio club.

If DHS Secy Chertoff and FEMA Director Brown had watched Fox News instead of
listening to state and local government officials, they would have had a
much better idea what was going on in the hours immediately after Katrina
passed through, and supplies and transportation could have gotten to
hard-hit areas much earlier. But since they depended on "official" channels
and didn't turn on a TV, they didn't know what was going on.

I suspect that both ham radio and the federal government are living in the
past. The Internet has eliminated much of the traditional ham radio activity
surrounding disasters (with the exception of course of local VHF activity),
and 24-hour news networks have become better eyes and ears than the
"official" government communication channels.

Craig

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Ron D'Eau Claire-2]

Craig wrote:
I suspect that both ham radio and the federal government are living in the
past. The Internet has eliminated much of the traditional ham radio activity
surrounding disasters (with the exception of course of local VHF activity),
and 24-hour news networks have become better eyes and ears than the
"official" government communication channels.

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

A well-honed system always lags behind the latest/greatest technology. I
used to chuckle as I worked on required shipboard CW consoles in a radio
room that also had TOR, satellite telephones and, when needed, an internet
connection! All within easy reach of the guy at the key, like many of our
hamshacks today.

The problem with VHF has always been limited range. When repeaters are
available, that's fine. But often they aren't. That's where people like the
HF Pack ops and others all equipped with a K2 capable of SSB, maybe a
buddypole or even a whip stuck in their backpack, and some batteries can get
an instant signal out many tens of miles with telephone reliability. Often
that range can be in the hundreds of miles.

Not that CW couldn't be of critical value in some scenarios,  but 99.9% of
the time is a voice contact.

Where Ham emergency communications provides a valuable resource is in
"shadowing" key people when cellular phones are jammed. That allows the
person to almost talk to the other end as if he were on the phone. A
question gets an almost instant answer, often one that he can hear
personally.

It's great for filling in where traditional emergency services were swamped.


When the Loma Prieta quake hit San Francisco, I was working for a land
mobile company. We had some repeaters that were still operational. We
suspended all air-time billing and got all the idle cabs we could to key
points so they could use the communications system. It was invaluable during
those first few hours since most mountaintop repeaters were off the air.
Even the emergency service repeaters in critical areas (Mt. Loma Prieta was
both the epicenter and one of the most popular repeater mountains).

Ron AC7AC

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[EricJ-2]

I think you are right on the money, Craig. That's my concern, that we are
all living a long-standing myth which DID have a basis in fact 30 years ago,
but is irrelevant to the world today. LOCAL hams can provide a vital
communication link with VHF from the immediate area hit to the outside
world. But ham emergency ops outside the area are an anachronism or at best
a minor player.

The longer we hold onto this myth, the more likely we are going to be "found
out" by those who regulate ham radio. We need leaders who can help shape ham
radio to fit the current reality, not bemoan the dirth of skilled CW
operators as a problem.

Eric
KE6US
www.ke6us.com



-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email]
[mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Craig Rairdin
Sent: Monday, September 05, 2005 8:32 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: RE: [Elecraft] CW in Emergencies? (WAS: Dropping the Code Test)


I suspect that both ham radio and the federal government are living in the
past. The Internet has eliminated much of the traditional ham radio activity
surrounding disasters (with the exception of course of local VHF activity),
and 24-hour news networks have become better eyes and ears than the
"official" government communication channels.

Craig

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Craig Rairdin]

> The longer we hold onto this myth, the more likely we are going to be
> "found out" by those who regulate ham radio. We need leaders who can
> help shape ham radio to fit the current reality, not bemoan the dirth
> of skilled CW operators as a problem.

This all wraps around to dropping the Morse requirement. As much as we'd
like to find some justification for maintaining the requirement, it doesn't
seem like there is one -- from the perspective of Amateur Radio as a public
service.

That doesn't mean there's anything wrong with CW. It's the only mode I'm
interested in, though I bought a mic to test my SSB board. I find CW
challenging and therefore satisfying. After working several hundred Field
Day CW QSOs (my first FD in 30 years) I dropped into the phone tent and was
shocked at how long it took to complete a QSO. And at 2x the point value,
I'm not sure why we even had a phone station. We'd be better off with two CW
stations working two different bands.

Those who worry about ham radio becoming another citizen's band need only
scan 75M at night. They're too late. :-)

Craig

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Jim Wiley-2]

Yes Craig, and each and very one of those guys passed a code test!   Yes
indeedy, that ole' Morse code sure does serve as a mighty fine filter to
keep the riff raff out.


<grin>


- Jim, KL7CC


Craig Rairdin wrote:


Those who worry about ham radio becoming another citizen's band need only
scan 75M at night. They're too late. :-)


Craig



_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Mike Morrow-3]

Jim wrote:

> ... each and very one of those guys passed a code test!

This is definitely **not** a certainty, since the VEC process took over the operator licensing exam process.

Mike / KK5F
_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Jim Brown-10]

As an old traffic hound (does anyone remember ROOA?) nearly 50
years ago, I regularly worked and ran CW traffic nets, and made
BPL (500 messages/month, not originations) at least a half dozen
times. What we call traffic nets today are a bad joke compared to
those nets. Today, hams are simply poorly trained (even untrained)
to handle traffic, because real traffic nets are few and far
between. Not surprising -- there's rarely a use for them in
today's world until something big happens.

In those days, when something big happened, hams were prepared,
because we had the ongoing training and discipline of REAL traffic
nets. Today, that is simply not the case. How many on this list
know, off the top of their head, the proper format for a piece of
traffic? How many have even HANDLED a piece of traffic in proper
format (or heard it being handled)?  

I find the assertion that SSB is easier copy in the presence of
aurora hard to believe. I've worked AU on 6 meters since 1958, and
I can tell you that CW works FAR FAR better than SSB under those
conditions. Any decent CW op can make pretty good copy of a
heavily distorted AU signal that's reasonably above the noise.

The reality is that a marginal antenna and low power has a far
better chance of solid communications using CW with a good op than
an equally good op on SSB. The difference is operator training,
not technology.

But consider this -- I've worked only a bit of PSK31, but it seems
to me that it has much of the advantage of CW for communications
with low power and/or marginal antennas. A PSK31 rig is VERY easy
to put together in an emergency package -- all it takes is a
radio, an antenna, a laptop, Simon Brown's excellent free PSK31
software, and a pair of interface cables that anyone can make with
cables they buy at Radio Shack and modify to fit their rigs.

Such a rig would use minimal battery power, because traffic could
be transmitted in short bursts, and uses standard components. All
you need to stay on the air for a long time is a means of
recharging your batteries. It also doesn't depend on repeaters,
which could be down when they are most needed. Each station in an
emergency area could simply work directly to one or more assigned
partners outside the affected area, and that partner dumps the
traffic onto conventional channels (the internet, etc.).

Jim Brown  K9YC  (ex-W9NEC, W8FNI)


_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[EricJ-2]

Exactly. I fought every attempt to dumb down or eliminate the code
requirement in the past. I MAY have been right 30 years ago, but it is wrong
today. It is just another mode with its own advantages and disadvantages. It
is my mode of choice just as it is yours, but others make different choices
and it's all good depending on what you are trying to accomplish.

Eric
KE6US
www.ke6us.com
Updated with SPICE for Hams and QRP Rigs



-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email]
[mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Craig Rairdin
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 9:02 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: RE: [Elecraft] CW in Emergencies? (WAS: Dropping the Code Test)

> The longer we hold onto this myth, the more likely we are going to be
> "found out" by those who regulate ham radio. We need leaders who can
> help shape ham radio to fit the current reality, not bemoan the dirth
> of skilled CW operators as a problem.

This all wraps around to dropping the Morse requirement. As much as we'd
like to find some justification for maintaining the requirement, it doesn't
seem like there is one -- from the perspective of Amateur Radio as a public
service.

That doesn't mean there's anything wrong with CW. It's the only mode I'm
interested in, though I bought a mic to test my SSB board. I find CW
challenging and therefore satisfying. After working several hundred Field
Day CW QSOs (my first FD in 30 years) I dropped into the phone tent and was
shocked at how long it took to complete a QSO. And at 2x the point value,
I'm not sure why we even had a phone station. We'd be better off with two CW
stations working two different bands.

Those who worry about ham radio becoming another citizen's band need only
scan 75M at night. They're too late. :-)

Craig

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[EricJ-2]

The riff raff was deeply entrenched on 75 before VEC. I never tuned it for
visitors as there was always something embarassing I had to explain away.
Some of the AM vs. SSB wars on 75 were truly twisted events during the
transition.

The code requirement hasn't been an effective riff raff filter and it hasn't
provided skilled traffic handlers in emergencies so it is no wonder the
REQUIREMENT is going by the way side. By all indications, Morse itself is
very alive and doing well.

Eric
KE6US
www.ke6us.com
Updated with SPICE for Hams and QRP Rigs

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email]
[mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Mike Morrow
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 9:44 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] CW in Emergencies?

Jim wrote:

> ... each and very one of those guys passed a code test!

This is definitely **not** a certainty, since the VEC process took over the
operator licensing exam process.

Mike / KK5F
_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Dave Lowenstein]

The disadvantage of "no-code" is that if new hams aren't required to learn
CW, how are they going to be able handle emergency traffic from our
low-powered battery-operated K1's and K2's?  Since emergencies are one of
our reasons for being and CW gets through with simple equipment where other
modes won't, aren't we shooting ourselves in the foot by eliminating the CW
requirement?

Dave
N7AF

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Jim Brown-10]

On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 12:36:04 -0700, EricJ wrote:

>The riff raff was deeply entrenched on 75 before VEC

You can say that again -- 75 was a mess in the 50's!

Jim K9YC



_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Rick Hampton-2]

Hi, Dave.

This is an interesting idea, but it presupposes the new hams are taught traffic
handling, ICS training, and other things that makes them able to pass emergency
traffic with ANY rig.  Maybe we should consider teaching Morse skills as a part
of emergency communications.  After all, as much as an anathema as it may be to
us, not everyone wants to learn emergency operations, just as some do not want
to learn CW.

Rick
WD8KEL

Dave Lowenstein wrote:

> The disadvantage of "no-code" is that if new hams aren't required to learn
> CW, how are they going to be able handle emergency traffic from our
> low-powered battery-operated K1's and K2's?  Since emergencies are one of
> our reasons for being and CW gets through with simple equipment where other
> modes won't, aren't we shooting ourselves in the foot by eliminating the CW
> requirement?
>
> Dave
> N7AF

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Stuart Rohre]

Dave,
Much emergency traffic can be handled with QRP phone rigs using NVIS
antennas consisting of a low dipole for 40 and 80 plus a reflector wire
about a foot off ground.  It works like a 2 element beam and easily covers a
couple of states.

I have uses such a beam on 40m from Austin TX to Mobile AL, which is 3
states away.  Granted that was with 100 watts, but I was 20 over 9 in TX
North, South and East of me at the same time.

Other Emergency traffic is FM VHF or UHF and local to one county in most
cases.

NTS techniques can be taught for phone just as well as CW.

72,
Stuart
K5KVH
Red Cross Comms Officer, Katrina Relief



_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Thom LaCosta]

On Tue, 6 Sep 2005, Stuart Rohre wrote:

> NTS techniques can be taught for phone just as well as CW.
>
> 72,
> Stuart
> K5KVH
> Red Cross Comms Officer, Katrina Relief

It might be instructive for you to fill us in one how the Red Cross uses
its HF frequencies....I assume it's SSB.

73,Thom-k3hrn
www.zerobeat.net Home of QRP Web Ring, Drakelist home page,
Free Classified Ads for amateur radio, QRP IRC channel
Elecraft Owners Database
www.tlchost.net/hosting/  ***  Web Hosting as low as 3.49/month
_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com