Ok, so this is a continuation of my post in the other thread but I thought it coulc use a thread of it's own for responses. The question I posed in the other thread is as follows:
Does it concern any of you hams out there that this might happen? Do you think it will bring "new blood" into the ham ranks or just spoil the amateur bands the way that lax regulations and licensing did on the old citizens band?
Would like to hear everyones feedback.
- David
Does it concern any of you hams out there that this might happen? Do you think it will bring "new blood" into the ham ranks or just spoil the amateur bands the way that lax regulations and licensing did on the old citizens band?
Would like to hear everyones feedback.
- David
posted by:
|
-
Re: Getting rid of code requirement
Mon, May 24, 2004 - 8:26 AMI think it's coming, whether people like it or not. The general sentiment among the Ham community is that CW can be useful, but it's no longer a critical operating skill. I think the only reasons we still have it as a prerequisite for access to the HF bands are nostalgia and tradition. Back in the early 80s, when I first became interested in Amateur Radio, the FCC had allowed Novice-class operators to use voice for the first time - they got a miniscule section of the 10-meter band, and most of the 220. The predictions were made that 220 was going to be the next CB, and I even remember hearing some old-timers saying that they were going to sell their 220 gear, because they didn't want any part of that band now that Novice-class operators would have access to it.
About 8 years later, when the code requirement for entry-level licensees was first dropped, I heard the spectre of CB raised yet again. And again, those predictions did not come to bear - I can't speak as to other parts of the country, but the 2M band here in Atlanta is pretty much crap-free.
My own story is that I failed the 5WPM CW exam 6 times over 17 years before finally passing it last year. After passing the test and getting the /AG suffix after my call, I tried calling CQ in the old Novice CW bands of 40 and 80, which are supposed to be the places to go for slow-speed CW contacts. You know what I got? Nothing. Not one response. I tried for a week, and heard absolutely nothing. The first time I called CQ using PSK31, though, I got a response. And the next time. And damn near every time after that.
I know this isn't going to be a popular opinion, and I really don't mean to single any one person out, but the impression that I've gotten is that the people who are demanding that the CW requirement be kept in place are the same ones who are the least interested in having a 5WPM QSO once in a while.
My personal opinion on the matter is to dump the CW requirement, and replace it with a more demanding written exam - the General class exam, as written, is a joke.
Jon KG4RNE -
-
Re: Getting rid of code requirement
Mon, May 24, 2004 - 2:57 PMI'd have to agree with Jon. As one of the novice hamsters that got licensed back in the days when even the base license was 5 wpm I know what an ordeal it is. I know a lot of fine people that just couldn't get the code down and I think it sucks to exclude people based on something like that. I was thrilled when the no code tech was made available because a lot of friends finally got their licenses.
However having said that, I do believe there is a place for code and I think it is a great skill to have. Personally, other than for the test I've never used it and could probably copy only a couple characters now (it's been nearly 20 years). I was sad to hear that code is no longer used in any official capacity and that the last Maritime station shut down a few years ago. That is a loss. Just the same I can't see keeping it around and using it simply as a gate keeping mechanism.
In my opinion ham radio is supposed to be about pushing creativity and adopting new cost effective technologies and communications methods, fostering a community based on the love of radio and communications. It's not merely a substitute for a telephone, it's not a private line, and not solely for the preservation of outmoded techniques / technologies. Truly these elements are present in the big picture and I have no problem with that but ham radio has to grow and should be on the cutting edge of technology (as it used to be many decades ago). Unfortunately band crowding and over restrictive federal regulations have fostered a climate where ham radio is lagging behind almost all off the shelf technology, and that is a sad sad situation. Instead of being communications innovators we find ourselves waiting for type acceptance and dealing with limitations on how many devices of certain types we can construct in a given time period. Ridiculous restriction that flies in the face of the very spirit of Amateur Radio.
As for the HF bands turning into another version of CB, well in many ways they already are. I've heard the same stuff on 20, 40 and 80 that can be heard on CB, jamming & profanity, whatever. It's not that big of a deal I think we have much larger concerns we as hams should be focusing our attention on, such as BPL, the FCC selling off the public's spectrum to private industry, lack of any true public access to broadcasting etc.
As Jon has said we've heard the same fears repeated over and over about what will happen to the bands if… and over the years we have seen some changes but nothing that has ended ham radio as we know it. Nothing that has even come as close to the real threat that BPL is. So I welcome anyone with a love of radio technology and communication to the bands, regardless of their knowing code or not. Sure, change the written tests to ensure license holders have some knowledge of what they are doing but the bottom line is we need all the help and voices we can get these days… if we want to save the bands, otherwise big business will put them to use for profit.
-
-
Re: Getting rid of code requirement
Tue, May 25, 2004 - 12:00 AMI did respond to your posting on the other thread. The
no-code Technician license is already bringing in plenty
of "new blood." Elimination of all Morse testing--as some
propose--would be O.K. as long as there is some kind
of control to maintain the integrity of the existing CW
segments of the HF bands.
---
I received my Novice license in 1959--before many of
you were born. It was 5 WPM, a rudimentary written
test, for one year only, and non-renewable. Within a
year, one either had to take the Technician exam
(5 WPM and the same 50-question test as the General),
or the General exam (13 WPM and 50-question
written test). The Technician license conveyed no HF
privileges--only all privileges in the 50 MHz band and
above (VHF and UHF). The General license conveyed
*all* amateur privileges. The Extra license required
2 years experience as a General, 20 WPM code test,
and a 100-question written test. It conveyed no
additional privileges; but in addition to the standard
paper license, a large diploma-type license on light
blue paper (similar to the FCC commercial
radiotelegraph and radiotelephone licenses) was issued.
The Extra was the "Ph.D." of ham licenses.
---
So I took the Technician later in 1959, and the
General in 1960. General and Extra exams were taken
before FCC examiners at FCC Field Offices. In
San Francisco, they were located in the Federal Building
at 555 Battery Street.
---
In 1967, thanks to the ARRL, ham licensing was
"restructured." Generals had privileges taken away,
and had to take additional tests to get them back!
In 1977, I took the Advanced test at the FCC.
In 2000, yet another restructuring. In 2001, I took
the Extra written test--before a VEC testing team.
---
More than 40 years and two tests later, I still have
the same privileges that I had in 1960 as a
13 WPM General!
---
Code isn't for everyone. For those who learned it and
learned to live with it as Novices, it is a lifelong skill--
kind of like learning to swim. Back when there were
no no-code licenses, the Novice CW bands on
80M, 40M, and 15M were lively and hopping with
activity. Novices were limited to crystal-controlled
transmitters (no VFOs allowed), and a maximum of
75 watts input.
---
Most of the lawlessness occurs not in the CW
segments of the HF bands--mostly in the phone (SSB)
segments. Most CW guys and gals are gentle persons,
and follow the rules. Most are courteous, and many
will QSL--a great tradition that many new no-code
hams know little about, and have pretty much abandoned.
---
Thanks to Riley Hollingsworth, the FCC continues to
keep ham radio operators honest and in compliance
with FCC rules and technical standards. Ham radio
has never approached CB radio in chaos. Jammers
get hams pissed off. Hams form vigilante committees,
use triangulation techniques, and nail the bastards.
When you study hard, pass tests, invest money in
equipment, etc., you won't tolerate malicious QRM
so some adult brat can get his jollies.
---
Ham radio is changing. It has and will continue to be
an inclusive hobby--there is room for Morse devotees
as well as no-code operators. It has been characterized
since its beginning by people who voluntarily learn
about technology, are willing to be tested, who
believe in community service, and who are willing to
teach and help newcomers. The contrast between
ham radio and CB radio should be obvious.
---
73, Loren, AD6YU -
-
Re: Getting rid of code requirement
Tue, May 25, 2004 - 1:39 AMThanks for your response Loren. Your perspective is much appreciated! The reason I posed the question is because as someone who is aspiring to be a ham, I'm concerned about the situation that amateur radio seems to be in at the moment.
As was posted above, BPL seems to be a real threat, and the interest in amateur radio doesn’t seem to be what it once was. I’m wondering where the future lies.
Oh, and YES, I’m still going to proceed with code! It’s something that I tried to master once when I was younger (a teenager) and didn’t, and therefore never followed through with trying to achieve a novice license. So, for personal reasons I STILL want to learn code. However, I can understand why this is a HUGE obstacle for some and may be a reason why the amateur ranks aren’t larger than they could be.
All thoughts and opinions are very much appreciated.
73’s
- David -
-
Re: Getting rid of code requirement
Tue, May 25, 2004 - 11:29 PMHi, DJ--
Yes, BPL is a potential problem. The ARRL is lobbying
strenuously against it. Congressmen who are hams
have brought the issue to President Bush and
FCC honcho Michael Powell (son of Secretary of State
Gen. Colin Powell). In addition to the whole brouhaha
being between technologies, it is also about hams who
engage in not-for-profit hobby activities, and the electric
power companies who want to expand their product
offerings into the area of telecommunications for profit.
---
For most folks, Morse code isn't a "snap." It takes
discipline, and lots of practice. I like the analogy
of learning how to swim. Effort, and practice, practice,
practice! But it's worth it, for it opens up a whole new
world of telecommunication, as well as a whole
old world of amateur radio traditions and rituals.
I was first exposed to Morse code in the Boy Scouts.
Never mastered it, though. Failed my Novice 5 WPM
test the first time. Passed it on my second try.
I taught myself how to send first, instead of learning
how to receive--big mistake! :-)
---
The old FCC 13 WPM test was simple. They gave you
a ruled yellow paper pad and pencil. You had to copy
consecutive characters and punctuation marks
correctly for the speed at which the code was sent.
They counted the characters and marks. Only after
passing the receiving test would one then get to
send code. Sending was done on an old military
J-38 straight key. All the examinees in the room
got to listen to your "fist." Hot-doggers liked to showboat
by fanning the key with their knuckles when sending
a series of dits. There's always a showoff in every group!
:-)
---
Contrast this type of test with what we have now.
You can copy in your head if you like. All you have to
do is answer content questions correctly. And of
course, it's at 5 WPM.
---
The no-code Technician Class license grants all
privileges in the VHF and UHF spectrums.
People interested in FM repeaters, line-of-sight
simplex, antenna experimentation, radio control
models, microwave, propagation phenomena, etc.
can have a ball. So the old complaint about the
code being a roadblock just doesn't hold up any more.
---
But the no-code proponents propose the elimination
of all Morse testing for all classes of amateur radio
licenses, and the extension of HF operating privileges
for no-code licensees. That works for me--but only
in the phone/SSB band segments. Allowing someone
totally ignorant of the code to operate in the CW
band segments would be like throwing a non-swimmer
into the deep end of a diving pool and letting him/her
fend for him/herself--creating not only QRM, but also
unnecessary ill-will between CW operators and the
no-code hams. No-code license? Fine--then stay
off of the HF CW band segments.
---
Another analogy might be:
If a person only knows how to drive an automatic
transmission car, and you put him in a stick shift
car and ask him to drive, he will be a hazard to
himself and to others around him. No-code hams
would be welcome on the HF phone bands, but
would not be welcome on the CW bands poking
along at 2 WPM. Learn the code well enough to
do at least 5 WPM before going on the air!
Being on the air is no time to be learning the code
to get up to the minimum acceptable speed for
intelligible communication.
---
The commercial equipment manufacturers will
welcome the adoption of the no-code licensing
structure when it comes to pass (and it is almost
inevitable, given the way technology has developed).
I do hope that CW and CW operators will not be
buried in the onslaught. Thank goodness there
are groups like the FISTS CW Club that actively
promote the use of CW on the air.
---
Where phone/SSB cannot get through, CW can.
CW is a weak-signal and QRP guy's favorite mode.
You can home-build a simple CW transmitter using
a sardine can and parts you can buy at any Radio
Shack store. For hobbyists without big bucks to
spend, CW allows enjoyment of a hobby at minimal
cost.
---
So there's lots to be said on both sides.
Change will come soon. I hope we'll be ready for it.
Ham radio is a lifetime hobby that broadens one's
vistas and opens doors to new opportunities
(professional, social, educational, cultural, etc.).
Its possibilities are many. For these reasons, I hope
that it will continue to flourish and grow.
---
73, Loren, AD6YU -
-
Re: Getting rid of code requirement
Wed, May 26, 2004 - 3:20 AMIt concerns me to see the FCC in the pockets of so many large companies. Without getting into political views, I'll just say this: I think Michael Powell was the WORST thing that could have happened to the FCC! I really wonder what chance a small group of amateur radio enthusiasts have against the BIG BUCKS of Sony, Time-Warner & Disney? It seems to me if THEY want BPL they’ll probably get BPL! Just look at how they’ve managed to get media ownership deregulation pushed through congress in recent years. I just hope ALL of the Hams out there contact their congressional representatives and make their voices heard. I think every little bit would help.
I’m all for progress. But, it seems to me that sometimes in our culture we’re so hasty in our push for progress (usually fueled by the want of ‘profit’!) that we don’t stop to think about WHAT we’re throwing away to achieve it! I would site the lack of localism in our media as an example of this.
I DO agree that the practicality of CW may have seen it’s day. However, I ALSO agree that the “tradition” and “heritage” of amateur radio needs to be preserved to some degree as well. Hopefully, the trade-off of ‘no code’ licenses will allow enough new amateurs into the ranks at an must faster pace and will serve to keep amateur radio alive for many years to come. It would be a shame to loose the ham bands!
All thoughts welcome.
- David
-
Re: Getting rid of code requirement
Sun, July 3, 2005 - 7:28 AMHi Loren,
I liked your final statement,, "change is comming" Ham radio has always had change, some yearly and those that are changing with it are on the cutting edge because they love it. Those that don't change, well even old cars wear out sometime. I've never thought that any licence makes you better, it just shows others what you accomplish. Thats neither good or bad, just different. BPL is a problem but I believe that the power companies really don't want to give internet services to the rural areas ( not money in it) so they will continue to push the envelope.
I have several hobbies, like writing. To get good it takes practice and the watchfullness of my peers, and their help. Ham radio takes the same dedication only we do it without money being the driving force.
I took my novice before another ham, and my general and advanced before the FCC, and my extra by VEC's. I think its harder now.(I've taken the tech test twice online, twice flunked it)
To make it short, I agree with your other comments. and add one more. Ham radiio is a hobbie that can lead to a lifelong occupation, or a stumbling block. do with it what you desire but it has never been our right to have it.. Its like if you think you are a boss, then try ording your next door neighbors dog around.
Keep shining Loren. It took 25 years for my wife to go to Tech, and onlyl a week to get to General.. She HATES code. LOL Jr wb7wvo
-
Re: Getting rid of code requirement
Tue, August 16, 2005 - 10:38 PMOk I have been reading a lot of the other replies and I have a few comments and or questions to add.
Seth made a point about code being a gate keeping mechanism. I agree with this. My father has been a ham for 50 year now. He wants to keep code as a way to keep something for those willing to work hard. The prize is that extra bit of spectrum for extra class with code. Many of these hams form a bit of a good old boys club, Purest if you will. The test they took were issued be the FCC not ARRL volunteers and they were advanced compared to today’s test. They did not have access to published answers. I think they see this as a dumbing down of their craft.
CB vs. Ham radio. Some of the CB radio has made it in to Ham radio. People asking for you handle and not your name, the use of 10 codes, that become the use of Q’codes during phone operation.
Loren Said “would be O.K. as long as there is some kind of control to maintain the integrity of the existing CW segments of the HF bands.”
The ARRL ask the FCC to change Part 97 to include a scetion on radio edicate. The FCC said know. Maybe they should ask again.
73’s
Mike
-
-
-
-
Re: Getting rid of code requirement
Sun, November 28, 2004 - 10:28 AMI am one of the "old timers" that have an issue with dropping the code requirement - in spite of struggling with it for years.
The issue is not competence in a largely obsolete skill, the real issue is commitment.
I also struggled for many years with the code - I took my first code test at the age of 8 back in 1959 - and flunked. I was not licensed till 1972, at the age of 22, and so I can truly appreciate the difficulty of struggling with the code for many years.
When I first got on the air, the majority of conversations were technical in nature. Few hams were non-technical (they were sneered at as "appliance operators"), and the sort of behavior that is now common, even the rule, on 75 meters at night, was rare. Getting on the air for a ragchew was a pleasure, because nearly everyone who answered your CQ was technical like you were, and so you had something in common with them, and that was a good conversation-starter. Having a ham license was almost universally considered a privilege, not a right, and that privilege was really appreciated. Habitual jamming happened, but it was so rare that when it occurred, there was usually a mention of it in QST.
What is the difference today? The degradation of the hobby began when the license exams were first loosened up in an effort to boost numbers - not long after I was first licensed. The code/no-code controversy began about then - that was when the 220 no-code proposal was first made seriously. The argument was whether or not we needed numbers to justify our spectrum or whether we should strive to keep up the standards and the commitment to amateur radio culture and the high standard of operating that it entailed. Well, unfortunately, the former argument won out, and the dilution of the code requirement brought with it a dilution of commitment to the standards and culture of amateur radio. When slow-code extras finally happened, I shut off my radios and didn't turn them on for years.
When I moved to Costa Rica from Phoenix last year, I turned on my rigs for the first time in about eight years, and had a listen around the band, to decide if I wanted to bring my rigs with me. I could not believe what I heard. On 20m and especially on 75m. at night, the bands sounded really no different than what I remember on the citizen's band back in my days as a child. Little real difference that I could see. Two meters was no different at all, other than the use (occasionally) of call signs. I even recall a conversation when someone used a common Q-signal, and he was very pointedly asked what he meant.
Everything that was predicted to happen when slow-code/no-code was to be realized, has happened. I brought my radios with me and have a TI7 prefix now, but I never try to work the States anymore, and avoid getting on when the band is open to the States. Contest weekends are the worst.
Ham radio is still fun for me down here, but only when the band is open to South America, Africa, Europe, or the Far East, but not the States.
Numbers isn't everything. Quality of operating is much more important in my opinion, and slow code/no code has been a direct attack on operating quality.
In spite of the pure hell I went through to learn the code and get my license, I still believe that it is needed - to give the operator an appreciation of what he has achieved. Handing him a license for a weekend of memorizing does not do that. And that is why ham radio has lost most of its quality - and its appeal.
73 to all,
Scott Bidstrup
TI7/WA7UZO -
-
Re: Getting rid of code requirement
Mon, November 29, 2004 - 3:57 AMThanx for your reply Scott.
73
David, KG6WID
-
-
Re: Getting rid of code requirement
Wed, February 9, 2005 - 7:35 PMI really think getting rid of the code requirement is a bad idea. If for anything else for the tradition of Amateur radio. Why do they find it necessary. if you want to play radio you can do the Citizens band or these new Family radio service. Gosh it just does not seem right to me.
The other thing that bugs me is the FCC new ruling on vanity calls. You don't even have to be in the call district to get that number call. What good is it. When you listening to a qrp signal and you copy a W4 you know where its at. Now it could be anywhere.
73, Harry
KC9GRV
-
Re: Getting rid of code requirement
Wed, February 9, 2005 - 8:11 PMOne of the great proponents of "no code" was/is Rod Stafford, who was Pac division director before he made it "to the top".
What is the ARRL interested in? Numbers. It is viewed that the greater the number of hams, the greater the number of members, and that directly correlates (in their opinion) into greater political power. Let the record show that ARRL never replaced the position of lobbyist after Steve Mansfield (a great guy, by the way) passed away.
Paul Rinaldo is also supposed to be working (he's based in DC) to deal with these technical issues such as BPL's effects on ham radio. Boy, that really worked. The truth on BPL is, there's too much potential money to be made for ham radio to ever effectively fight it on its own.
So morse code will go the way of the dodo, so we can have more hams. What will this do to "quality"? Who can tell. People have been complaining about poor behavior on the bands for at least 30 years now, and it's only gotten worse. Who should be doing something about it? Well, it's not going to come from Newington. Trust me, I spent enough time in that building.
It has to come from us. We have to lead by example. It's the only way.
One last thought. I realize the code is hard. I worked my butt off to get to 20, then 30, then close to 40 (contesting has it's own requirements). But do I have the right to say everyone else has to pass the same bar I did, and keep the club exclusive?
73, everybody,
-
-
Re: Getting rid of code requirement
Sat, February 12, 2005 - 4:16 AMSince becoming licensed and getting up to speed on the whole BPL cenario, it has become obvious to me that ham radio is becoming a DINOSAUR! If code has to be dropped to bring in new blood and preserve the very nature of the art...then SO BE IT i say!
I've ready all the articles in CQ & QST recently and it seems to me that the ARRL has NO idea what they're up against. They keep being cordial to the FCC and trying to be "partners" with them. They do all of this "technical" research on BPL like the FCC GIVES A DAMN! This was decide LONG before the ARRL got involved. It's about MONEY!
I don't think the ARRL realizes the sort of corruption that now plagues the FCC. They're NOT going to listen to REASON when the corporations are throwing $$$ at them. I think the ONLY recourse hams have now to preserve the hobby is political presure through NUMBERS. If it requires NO CODE licenses then, SO BE IT.
My 2 cents.
73,
David, KG6WID
-
-
Re: Getting rid of code requirement
Sat, July 2, 2005 - 5:05 AMThe U.S. will be one of the last hold outs that keep the code. I would have been a Ham for over 30 years but I tryed to tears to learn the code and it never worked for me. Yes I am a no code tec and it looks like that I will stay that way. And dont tell me that I did not work hard at trying to learn that damn code. I just spend my money on outher things now.
Quince/N9LIB/AAR5SM -
-
Re: Getting rid of code requirement
Sun, July 3, 2005 - 4:29 AMI see the picture much clearer now. The reason the USA still has a code requirement is because the large communication companies want Ham Radio to DIE!!! With the Amatuer "hobbists" gone, it'll be an easy task to auction off those old Ham bands to the highest bidder. That's EXACTLY what's happening with BPL. Despite the complaints from the Ham community, and with PROOF that there were interference issues, the FCC still steamrolled BPL through! From what i understand the ARRL has proposed a "no code" license with some HF access to the FCC already. We'll have to see what happens.
- David, KG6WID
-
-
-
-
Re: Getting rid of code requirement
Sun, July 3, 2005 - 6:53 AMHi david,
Your question on getting rid of code, it isn't an easy one for anyone to answer, no matter who you are, code affects you differently. When I was a novice I loved the code, even used the code a lot into general and advanced. Easy, not on your life but I kept plogging away. I too would call on 80 and 40 meters and never get an answer in the novice bands. Occasionally someone would answer me and it was a great conversation. I also met hams that would slow down to tell me that they couldn't or wouldn't go slow just for me, but I also met extras that put up with my choppy, broken, out of sync code just to talk to me. Having said that, the question. I don't think I would be a better operator just because the code wasn't there, or would be a worse operator if it were there or vice versa. Having no code might bring in more people to the amatuer bands but I see it as no difference. I see hospital personel and emergency personel getting their ham licence so that in an emergency they can man the ham stations in emergency situations. Very few I am afraid will continue on in the ham world most of us love..
Ham bands are being destroyed by the very hams that yell to keep it ham only. You have to only tune around 20 meters and 80 at night. What ever happened to respect for the other person? I don't think having code or not will change that mentality.
I want to pose another question, What have "YOU" done lately to help the ham world improve. Wayne Green was right after all, we are lazy, self centered, and rightous in our own eyes. well some of us are anyway and I am trying to not join that club, how about the rest of you.. Keep on working hard, fight for what you believe in but believe in what you fight for.
Jr portable in Hungry Horse, Montana -
-
Re: Getting rid of code requirement
Sun, July 3, 2005 - 3:04 PMGreat post JR. Wayne Green is a very wise man! I respect him greatly. I've got a copy of his recommended book list somewhere here on my harddrive if anyone wants a copy.
It took me a while but with a little practice i passed my code exam. A lot of people told me to not bother...to just wait. I'm glad I did. I always wanted to learn code. I"m not FAST at it yet...but maybe with some more practice...eh!
I think getting MORE poeple into Ham radio (HOWEVER it's done) is NOT a bad thing. It can only help preserve the art of amatuer radio. If a more generous no-code license helps...then so be it.
My 2 cents.
Happy 4th to all!
- David, KG6WID -
-
Re: Getting rid of code requirement
Thu, July 21, 2005 - 9:25 AMThe latest from the FCC is a big "NO!" to all the various proposals for restructuring of the amateur radio licensing hierarchy. In other words, no "grandfathered upgrades" for now. The major rationale is lack of budget to modify the ULS database to accommodate any such restructuring. Such proposed modification would be done by software contractors--not internal FCC personnel. About the only thing the FCC seems committed to is the total elimination of any Morse code testing requirements for an amateur radio license in the U.S. It is now soliciting comments from the amateur radio community. How about it, guys and gals? -
-
Re: Getting rid of code requirement
Sat, July 23, 2005 - 7:21 PMHey it looks like something is going on...Just think of all the money that will no longer be payed out to learn the code tapes...Hmmmmm. hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_pub...-143A1.pdf -
-
Re: Getting rid of code requirement
Mon, July 25, 2005 - 8:36 AMWhen morse code is outlawed, only outlaws will operate CW. -
-
Re: Getting rid of code requirement
Mon, July 25, 2005 - 12:46 PMIn all modesty, I'm too nice a guy to be an outlaw! But I like operating QRP CW (2 watts) on 20 Meters. QRP ops will still operate CW. So will the members of the FISTS CW Club numbering in the thousands, and spread out worldwide. My big fear is that when the Morse requirement bites the dust, so will our CW frequencies. The phone guys will have critical mass in numbers, and take over everything. Does anyone else out there share my fear? -
-
Re: Getting rid of code requirement
Mon, July 25, 2005 - 1:05 PMWell, the ARRL is already planning to ask the FCC to regulate band segments by emitted bandwidth, which should shrink the CW bands right down to next to nothing, with a little space left for rtty modes like PSK31.
So you do have room and reason to fear the future.
Once "no-code" goes through, there will no longer be any impetus for W1AW to continue CW practice transmissions. Watch that cost-cutting move to come along in about two years.
-
-
-
Re: Getting rid of code requirement
Mon, July 25, 2005 - 12:43 PMTapes? Naw. You can always listen to W1AW and other code practice stations for free. All you have to have is an HF receiver with a BFO! :-) -
-
Re: Getting rid of code requirement
Mon, July 25, 2005 - 5:28 PMThe way things usually go, I'd expect the FCC to allocate more of the bands for phone operators. Now if BPL spreads across the nation, I'd assume the best way to get a signal through all that noise on HF will be with code because the effectiveness of SSB will be limited on HF from all the interference. That may keep the interest in CW on HF if that happens.
Thoughts?
- David, KG6WID -
-
Re: Getting rid of code requirement
Mon, July 25, 2005 - 5:56 PMGive this a thought, If thire were more hams to use the phone bands then thire will be lots more of us to fight against BPL. Right now as I see BPL is that I dont care if it goes through. That could change if thire was more of us to fight for the bands....
-
Re: Getting rid of code requirement
Tue, July 26, 2005 - 7:42 AM>>>The way things usually go, I'd expect the FCC to allocate more of the bands for phone operators. <<<
There is actually a move right now to change things so that spectrum is partitioned by bandwidth rather than mode, e.g. narrow modes like CW and PSK31 would be in one space, mid-width modes like rtty and ssb in another, and broader modes like FM (on 10m, of course) and AM would be in another space.
>>>Now if BPL spreads across the nation, I'd assume the best way to get a signal through all that noise on HF will be with code because the effectiveness of SSB will be limited on HF from all the interference. That may keep the interest in CW on HF if that happens.<<<
My understanding is that PSK31 is better at cutting through noise than CW is. I haven't confirmed this, though, as I don't work either mode.
73 DE KC2IDF -
-
Re: Getting rid of code requirement
Thu, July 28, 2005 - 1:11 PMI have worked KH6B several times on 20M CW through the QRN and QSB. The rig is an MFJ QRP Cub running 2-watts to a "Y" dipole up 15 ft. at the ends, and up 8 ft. off the ground at the coax center feed point (it has a heavy balun coil to match 52-ohms to 75-ohms). With this minimalist set-up, CW gets through. The distance from California to Hawaii is several thousand miles. -- AD6YU -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: Getting rid of code requirement
Thu, July 28, 2005 - 1:19 PMLoren, have you ever tried removing the balun coil and trying to tune it directly? That coil might be bringing some loss into the system.
You might also want to consider making another dipole and using TV twin lead--get it to match, and you'll get some better bandwidth. I once worked ZL from W1 on CW with an indoor dipole made that way. -
-
Re: Getting rid of code requirement
Thu, July 28, 2005 - 3:45 PMI thought that getting the SWR down as close to 1:1 was the goal to shoot for. In terms of radiated power, whatever loss there might be would seem negligible--since I'm only running 2 watts anyway. I tried the 300-ohm TV twinlead dipole many years ago. As a Novice, I worked a K8 in Ohio on 15M CW--my big DX catch as a Novice--using such an antenna. Might give it another try if I can find some 300-ohm twinlead cheap. Most home TV antennas seem to be fed with coax these days. -
-
Re: Getting rid of code requirement
Thu, July 28, 2005 - 4:45 PM>I thought that getting the SWR down as close to 1:1 was the goal to shoot for.
Not really. Jerry Sevick, W2FMI, will tell you that SWR never matters, (check out his book "Transmission Line Transformers" sometime), but I tend to disagree with him on a few points.
The goal to shoot for is the best radiation pattern, and the broadest resonance. Yes, resonance relates to SWR--but with a folded dipole, you get a lot more bandwidth than with a regular dipole, or inverted V/Y type antenna. You just need to transform it down.
"That" store, I'm pretty sure, will sell you 50' or so of tv twin lead if you give them your name, address, and phone number. Ask for item 15-1174 or 15-1175. I generally have used the name of Hiram Percy Maxim on a number of occasions when they asked me.
-
Re: Getting rid of code requirement
Fri, July 29, 2005 - 5:24 AM>>>I thought that getting the SWR down as close to 1:1 was the goal to shoot for.<<<
Let me offer a very simple analogy I have heard: A dummy load will always give you a 1:1, but won't get your signal out.
Basically what it amounts to is that if you get a 1:1, it's no guarantee that your antenna is the most efficient possible. What it does mean is that your antenna is *taking in* all of the RF energy, but not that it is sending it back out as RF energy, as opposed to converting a significant fraction of it to heat.
Now, don't get me wrong, there is a value in getting close to 1:1, but that value is more in prolonging the lifespan of your transmitter, and is less important on QRP gear than QRO gear. Worse matches than 1:1 also tend to exaggerate the feedline losses a bit, because any reflected signal comes back to the radio, where it is reflected again, so that reflected signal ends up traversing the feedline three times, and some fraction of it goes on for a fourth and fifth pass, ad infinitum.
It is fine and dandy to completely blow off SWR in theory. In practice, I believe it is less so. Practical transmitter design requires you to pay at least *some* attention to SWR, but it is not the be all and end all.
That said, while you can use a BalUn or other type of matching transformer/section/arrangement, there are times where the loss that results from doing so will exceed the loss resulting from the mismatch. This becomes more pronounced on QRP than QRO, because you don't have a lot of power to work with in the first place. -
-
Re: Getting rid of code requirement
Fri, July 29, 2005 - 11:51 AMThank you, guys, for the tutorials on SWR. Like anything else, there are design tradeoffs. My HF station set-up is minimalist. My decision to use 20M was based on the length of a 20M dipole at 33 ft. I have this space by the side of my mobilehome carport. With my low "Y" dipole and 2 watts on CW, I can reliably and regularly have QSOs from the San Francisco Bay Area to Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and British Columbia. Alberta is a stretch, as is southern California. When propagation is good, Alaska, Hawaii, and even North Dakota come through. All of these QSOs I have QSLed.--Oh, on dummy loads. As a Novice, I ran my 6AG7 oscillator and 807 final at 50 watts into a 75-watt light bulb dummy load. The RF glow of the bulb was beautiful when the final tank circuit was tuned to resonance. I worked my buddy, WA6GUE, crosstown (he was about a mile away) using the light bulb dummy load. You are right--no signal was going out. But since he was also on the same AC mains, maybe he was hearing me on ground wave or something. -
-
Re: Getting rid of code requirement
Fri, July 29, 2005 - 12:04 PMThere's an old adage in ham radio called "Gootch's Paradox", which states simply that "RF has gotta go somewhere". Ask KE1HP about his working RTTY QRP while loading up his window screen sometime. But a lot of people used to work stuff into their old light bulb dummy loads. I once had a 40 meter dipole that was half inside the attic, and half sloped towards EU--but managed to work CT to MO on 160 QRP. You just never know.
In fact, that's where a lot of the fun is--just fling some RF out there and see where it goes!
You should be able to do even better with 2 W on 20 and a dipole, though--I'd think you'd be able to at least work JA and VK, and, if the dipole is oriented the other way, PY.
Have you thought at all of trying to get something that would work on 17?
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
