kxpd3 question
Locked
 
|
On 11/9/2017 4:26 PM, KENT TRIMBLE wrote: > No, Ron, obsessing over sending perfect code is NOT like speaking > languages with an accent. > */Amen to that /* > Perfect code remains the goal because it conveys the greatest chance > of 100% copy. > */Yes Yes Yes/* > My post was not directed to beginners but to any CW operator so > confident of his fist that he refuses to find out what the guy on the > other end is hearing. */Often its because of poor spacing running everything together or sending the dah with half the correct length, *timing and spacing* timing and spacing*. The great Paul Hornung (Green Bay Packer foot ball player) would tell reporters when asked what made him so good answer was practice practice practice, the code reader in the Elecraft gear helps you to see your mistakes. /*For the last ten years I have taught as many as three Morse Code classes every Saturday morning and have insisted that for code purposes the mantra is, "there are 27 characters in the English alphabet, the 27th is a space, and that 27th is the hardest to learn." > The most important CW feature on Elecraft products is the decoder. */Yes Yes Yes very important watching to see if your sending is correct timing spacing spelling./* > Not for copying code, but for copying sending. When used, one quickly > realizes he's not the hot-shot code man he thought he was. FISTS > members suddenly tumble to the fact that all these years they've been > sending "CQ FISB" instead of "CQ FISTS." The first week I played with > my K3, I was taken aback by how many times I was sending "CQ DEK9ZTV." > > It's not the end-of-the world either way, but if Morse is worth > preserving, is it not worth preserving correctly? */Yes you have nailed it completely Kent preserving it correctly.......... Art ka9zap /* > > 73, > > Kent K9ZTV > > > > On 11/9/2017 3:03 PM, Ron D'Eau Claire wrote: >> With respect, obsessing over perfect code is like demanding that no >> one speak your favorite language without an accent of any sort. >> >> It's easy to do. Use a keyboard with pre-stored messages. >> >> But many of us prefer non-canned messages even if they involve some >> oddities in the sending. >> >> I've encountered far more nearly-impossible or impossible to copy >> fists from commercial operators aboard ships than I've heard on the >> Ham bands. >> >> I certainly would never want to deter someone learning Morse from >> using it on the air, even if the best they can do is a roughly sent >> Name-RST-QTH-73 QSO. That was the whole point of the Novice licenses: >> we learn faster with real-world experience on the air. >> >> I'm always ready to drop down to whatever speed the other station is >> sending to help a new CW operator get "his feet wet" and have fun. >> >> 73, Ron AC7AC >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From:[hidden email] >> [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of KENT TRIMBLE >> Sent: Thursday, November 9, 2017 12:41 PM >> To: Dave Sublette; Elecraft >> Subject: Re: [Elecraft] kxpd3 question >> >> What we DO need to obsess over is sending perfect code. >> >> There's precious little of it out there. >> >> What device is used to send it is irrelevant. >> >> Dave is right on all points. >> >> 73, >> >> Kent K9ZTV >> >> >> ______________________________________________________________ >> Elecraft mailing list >> Home:http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft >> Help:http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm >> Post:mailto:[hidden email] >> >> This list hosted by:http://www.qsl.net >> Please help support this email list:http://www.qsl.net/donate.html >> Message delivered [hidden email] >> >> >> --- >> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. >> http://www.avg.com >> >> > > ______________________________________________________________ > Elecraft mailing list > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm > Post: mailto:[hidden email] > > This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net > Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html > Message delivered to [hidden email] Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message delivered to [hidden email] |
|
|
Hey Don,
If you want ultimatic, check out the little QCX kits that Hans Summers (QRPLabs) has been putting out. It has ultimatic mode as well as Iambic A and B. Pretty cool for a $49 kit! I've never been a fan of ultimatic mode, but it was a really big deal some years back. I probably never gave it a fair test. Dave W7AQK ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message delivered to [hidden email] |
|
|
In reply to this post by Arthur Nienhouse
On the matter of spacing, I direct your attention to the October 1949
issue of QST, pg 40: "The Humbug" by A. F. Scotten, W6ZMZ. He noted that our keyers [they existed then, just fairly primitive] send the well-formed dits and dahs. The spacing is up to us. His astounding discovery was that, if our keyers sent well-formed spaces instead, we'd have textbook quality CW on the air, the dits and dahs just fall out automatically! He offered a test sentence, "Then after Richard had arrived, he and Clarence each kissed beautiful Annabelle and she ceased all resistance because in actual fact, she liked it better than ever." Aside from this being a remarkably racy sentence for QST in 1949, it allegedly does not contain two or more consecutive dashes and, he posits, is very hard to send accurately with proper spacing. It doesn't seem too hard for me, but then my keyer wouldn't exist for another 55 years although it still sends dits and dahs. Since I ran across the miracle of the Humbug, I've often wondered why it appeared in October and not April, but nevertheless, you can work it out on paper ... send the spaces instead of the dits and dahs, use a keyer to make the spaces well-formed, and you get perfect code. 73, Fred ["Skip"] K6DGW Sparks NV DM09dn Washoe County On 11/10/2017 4:49 AM, Arthur Nienhouse wrote: > */Often its because of poor spacing running everything together or > sending the dah with half the > correct length, *timing and spacing* timing and spacing*. ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message delivered to [hidden email] |
|
|
In reply to this post by Arthur Nienhouse
I'm with Ron. I've been in the hobby since 1957. CW has always been used
as some sort of ham radio purity test. It was used to keep people out of the hobby altogether for decades. Many of those who persevered, learned the code under duress to get their license, then never touched a key again. And there's no evidence CW as a gatekeeper prevented lids as many of the worst offenders were General class or higher who had to have passed a code test. As empty as the CW portions are now, except during any contest, I welcome anyone who knows enough code to make a QSO. Perfect code is not necessary for reliable communication. Besides, I love hearing all the various fists, and enjoy recognizing individuals by their fist. Eric KE6US On 11/9/2017 3:03 PM, Ron D'Eau Claire wrote: >>> With respect, obsessing over perfect code is like demanding that no >>> one speak your favorite language without an accent of any sort. >>> >>> It's easy to do. Use a keyboard with pre-stored messages. >>> >>> But many of us prefer non-canned messages even if they involve some >>> oddities in the sending. >>> >>> I've encountered far more nearly-impossible or impossible to copy >>> fists from commercial operators aboard ships than I've heard on the >>> Ham bands. >>> >>> I certainly would never want to deter someone learning Morse from >>> using it on the air, even if the best they can do is a roughly sent >>> Name-RST-QTH-73 QSO. That was the whole point of the Novice >>> licenses: we learn faster with real-world experience on the air. >>> >>> I'm always ready to drop down to whatever speed the other station is >>> sending to help a new CW operator get "his feet wet" and have fun. >>> >>> 73, Ron AC7AC >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From:[hidden email] >>> [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of KENT TRIMBLE >>> Sent: Thursday, November 9, 2017 12:41 PM >>> To: Dave Sublette; Elecraft >>> Subject: Re: [Elecraft] kxpd3 question >>> >>> What we DO need to obsess over is sending perfect code. >>> >>> There's precious little of it out there. >>> >>> What device is used to send it is irrelevant. >>> >>> Dave is right on all points. >>> >>> 73, >>> >>> Kent K9ZTV >>> >>> >>> ______________________________________________________________ >>> Elecraft mailing list >>> Home:http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft >>> Help:http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm >>> Post:mailto:[hidden email] >>> >>> This list hosted by:http://www.qsl.net >>> Please help support this email list:http://www.qsl.net/donate.html >>> Message delivered [hidden email] >>> >>> >>> --- >>> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. >>> http://www.avg.com >>> >>> >> >> ______________________________________________________________ >> Elecraft mailing list >> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft >> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm >> Post: mailto:[hidden email] >> >> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net >> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html >> Message delivered to [hidden email] > ______________________________________________________________ > Elecraft mailing list > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm > Post: mailto:[hidden email] > > This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net > Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html > Message delivered to [hidden email] ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message delivered to [hidden email] |
|
|
In reply to this post by Arthur Nienhouse
Eric and all, Will all due respect, I couldn’t disagree with you more! First, I don’t think it is accurate to suggest that CW was used to keep people out of the hobby. The requirement for this skill was much less obtuse than that. It was simply due to the fact that CW was/is probably the most basic method of communicating—at least it was for a long time. You could touch two wires together and send a coherent message! The device necessary to transmit such a signal was about as simple as it gets. CW is still far more efficient and effective than voice modes unless you use considerably more power with the latter. One shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that a dominant reason for us even being allowed to practice this hobby was that we could be a reliable alternative in case of emergency. There was a lot of competition for our place in the spectrum. I don’t disagree that “perfect code” isn’t a mandate, but I do think it should be an objective. The farther away you get from perfect code, the less coherent it becomes. The closer you get to perfect code, the easier it is to interpret! Plain and simple! I hear a lot of crap CW on the bands. Some of it comes from folks who are just not very good at it, but are trying to get better. I’m not so bothered by that. However, those who don’t do CW very well, and don’t care, and don’t have any intention of getting better at it, don’t interest me very much. Trying to copy bad CW is a lot of work, and it is rather frustrating. If I’m helping someone get better, it is worth it, but if I am just enabling someone to not get better, I don’t see the point of it. As to the comparisons to accents that Ron made in his post, I would suggest that there is a distinction as to degree. It’s one thing to be “identifiable” because of some slight variation from perfect code, much like an accent in language is, but it is a completely different thing to be so far from perfect code that you become hard to interpret. That’s not just an accent, but more like using poor grammar! CW is, in effect, a language, and should be recognizable without excessive strain. My CW is far from perfect, but I try to make it sound as much “by the book” as I can. I definitely don’t try to jazz it up like some people do. Every so often someone comments that they find it easy to copy. I’d much rather hear a comment like that than have someone say they recognized my because of my accent! Cheers! Dave W7AQK -------------------------------------------- From: Eric J <[hidden email]> I'm with Ron. I've been in the hobby since 1957. CW has always been used as some sort of ham radio purity test. It was used to keep people out of the hobby altogether for decades. Many of those who persevered, learned the code under duress to get their license, then never touched a key again. And there's no evidence CW as a gatekeeper prevented lids as many of the worst offenders were General class or higher who had to have passed a code test. As empty as the CW portions are now, except during any contest, I welcome anyone who knows enough code to make a QSO. Perfect code is not necessary for reliable communication. Besides, I love hearing all the various fists, and enjoy recognizing individuals by their fist. Eric KE6US ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message delivered to [hidden email] |
|
|
On 11/11/2017 9:45 AM, dyarnes wrote:
> I don’t think it is accurate to suggest that CW was used to keep people out of the hobby. For at least the last 20-30 years of the 20th century, CW was used as a means of keeping the hobby "pure," a "rite of passage" that all current licensees had had to take, and that, anyone else wanting to enter their hallowed ground must also take. You had to be not paying attention not to be aware of this. It was easy to not be paying attention -- many of us, including me, were on and off the air for decades at a time as we lived our lives with jobs, families, even other interests. This was not unique to the US -- the CW requirement was from international governmental bodies. Our large contesting club includes at least a dozen no-code licensees who have developed into fine CW operators and serious contesters. Recently, I heard of a ham club a few hours away from me that developed out of the interest of a local community organization in emergency communications -- this is a low population density community in the Santa Cruz mountains north of me, where the potential hazards are wildland fires, winter storms, and earthquakes. Here's a link to photos from this year's Field Da. Notice the number of young hams on the air in the photos of the stations. http://www.sc4arc.org/groups/general/forum/topic/field-day-photos/ Some of the photos show a pretty serious effort with antennas, and communications on their blog show well organized planning. There's a photo of their score summary in one of the photos. All SSB and digital. Here's their home page. http://www.sc4arc.org/ 73, Jim K9YC ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message delivered to [hidden email] |
|
|
In reply to this post by Arthur Nienhouse
The purpose of requiring CW was perhaps not to be restrictive - but
it had exactly that effect. I was twelve when I discovered "hams" talking on 75m AM. It was not the morse code that attracted me to ham radio - it was talking. But I quickly found out that the gate to getting into ham radio required learning morse code. I got 5wpm pretty easy and became a Novice at age 14. A year later I took the General Class written exam and became a Technician. Several attempts to pass 13wpm which involved a 68 mile drive to FCC in Detroit resulted in failure. I started college as an EE student, way too busy for working on code, graduated to start my career which included nine years working for JPL-NASA where I became a senior engineer at age 32. I got to help several missions to the planets, but I was "not qualified" to be a "real ham" because of code. Finally in 1982 (age 38) I spent the effort to pass the 13wpm test (which then only required answering 7 out of ten questions vs 1 minute perfect copy of five character random groups). I took my Advanced test and passed (never had a General). In 2000 FCC lowered speed requirement for Extra to 13wpm and I passed with two wrong answers. BTW I took and passed the 2nd Class Radiotelephone in 1971 (which is way harder than extra). 24 years I had to wait to become a "real ham". Well the good result was that I got interested in 2m (where I could talk) and that lead to microwaves and eme. EME required CW when I started in 1998 but fortunately digital arrived (JT44) in early 2000's which I have been using on 2m and a little on 1296. I will eventually get up to 15wpm because I want to work eme stations that only do CW. But as a boy, I just wanted to talk on ham radio. Eliminating CW as a requirement does make it easier today. Longevity of ham radio does not depend on it. My local club has only 2-3 members that are not retired. No youngsters under 35. I am currently learning about using a Raspberry Pi in a autotracking system for my eme antennas. Plans to install dual-yagis for 6m-eme and a 100w 3400-MHz system on my 16-foot dish. Guess some of the engineer remains, as well. 73, Ed - KL7UW _._ From: Jim Brown <[hidden email]> To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: [Elecraft] kxpd3 question Message-ID: <[hidden email]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed On 11/11/2017 9:45 AM, dyarnes wrote: > I don?t think it is accurate to suggest that CW was used to keep people out of the hobby. For at least the last 20-30 years of the 20th century, CW was used as a means of keeping the hobby "pure," a "rite of passage" that all current licensees had had to take, and that, anyone else wanting to enter their hallowed ground must also take. You had to be not paying attention not to be aware of this. It was easy to not be paying attention -- many of us, including me, were on and off the air for decades at a time as we lived our lives with jobs, families, even other interests. This was not unique to the US -- the CW requirement was from international governmental bodies. 73, Ed - KL7UW http://www.kl7uw.com Dubus-NA Business mail: [hidden email] ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message delivered to [hidden email] |
|
|
I'm no sure I'd say it was to be "restrictive" but I will say there is a
benefit to making sure someone wants a license vs. mailing in boxtops from their favorite cereal. I'm probably one of the young guys here, at 60. I made it to 5wpm and got my Novice, but never got past 10wpm. Took the general written to get my Technician, and when the 13wpm requirement was dropped was "grandfathered" to General. I currently hold an Extra Class license. Going back to my Tech. days, I never fell in love with code, spent a bit of time on 2m FM, but very early got into RTTY. Ran autostart on the SDTS repeater on 220 with a model 15 and later a 28KSR. Was a TAPR beta tester, and probably still have my BETA TNC. I like PSK-31. So, when the CW vs. Phone arguments crop up, my response is pretty much always going to be NEITHER! 73 -- Lynn On 11/13/2017 10:04 AM, Edward R Cole wrote: > The purpose of requiring CW was perhaps not to be restrictive - but it > had exactly that effect. ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message delivered to [hidden email] |
|
|
In reply to this post by Edward R Cole
Knowledge of Morse code was an international requirement, but there was
no speed requirement. Anyone who remembers the "incentive licensing" debates of the mid-60s knows the Morse requirement in the U.S. was clearly intended to be restrictive by many hams if not most. Incentive licensing intentionally took away privileges with a code speed requirement that persisted until the fairly recent no-code licensing. I've always been a cw op. I lived in Japan when I was 12 and heard hams talking on my SW-54. I had no interest in that at all until I learned about hams using Morse code. I've been 90%+ CW since. Definitely not by choice, but I took General, Advanced and Extra before FCC examiners in Boston and Long Beach. Eric KE6US On 11/13/2017 10:04 AM, Edward R Cole wrote: > The purpose of requiring CW was perhaps not to be restrictive - but it > had exactly that effect. ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message delivered to [hidden email] |
«
Return to Elecraft
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |