Dave Lowenstein wrote:
The disadvantage of no-code is that if new hams aren't required to
learn CW, how are they going to be able handle emergency traffic from
our low-powered battery-operated K1's and K2's?
... because no-code is a gateway drug ;-)
--
Nosey Nick Waterman, Senior Sysadmin.
Ralph says:
There is CW out there but sometimes the activity does
seem sparse.
I'd wondered about that. I was completely inactive from July 1983 to
November 2004, and I've noticed that the CW bands seem a lot less populated
now than they did 20+ years ago. For
Stephen W. Kercel wrote:
Ralph says:
There is CW out there but sometimes the activity does
seem sparse.
I'd wondered about that. I was completely inactive from July 1983 to
November 2004, and I've noticed that the CW bands seem a lot less
populated now than
Many evenings, around 10:30 PM PDT, I sit in my bed getting caught up with
my technical journals with my headphones on listening to folks QSO on 40
meters. I have a wire cut for 40 plus a counterpoise but the wires are
across the bookshelves of my room making them not too effective as
of skilled CW
operators as a problem.
Eric
KE6US
www.ke6us.com
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Craig Rairdin
Sent: Monday, September 05, 2005 8:32 PM
To: elecraft@mailman.qth.net
Subject: RE: [Elecraft] CW in Emergencies? (WAS: Dropping
The longer we hold onto this myth, the more likely we are going to be
found out by those who regulate ham radio. We need leaders who can
help shape ham radio to fit the current reality, not bemoan the dirth
of skilled CW operators as a problem.
This all wraps around to dropping the Morse
Yes Craig, and each and very one of those guys passed a code test! Yes
indeedy, that ole' Morse code sure does serve as a mighty fine filter to
keep the riff raff out.
grin
- Jim, KL7CC
Craig Rairdin wrote:
Those who worry about ham radio becoming another citizen's band need only
Jim wrote:
... each and very one of those guys passed a code test!
This is definitely **not** a certainty, since the VEC process took over the
operator licensing exam process.
Mike / KK5F
___
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
As an old traffic hound (does anyone remember ROOA?) nearly 50
years ago, I regularly worked and ran CW traffic nets, and made
BPL (500 messages/month, not originations) at least a half dozen
times. What we call traffic nets today are a bad joke compared to
those nets. Today, hams are simply
OK Mike, I'll bite. Since the reference was to 75 meter operation, just
how did these guys get their licenses then? Are you suggesting fraud in
the examination process? That is a very serious charge, and you need to
be able to prove it. Yes, there have been some irregularities, and as
Geez, thin line between sarcasm and reality, as I read it, although I've
wondered about that sometimes listening to 75M SSB on my K2 (see - it's
on a topic about K2's!).
This discussion is going on at the QMN/NREN reflector much more objectively!
I think we all need to lighten up and go along
@mailman.qth.net
Subject: RE: [Elecraft] CW in Emergencies? (WAS: Dropping the Code Test)
The longer we hold onto this myth, the more likely we are going to be
found out by those who regulate ham radio. We need leaders who can
help shape ham radio to fit the current reality, not bemoan the dirth
PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Morrow
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 9:44 AM
To: elecraft@mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] CW in Emergencies?
Jim wrote:
... each and very one of those guys passed a code test!
This is definitely **not** a certainty, since the VEC
The disadvantage of no-code is that if new hams aren't required to learn
CW, how are they going to be able handle emergency traffic from our
low-powered battery-operated K1's and K2's? Since emergencies are one of
our reasons for being and CW gets through with simple equipment where other
On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 12:36:04 -0700, EricJ wrote:
The riff raff was deeply entrenched on 75 before VEC
You can say that again -- 75 was a mess in the 50's!
Jim K9YC
___
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
You must be a subscriber
Hi, Dave.
This is an interesting idea, but it presupposes the new hams are taught traffic
handling, ICS training, and other things that makes them able to pass emergency
traffic with ANY rig. Maybe we should consider teaching Morse skills as a part
of emergency communications. After all, as
Dave,
Much emergency traffic can be handled with QRP phone rigs using NVIS
antennas consisting of a low dipole for 40 and 80 plus a reflector wire
about a foot off ground. It works like a 2 element beam and easily covers a
couple of states.
I have uses such a beam on 40m from Austin TX to
On Tue, 6 Sep 2005, Stuart Rohre wrote:
NTS techniques can be taught for phone just as well as CW.
72,
Stuart
K5KVH
Red Cross Comms Officer, Katrina Relief
It might be instructive for you to fill us in one how the Red Cross uses
its HF frequenciesI assume it's SSB.
73,Thom-k3hrn
In a message dated 9/6/05 12:35:37 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yes Craig, and each and very one of those guys passed a code test!
They also passed at least one, and usually several, written tests that
specifically included the regulations. Yet they broke the rules
Those who worry about ham radio becoming another citizen's band need only
scan 75M at night. They're too late. :-)
Craig
Until a cw op pops up in the middle... calls cq, gets and answer, has a
chat, sez 73, then moves on, and someone on ssb says, what was that?
The long haul cw nts ops
Thank you Ron ;)
My first experience with the Amateur Radio Service was through
participation in nets. These were FM repeater nets initially, then SSB HF
nets, and finally CW NTS nets. I learned to pass traffic for NTS both
using voice and via CW. It takes practice. Net procedures,
I submit that the reason virtually ALL emergency nets are phone is that
CW requires a skill few Hams have today: even routine CW ops.
In the Ham world, using phone means that more operators are available
everywhere, so there are likely more operators available any time and
in any place
Craig wrote:
I suspect that both ham radio and the federal government are living in the
past. The Internet has eliminated much of the traditional ham radio activity
surrounding disasters (with the exception of course of local VHF activity),
and 24-hour news networks have become better eyes and
23 matches
Mail list logo
