I know that you have read or heard of this before but if you are having hearing problems, learning the code, try learning from a very slow speed.. eg 1 or 2 wpm and slowing going faster... Larry ve3fxq
----- Original Message ----- From: "James Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007 12:57 AM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Why still the W1AW CW non-listening stuff on 3.580? Glad you learned it. I have spent at least 80 hours trying to learn code using every method possible. I was getting ready to go to the doctors to figure out what was wrong with me. It's hard to explain I just can't hear the sounds. Dit's and Dah's continue to sound the same. I consider myself fairly intelligent but just couldn't learn code. After they dropped code I said ok this is good, but I still want to learn it. It's low power, ability to work in all situations then I learned about PSK and the beauty of PSK. Now I agree with the CW guys there should be a skills requirement for current technology. If you can't type 20 words per minute your drop down to a tech, 30 words to be an extra. Come on, anyone can learn how to type and 30 wpm isn't that fast. ----- Original Message ----- From: KV9U To: [email protected] Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 2:36 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Why still the W1AW CW non-listening stuff on 3.580? Clearly, the FCC no longer considers CW a necessary skill. No reasonable person can deny that. The military (except for some special personnel) no longer use it, MARS dropped it as well. It is a huge sea change for sure. Voice modes were fairly popular as the technology improved and it was not necessary to promote specific skills since we already know how to do that. Digital is a relatively small special interest area of radio amateurs and only in the past few years has become a bit more important and that is reflected in the number and types of digital questions asked in the exams. Only CW requires a special skill to operate unless you include typing skills for keyboarding. In fact, I have found that one of things holding back more deployment of non voice digital modes is the inability of the operator to have those skills. Will there still be a few hams who will want to learn CW? Yes, a few. But many fewer than we had in the past. I am a good example. I hated CW and hated the idea that that I had to do it. And I only later was able to pass the 13 wpm and later the 20 wpm exams at an FCC examining site prior to the VE program, but it took a huge amount of effort. If I had not had to learn CW, there is no question that I never would have expended that much time. And I would never have realized that it can be an interesting mode to use. And I would never realize what I would have missed. It was only that I was required to do it that pushed me to do it. That is all gone now. It will be quite interesting to see how many do try it and become proficient in CW. But maybe only half as many? 20% as many? 10% as many? 73, Rick, KV9U [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >I am wondering why CW, as a mode, becomes less valuable just because >there is no "upfront test" prior to licensing. > >Were Digital and SSB modes previously considered less valuable than CW >because there was prerequiste testing in either mode before we got our >licenses? Maybe Digital operators could have been subjected to a >keyboarding test and SSB operators subjected to picking callsigns out >of heavy QRM! > >Now, all three modes are on similar footing. You pass the test, get >your license and work the mode or modes that you wish to use. > >I just don't understand why the elimination of a licensing requirement >means that folks won't want to learn CW or improve their existing CW >skills. In my case, I was away from CW for a number of years. I can >still copy a CW QSO at 12-15 WPM but the format of a typical CW QSO is >pretty predictable, easy to follow and copy. I prefer the practice >that W1AW offers me as it gives me some good text to copy and a quick >way to compare my copy with what was actually sent. > > >73 es DX >Russ WA3FRP > > >
