I have taught many "CW procedures" classes in the past. I was also frequently "tapped" to explain tube amplifier classes, oscillator circuits, etc. as most of the people wanted to know this in addition to solid state gear theory. I did this umtil there seemed to be no interest in doing this anymore. This was the "era" when it seemed everyone was unloading vacuum tube gear, even throwing it in the dumpster at hamfests! The days when you could buy all the Johnson Viking Rangers you wanted for $20-40 TOPS, some in mint condition! Wished I'd bought some of them then! (If I did, I knew my XYL would raise hell about storing all that junk!)
Most hams then were more interested in getting the code to 13 WPM and then forgetting it and working SSB 'phone. Anyone at the time that liked CW was usually checking into an ARRL NTS net and learned traffic net procedures and proper protocol. "Contesting" was popular, but the contests were rather far apart and few between, so most CW contesters would "ragchew" at times to keep their code speed up. No computers and 'code readers", and computers in those days for most hams. I find most CW operators are QRPers or are fooling with boatanchor/glowbug rigs nowadays. There are a FEW newbies that take to code like ducks to water. I'm afraid the realm of the "telegrapher" is getting smaller and smaller. It's ashame as Morse is a VERY unique communication system and an 'art'. The Amateurs and airplane pilots seem the only ones who still use it. (Yes, airplane pilots STILL have to use Morse to decode the aural identification of DME/VOR/NDB transmitters/beacons.) 73, Sandy W5TVW ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tony Martin W4FOA" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Sandy W5TVW" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <elecraft@mailman.qth.net> Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2006 10:07 AM Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Is CW a Language? OT | Sandy, | I agree with much of what you have said but I would ask "whom shall we | blame"? | Unfortunately, I think we, you and I, are to blame for the lack of skills | and know how | of many of the newcomers. | | I don't know how long you have been in ham radio, but it wasn't too many | years | ago when most of us were "in" ham radio because of an "elmer". Someone that | introduced us to this wonderful hobby and nudged us along the way, | encouraged us | when we wanted to give up, and then tutored us as we got on the air. Even | corrected | us when we were not operating according to the standards of the day. | | Today it is too easy to buy a book off the shelf, spend a day studying it, | spend 20 minutes | taking an exam and wait 24 hours to receive your own callsign. The radio | clubs are | ever so eager to have new members that many really don't spend the time to | insure that | the new member will ever be more than a "dues paying member" and never | realize there | is more to ham radio than 2 meters. | | If there is a solution to the problem of poor operating habits by our | newcomers, it will | be for each of us to take them by the hand and teach them the correct | procedures. BUT, | please don't think for one minute that ALL of the bad operators are | newcomers.....not | by any stretch of the imagination! | | My two cents worth.. | | Tony, W4FOA | | | ----- Original Message ----- | From: "Sandy W5TVW" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <elecraft@mailman.qth.net> | Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 9:44 PM | Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Is CW a Language? OT | | | > Operating "protocol" today is absolutely atrocious at times! | > A lot of the newer hams know nothing about really proper procedure and | > many are very short on manners! | > Biggest violation of all is when someone calls CQ, another station just | > answers "W1ABC W1ABC K". Who is he calling? I usually respond by | > sending: "QRZ? QRZ? DE W5TVW K". | > Often the other station will simply send | > "W1ABC W1ABC K" If the band is crowded, which it often is, this had NOT | > told me he is calling me! We have not yet established communication so | > the "DE W1ABC" or "W1ABC" IS NOT proper or polite procedure. | > | > Whether a station uses "OP", "NAME", "HANDLE" (or whatever) that is his | > preference, whatever turns his crank. | > | > Add to this the "Novice accent" heard STILL today "NNQ NNQ NNQ NNQ NNQ | > DE W1ABC W1ABC.." repeated several times. Then a 5 second | > pause for an answer, followed by the same long CQ call again! One chap on | > 40 | > a few nights ago repeated this for maybe 5-6 times. I couldn't stand it | > any longer | > and fired up the 1/2 Kw and called him. He acted as if I was never there. | > Either deaf or has his receiver somewhere besides his frequency. | > | > Are ham license classes teaching proper procedures anymore? I KNOW the | > FCC doesn't give a damn. Perhaps a cell phone ringing, or someone passing | > gas loudly, or talking loudly in an office or church or theatre isn't | > considered | > RUDE anymore, so why try to have any manners in the ham bands? | > | > Sorry for the diatribe, but seems like too many of the newbies are not | > paying attention or don't care. More attention needs to be payed to | > the ARRL operating manual or have they rewritten it to reflect the | > times? | > | > This 2 cents worth on "Rotten Radio" from this "Old Man". | > | > 73 to all, | > Sandy W5TVW | > ----- Original Message ----- | > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <elecraft@mailman.qth.net> | > Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 5:11 PM | > Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Is CW a Language? OT | > | > | > | In a message dated 1/13/06 3:35:43 AM Eastern Standard Time, | > | [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: | > | | > | | > | > The use of CL, KN, BK, or the use of both AR and K at the end of the | > same | > | > transmission is nonsense. | > | | > | | > | I disagree in part. | > | | > | CL means "closing station, will not listen for any calls" Equivalent to | > the | > | military use of "AR". How the amateur and military uses of "AR" got so | > | different is a mystery to me. | > | | > | KN has a definite use in amateur radio if someone is rare DX. | > | | > | BK is different from K in that it is used in rapid-fire exchanges rather | > than | > | with full callsign exchanges. | > | | > | | > | I do agree about combining "AR" and "K". | > | | > | | > | > >But "BK" is used in rapid-fire exchanges | > | > >*without* the formal callsign exchange: | > | > >".....FB MOJO OM BT IS UR RIG A K2 or K1? BK | > | > | > | > Once again...a simple K serves even better. There is no usage rule | > that | > | > states that K must only be used following a call sign. | > | | > | No, but it emphasizes the quick nature of the exchange. | > | | > | ---- | > | | > | Couple of other points: | > | | > | Someone mentioned brevity. | > | | > | In my Novice days it was common to hear things like: | > | | > | "R R R TNX FER CALL BT UR SIGS RST 599 599 BT QTH IS WAYNE, PA WAYNE, PA | > BT | > | NAME IS JIM JIM" | > | | > | pounded out at 5-7 wpm. | > | | > | But the same thing can be sent as: | > | | > | "R R R TNX CL UR 599 599 IN WAYNE PA WAYNE PA OP JIM JIM" | > | | > | which still includes the repeats of the important stuff but is a bit | > | shorter.... | > | | > | __ __ | > | On "run together" prosigns like AR and SK: | > | | > | I propose that since plaintext doesn't allow us to overline easily, we | > adopt | > | the online convention of enclosing such signals in brackets. [] | > | | > | So AR would mean didah didahdit | > | | > | and [AR] would mean didahdidahdit | > | | > | Agreed? | > | | > | -- | > | | > | On standardization: | > | | > | It's interesting to see the variations in different military and | > commercial | > | Morse operations vs. amateur, as well as ITU standards. | > | | > | But I think it's pretty clear that nobody else is going to set standards | > for | > | Morse | > | much any more. Indeed, at least here in the USA, the FCC has backed down | > from | > | many old standards. For example, it used to be required by law that hams | > give | > | their own call last - that's gone. So is logkeeping as a legal | > requirement, | > | indicating most portable or mobile operation, indicating the station | > called, | > | and much more. | > | | > | IOW, the standards for Morse in the future are going to be mostly what | > we | > | hams say they are. | > | | > | 73 de Jim, N2EY | > | _______________________________________________ | > | Elecraft mailing list | > | Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net | > | 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 | > | | > | | > | | > | -- | > | No virus found in this incoming message. | > | Checked by AVG Free Edition. | > | Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.17/228 - Release Date: | > 1/12/2006 | > | | > | | > | > _______________________________________________ | > Elecraft mailing list | > Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net | > 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 | > | | | | | -- | No virus found in this incoming message. | Checked by AVG Free Edition. | Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.17/229 - Release Date: 1/13/2006 | | _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net 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
