++++++++++++++++ Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 15:41:41 -0700 From: "N7SG K7FD" Subject: Re: [Elecraft] IARU recommends end to CW Boy oh boy, Elecraft designs and produces the finest cw rig ever...and here we may someday sit all dressed up and nowhere to go. I can only believe the IARU 'suits' making such decisions must know NOT the romance of Morse; hams or not, they are certainly misguided. Like BB King sez: he practiced & practiced to master the guitar, the guitar was not going to master him. It's the same with cw - and I'm afraid many have chosen to let cw master them. Yes, cw is outdated but the movement to end it started because it was 'too tough'; I salute those cw op's who stuck it out...when the going got tough. Why is it just when I get good at something, they decide to end it? ;) Maybe they should pass a rule against Murphy! 73 John K7FD From: Phil Wheeler > >This doesn't trouble me in itself. But next will be a position that no >CW segments need be preserved in the bands. > >Phil > "J. Ellis" wrote: > > > > ARLB044 IARU Administrative Council Calls for End to Morse > > Requirement +++++++++++++++++++ Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 19:56:25 -0400 From: "Bob Lewis \(AA4PB\)" Subject: Re: [Elecraft] IARU recommends end to CW Well, the subject line is misleading. No one is recommending and end to CW, they are only recommending the end to requirement to know CW in order to work the HF bands. The fact that there is no "speach test" doesn't do away with SSB or FM. The fact that there is no "typing test" doesn't put an end to RTTY or PSK31. Why should the elimination of the "code test" put an end to CW? Hang on to your K1 - CW and sailing will be around for a long time to come. +++++++++++++++++++++ Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 19:24:10 -0500 From: fkamp at home.com Subject: Re: [Elecraft] IARU recommends end to CW Hey, just because some folk are not going to use CW does not mean you cant use it. It also does not mean CW is obsolete or not usable. CW is still the best way to work serious DX. It is better even than PSK. Equipment that is CW only, can be small, simple and dirt cheap. Sending and reading CW will always be a desireable skill as long as there are others using it. I don't particularly care for CW. I prefer PSK on an ICOM 737, but that is because I am lazy and have the equipment to support my laziness. If I did not have the equipment, I would be using CW. Frank Kamp K5DKZ N7SG K7FD wrote: > > Boy oh boy, Elecraft designs and produces the finest cw rig ever...and here > we may someday sit all dressed up and nowhere to go. > > I can only believe the IARU 'suits' making such decisions must know NOT the > romance of Morse; hams or not, they are certainly misguided. Like BB King > sez: he practiced & practiced to master the guitar, the guitar was not going > to master him. It's the same with cw - and I'm afraid many have chosen to > let cw master them. Yes, cw is outdated but the movement to end it started > because it was 'too tough'; I salute those cw op's who stuck it out...when > the going got tough. > > Why is it just when I get good at something, they decide to end it? ;) > Maybe they should pass a rule against Murphy! > > 73 John K7FD > > From: Phil Wheeler > > > >This doesn't trouble me in itself. But next will be a position that no > >CW segments need be preserved in the bands. > > > >Phil > > +++++++++++++++++ Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 08:53:02 -0400 (EDT) From: KENNETH ROBERT MCGUIRE Subject: Re: [Elecraft] IARU recommends end to CW Wow, there certainly seems to be no subject which inflames hams than the subject of CW testing. I myself have been all over the map on this - I came in as a No-code tech, and saw CW as just a hurdle. Now, I am a FISTS member - mostly for their bureau, admittedly... Anyway, CW is no longer the radio lingua franca. This is the reason CW skill was required - that was how people communicated by radio. CW still has many advantages, but it is no longer "the" way people communicate by radio - it is now instead "a" way people communicate by radio. Why should this mode have more emphasis than others in the tests? Even when I say this, I must also say that I'm glad that I had to get on the air with CW enough to pass the 13 wpm. It taught me that CW could be enjoyable instead of just a duty. It also gave me the tools to go after some of the DX on CW. CW sub-bands? My limited experience is that SSB and CW can co-exist (eg. 40 M) much better than CW and some data modes. Now many of these Data modes are quite narrow band and efficient, but all to often they do not LISTEN - they have a computer listen and translate for them. Ken McGuire KC8LTL in EN74cp at902 at tcnet.org ++++++++++++++++++++ Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 08:13:50 -0600 From: "Santa Fe" Subject: [Elecraft] Re: IARU end to CW > CW sub-bands? My limited experience is that SSB and CW can co-exist > (eg. 40 M) much better than CW and some data modes. Now many of these > Data modes are quite narrow band and efficient, but all to often they do > not LISTEN - they have a computer listen and translate for them. > > Ken McGuire > KC8LTL in EN74cp SSB can co-exist with CW thanks to DSP, but CW has a difficult time with SSB. CW has no trouble co-existing with digital, we can easily (if QRO) drive it away, but digital can not co-exist with CW. Conclusion: CW and digital each need their own space. Most find CW a chore to learn, not fun until mastered. Eliminating even a requirement of an introduction to this valuable communications skill would reduce the effectiveness of a potential emergency operator. (I think) this minimal introduction should be preserved in licensing. Memorizing the code at 5 wpm is easier than learning the written requirements and enhances that person as an emergency radio operator for the rest of their lives, even if they never choose to use it in their routine communications. Everyone without obvious impairments can memorize the code well enough to pass 5 wpm in a few weeks. A very significant percentage of people can not go above about 10 wpm due to a common aberration in neurology that makes discerning sounds of short duration (less than 200 ms) impossible. I think it important this be understood by those who would judge people who can not learn it as people who just didn't try hard enough. That ain't so. 73, W5YA # 700 +++++++++++++++++ Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 09:08:40 -0700 From: Wayne Burdick Subject: [Elecraft] on CW Ed Juge/NM wrote: > > ...[IARU action] will *eventually* kill CW because those who don't have to learn > it will have little incentive to do so.... Only time will tell, of course. But it seems to me that if QRP, DXing, home-building, or backpack-radio survive, then CW will, too. The case for each is pretty obvious, and stronger when taken together: - - If you're into QRP, the incentive to use CW is a very large increase in signal-to-noise ratio over SSB. Since many new hams eventually become interested in the challenge of low-power operation, there's a good chance they'll give CW a try. (Some narrow-band data modes provide the same or even better S/N advantage. But you can do CW without a keyboard or a computer attached to your rig, and this does matter to some of the people, some of the time. CW gets me *away* from my computer!) - - The justification for CW DXing is similar, and comes down to S/N ratio. For a given ERP at either end of an average communications path, CW lets you narrow down the bandwidth and copy signals 100% that would be nothing but a modulated mumble in a 2 kHz SSB voice bandwidth. And except in the case of really chirpy signals or sloppy sending, CW provides "accent-free," standardized elements that further aid comprehension, especially in fading or noisy conditions. - - If you're into building your own gear, either from scratch or from a kit, the incentive to use CW is that reliable communication can be obtained with simple circuitry. As in most hobbies, first-time ham radio builders start small. This favors CW gear, especially if you're trying to learn about electronics at the same time by using discrete components. - - If you're a long-distance backpacker trying to minimize weight, CW can be advantageous. To paraphrase Wes Hayward, W7ZOI: for backpacking, 1/2-watt output on CW strikes a good balance between battery weight and communication efficiency. I've made many, many QSOs with a dipole and less than 1 watt on CW. But to make SSB QSOs reliably you need some 10 times the peak power. Just between you and me: I'm into QRP, DXing, rig design, backpacking, *and* I own 50% of a company that sells CW transceivers. So I'm as biased as they come! But if you add up all the compelling reasons to use CW, it's hard to see it going away, whether it's supported by the IARU or not. In addition to the reasons I mentioned, it's just plain fun. It's a different way of "speaking" that for over 100 years has intrigued hams, scouts, spies, and kids. There's even a social justification for CW. Like electric guitar practice and late-night hunting for MP3 files on the web, you can do it with headphones on (i.e., you don't wake the family). By the way, I like SSB, too--conditions permitting ;) 73, Wayne N6KR ++++++++++++++++ Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 12:11:04 -0400 (EDT) From: KENNETH ROBERT MCGUIRE Subject: Re: [Elecraft] IARU recommends end to CW On Sat, 13 Oct 2001 msauve at alientech.net wrote: > At 08:53 AM 10/13/2001 -0400, KENNETH ROBERT MCGUIRE wrote... > >skill was required - that was how people communicated by radio. CW still > >has many advantages, but it is no longer "the" way people communicate by > >radio - it is now instead "a" way people communicate by radio. Why should > >this mode have more emphasis than others in the tests? > > Because CW serves as a "least common denominator." One of the primary > purposes of ham radio is to enable emergency communications. CW > transmitters/receivers can almost be built out of duct tape and baling > wire, if necessary. CW will get through when most other modes can't. > In an emergency situation, where CW is the most available and reliable > mode, it's sure nice to have some level of confidence that most > everyone out there can communicate with each other. That goes away > when the CW requirement does. Yes and no. I know about the advantages of CW - simplicity and efficiency and ability to cut through in bad conditions. All are good in emergencies. For example, here in Michigan for the Y2K night activities, 75 M was a bit dicey and problematic with different states nets on the same frequency, but 80 M CW worked rather well. On the other hand, look at the WTC mess. When the call for volunteers came out, they asked for VHF mobile rigs, not HF NVIS... It seems to be a different world. While my local RACES group has many Extras and Generals, my OM's group is almost all Tech's. You say that CW equipment can be built from duct tape and bailing wire. This is basically true. There is one significant requirement you forgot - the knowledge of how to do this. I would very much rather have the tests include much more technical information know how instead of any CW rate. Ken McGuire KC8LTL in EN74cp at902 at tcnet.org ++++++++++++++++ Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 09:59:23 -0700 From: Jeff Stai WK6I Subject: Re: [Elecraft] on CW At 09:08 AM 10/13/01, Wayne Burdick wrote: >But it seems to me that if QRP, DXing, >home-building, or backpack-radio survive, then CW will, too.... Not to mention weak signal VHF and UHF. The thrill of hearing a weak, warbling CW signal on 50.095MHz coming out of the South Pacific or Japan is indescribable. The opportunities to work DX on VHF are much fewer if you wait for openings that can support SSB. And (so far as I understand at least), new digital modes like PSK31 do not tolerate the phase shifts caused by propagation modes like Au and EME. Incidentally, the main reason I upgraded from Tech a few years ago was because I wanted to be able to work that 6m DX and to copy propagation beacons - therefore I had to learn CW. Upgrading was only a side effect. 73 - jeff wk6i jeff stai radio stuff: WK6I in DM13 rocket stuff: NAR #21059 TRA #3356 Level 2 Cert. email: jstai at home.com or wk6i at arrl.net ROC web page: http://www.rocstock.org/ LDRS web page: http://www.ldrs20.org/ +++++++++++++++++ Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 11:38:06 -0700 From: "Ed Juge/NM" Subject: Re: [Elecraft] on CW You don't have to sell me on the pleasures of CW, Wayne. I based my comments on the fact that today's population wants as much instant gratification as they can get with the least effort. I'm guessing, if they aren't forced to learn CW, no more than one in a thousand will. What you or I choose to do in our own favorite corners of ham radio shouldn't dictate licensing requirements for new hams. I've been a ham for 50 years last July, learned CW at age 14, enjoy it, passed the 20WPM Extra exam, am proud of the skill and I served on ARRL's somewhat controversial "No-code committee" a dozen years ago. I don't want to see CW or CW sub-bands go away, and don't expect to in my lifetime, but I've been a strong advocate for dropping code altogether as a requirement for a ham license. If, as many claim, digital communication is the fastest growing part of our hobby, a typing test might be more appropriate, but I wouldn't vote for it, either. 73... Ed ++++++++++++++++++ Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 08:42:13 -0700 From: lhlousek Subject: Re: [Elecraft] on CW "I play the clarinet. What do you play?"... "Me? I play the radio." Learning and using CW is like learning and playing a musical instrument. The learning curve is fairly steep and it takes continual practice to just to maintain skill, much less improve it. Some people are challenged by that and enjoy meeting the challenge. Sure, CW offers advantages in certain condx but those condx are mostly artificial. When communication must be done for purposes other than recreation, voice and digital modes are more practical. CW is like playing an instrument. Voice and digital modes are like....well, playing the radio. Lou W7DZN ++++++++++++++++++ Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 11:27:17 -0700 From: Wayne Burdick Subject: [Elecraft] most unusual CW experience My former employer, Interval Research, brought in lots of interesting speakers to inspire us. On one such occasion, an intriguing personality convinced about 100 of our normally reserved staff to close our eyes and simply make any sound that came to mind. We were reticent, at first. But within a few minutes everyone was into the act, loudly and gleefully relieving their heavy burdens with jungle hoots, whistles, grunts, claps, raps, chirps, rhythms of all kinds, and inexplicable sounds only humans could dream up. In the midst of this cacophony, which had no specified time limit, it occurred to me that in a group this size perhaps someone besides myself would know Morse code. I stopped doing my cricket imitation and whistled a CQ. Sure enough, someone with a K8 call whistled back. We had an eyes-closed, across-the-room audio QSO. The QRM was not only deafening, it was like nothing in the recorded history of compression and rarefaction. But we had no trouble communicating. (I didn't log this one--I'm not sure what the emission class is!) I peeked in the general direction of the other "station" once, and noted that the person whistling back was a rather famous blind scientist who had been visiting for awhile. As we left the room later, I introduced myself, and we had a chuckle over the incident. I'm not sure if the inspirational speaker's goal--to release tension through the use of sound--had been achieved. But it did highlight for me the unique niche occupied by our oldest digital mode. 73, Wayne N6KR +++++++++++++++ Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 14:40:45 -0600 From: "Santa Fe" Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Re: IARU end to CW > When was the last time the ARRL or FCC announced an emergency net on > CW? It appears to me that SSB or FM is being used for most emergency > nets these days. here is a true story; Ham operator was monitoring channel 19, CB emergency channel in CA, when he heard clicks on and off, but no audio. Hearing this a few times, he broadcast on the frequency, "is there as station trying to report an emergency?" Only the clicking in response. "I'm getting no audio here. If you are a station trying to report an emergency, then one click of your push to talk for yes, two for no." There was one click. "One click for yes, two for no, do you know Morse code?" There was one click. "Use your push to talk to report your emergency in Morse." The on and off's came slowly, but the receiving ham copied, "boat sinking, latitude ***, longitude ***" and he telephoned Coast Guard, had a chopper rescue the family from their sinking yacht in under 20 minutes. It turned out the man in the rescued family had learned the code for Eagle scout FIFTY years before, remembered enough to save five lives. The radio operator, he was a skilled communicator and got the job done. It is not a matter of operating nets, it is a matter of a capacity to get the message through. FD W5YA +++++++++++++++++ Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 17:27:45 -0600 (MDT) From: "Karl F. Larsen" To: Subject: [108615] CW Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII While I agree that CW need no longer be a requirment for a Ham license, it's still a neet thing to use when QRP. It works just enough better than ssb to make it viable when conditions are poor. Moon bounce operators are all good CW operators because too often the s/n is terrible. Only CW, slow, can make it. -- Yours Truly, - Karl F. Larsen, k5di at arrl.net (505) 524-3303 - http://www.qsl.net/k5di/ ++++++++++++++++++++ To: qrp-l at lehigh.edu Subject: [108616] Re: CW Message-ID: <1002933063.5991.3.camel at zippy.aa2ys.ampr.org> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 On 12 Oct 2001 17:27:45 -0600, Karl F. Larsen wrote: > > While I agree that CW need no longer be a requirment for a Ham > license, it's still a neet thing to use when QRP. It works just enough > better than ssb to make it viable when conditions are poor. > > Moon bounce operators are all good CW operators because too often > the s/n is terrible. Only CW, slow, can make it. "only CW"? Far from it. Perhaps you're unaware that a true QRP - 5 watts - EME contact was made earlier this year with generic TVRO dishes. They were using the DSP-10 rigs and the mode was PUA43. Details at: http://www.proaxis.com/~boblark/dsp10.htm I just got my DSP-10 kit, and my soldering iron is warming up.... - Rich +++++++++++++++++++ Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 07:58:35 -0400 From: Bill Coleman To: "Low Power Amateur Radio Discussion" Subject: [108776] Re: CW Message-ID: <1010915075834.HAA29140 at gate.iterated.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" On 10/12/01 7:27 PM, Karl F. Larsen at k5di at zianet.com wrote: > While I agree that CW need no longer be a requirment for a Ham >license, it's still a neet thing to use when QRP. It works just enough >better than ssb to make it viable when conditions are poor. I don't want to seem down on CW. I'm not. I like CW. I often wish I was a better CW operator. However, I've seen this myth perpetuated for a couple of decades. I have to debunk it. CW is NOT the most efficient mode. Sure, it may be better than SSB, but that's simply due to the difference in bandwidth, which is largely due to the reduction in signalling speed. However, CW is OOK (On-Off Keying). In the presence of Gaussian noise, OOK has about a 2 dB penalty over FSK. And FSK has a 2 dB penalty over PSK. So, under conditions of Gaussian noise, PSK has a 4 dB advantage over CW (OOK). Actual distortions on the communications channel don't permit the full 4 dB, but PSK has a significant advantage over CW. > Moon bounce operators are all good CW operators because too often >the s/n is terrible. Only CW, slow, can make it. The weakest man-made signals come from the deep-space probes of Pioneer 10, and Voyager 1 and 2. Last I heard, all three were still transmitting. None of these spacecraft use CW. Instead, they use forward-corrected digital codes. These digital modes are far, far superior to CW. Some PSK31 operators have discovered it is possible to have a Q5 QSO with stations that aren't even audible to the ear. Such QSOs aren't possible with CW. CW is fun and rewarding, but when it comes to copying signals when the S/N ratio is really lousy -- digital modes are far superior. Bill Coleman, AA4LR, PP-ASEL Mail: aa4lr at arrl.net Quote: "Not within a thousand years will man ever fly!" -- Wilbur Wright, 1901 ++++++++++++++++++