> >Dear Potential Ham Radio Enthusiast,
> > Recently the international body that regulates the radio spectrum removed the
> >requirement for knowing morse code to get a 1.8-30 MHz amateur radio license.
> > If you are interested in ham radio then I urge you to contact the FCC
> >commissioners and tell them to change the morse code requirement.
> [snip]
> >
> > Please take a few minutes to write a thoughtful note to the FCC Commissioners
> >to change and improve ham radio. Let us make ham radio useful for teenagers
and
>adults today.
>
> That's what the CB band is for... the masses, or was that "asses" ?:-)
>
> ...Jim Thompson
Thanks for posting that comment Jim. I'm pretty sure that a vast majority of Hams will agree with you on this, even in the dumbed-down era that we live in today!
If all the OP want to do is communicate by voice without all the licensing challenges to satsify, why doesn't he simply use one of those portable, license-free transcievers known as a Cell Phone?
I was initially licensed at age 12 (which in itself reveals that neither the code or technical exam tests were that difficult), but lost my interest during the 1970's when most Hams were using 'store-bought' rather than 'home-brew' rigs. Since most of the QSO content up to that time involved discussions of what we weere ising for rigs, and the aspects of their construction and performance, the conversation content suddently became very limited in technical content -- a bit like this newsgroup. No more "California Kilowatt" discussions, with guys proudly boasting about their (largely illegal rigs) with guy bragging about the pair of Eimac 3X2500F3s that they were using in their final modulated by a pair of 4-1000s; on the other end of the spectrum no one describing how they had WAS using only the
3-Watt output 3-W CW rig with a 6V6 as the final. Most Hams at that time knew that 10-Meters opened up for a brief DX window at roughly
11-year cycles, and would gladly wait for 10-years to exploit its magic when it did. At that time, antennas still ruled, and most of the Hams that I knew personally developed a great deal of expertise in the constructing and tuning of beam antennas, and the big debate was not the licensing code requirement, but the height limitation placed on ham radio towers, and whether of not a community had any authority to regulate them!
I miss those days, and the often greast QSOs that accompanied them. They don't exist any more, which is why I finally let my license lapse and concentrated my efforts on off-shore sailing and pyrotechnics! After all, when a guy tells you that he is using a Kenwood transciever, how do you come back to that? For me, it's like in 1958 when a guy came back to you using a 'Gooney Box' (Jim, I'm pretty sure you know what a Gooney Box is/was, but on the Ham bands today, or in this newsgroup, I'd be willing to bet at least 90% of the people don't! :-)
I know a public school teacher who had a local ham club provide instructors one day a week. The kids were 5th grade (age 10/11) and nearly all of them got a license (novice/technician). They were also invited to participate in the "Hams in Space" program and were able to talk to one of the astronaut hams during a shuttle flight (with equipment provided by several local clubs). They even got local media coverage (TV/newspaper).
Maybe the OP is right - code is just too hard ;-(
I guess the OP's next proposals will be
1) the theory is too hard
2) international radio law is too restrictive.
WB4HLZ
More about me:
formatting link
VB3 source code:
formatting link
VB6 source code:
formatting link
VB6 - MySQL how to:
formatting link
My newest language - NSBasic for the Palm PDA:
formatting link
Drivers for Pablo graphics tablet and JamCam cameras:
formatting link
johnecarter atat mindspring dotdot com. Fix the obvious to reply by email.
How did you get that notion. Are the VHF/UHF bands available with a non-CW license congested by CBers?
Michael
--
The only reason I would take up exercising is so that I could hear heavy
breathing again.
Promoting Penguin Power. Web home: http://www.qsl.net/dc1rn
You know, digital is not restricted to binary. Morse code is most certainly digital, as it is based on a two valued logic level system, but it also includes a time parameter. Note that this time parameter for the pulse widths has units of one and three clock periods. You therefore has three exact conditions specified. Morse code is a trinary system, in the most rigorous sense.
I will violently agree that all digital systems are made out of analog components. But Morse code is undoubtedly digital communications.
It's an asynchronous serial encoding with variable character lengths. Just like many more recent codes, the most commonly used characters have the shortest code lengths. And all this (including a worldwide digital transmission/repeater system and the associated technology) was developed and massively deployed decades before Nyquist and friends.
If you insist on doing that, you must allow for at least two (more realistically, in common usage, three) varieties of "nothing". That makes it a five- or six- state system by your convoluted interpretation.
But that's making things too complicated: it *is* digital asynchronous serial variable-code-length communications. There are some bit sequences that aren't valid but that's true for just about any practical encoding.
Bob, one argument in support for the continuing requirement for code proficiency in amateur radio licensing stems from the presumed public value of amateur radio in times of emergency. In fact, this is so far as I know the sole justification for "ham band" existence thoughout its history. Commercial interests have long argued that the "ham bands" provide only recreational service for an exceptionally small segment of the community, and that the spectrums they currently occupy could be put to far more valuable use in other services.
A continuing justification hams having the potential to provide effective communication in times of emergency require two distinct skill sets exist within the ham community. First, hams must possess sufficient technical skills enabling them to kludge together basic operable communications systems even when faced with minimal component available and no operational off-the-shelf radio systems. At the bottom line, this suggests that any ham have the ability to create an operable 10 or 20W HF transmitter using only salvaged components, plus repair and modify even a small, broadcast band receiver to accomodate such communications.
Second, since communications systems so configured will be of low power, have a limited efficiency antenna system, and quite likely be without an effective or sophicated method to encode information except by CW, the viability of systems so constructed will be entirely dependent on the ability of ham operators to competently communicate using only code.
If the ham community loses either of these skill, its justification for continuing existence will be very likely lost, and the frequency spectrum now allocated to the amateur radio service will most likely me lost in its entirety to commercial and government interest (particularly in these days where the FCC seems to pander so heavily to commercial interests).
This is not only my view on the subject, but IIRC one that has been historically shared by the ARRL.
I would argue that a technical training ground is also a reason for it's existence. Don't forget that people staked out radio for hobby use at the dawn of radio, preceeding most applications for the neat gadget. In the early days, it was hard to separate amateur from professional in terms of radio.
Admittedly, that is much less so nowadays, but the potential is still there that as a technological playground, it allows people to get started which will lead them to other things, which at this point may be in the professional realm.
But either way, you're right. There is a big wave of people who believe that amateur radio needs big numbers to justify the allocation of the ham bands. "If enough people are using them, then they can't be taken away". But in order to do this, the entry requirements keep getting watered down. A lot more people can enter with ease, but they are further and further away from the tradition of amateur radio. I find it an odd contradiction that some lament that ham radio can't entice people in this world of comptuers and cellphones (and everything else), while at the same time reinforcing the similarity to those things.
When I was a kid and learned of amateur radio, neither the code test nor the written exam were an obstacle. They were something I had to pass in order to be licensed, but they were also a sign of accomplishment. Mind you, I was interested in the technical aspects of the hobby, but I wonder how much appeal there would be today if I just had to fill out the form? Certainly, it's now popular presentation as some sort of utility or space to yak it up would not be appealing. It was learning about radio, and getting something that I built to work that was oh so appealing.
And hence I think, if young people aren't entering the hobby, it's a problem of presentation. If it's not being sold as a technical hobby, then you're not going to attract people with those interests. If you lessen the entry requirements (actually they've been lessening for decades), it may make it easier for people to enter, but it does nothing about attracting the right kind of people. Indeed, if amateur radio isn't out in public view much, my perception is that it was much more visible almost thirty five years ago when I first heard about it, then the entry requirements mean nothing because people will never even get that far.
Michael posted in part: "When I was a kid and learned of amateur radio, neither the code test nor the written exam were an obstacle. They were something I had to pass in order to be licensed, but they were also a sign of accomplishment."
I totally agree. It was a worthy challenge.
Too many people today want THINGS, such as to be able to have and operate a ham station, but they do not want to put in the effort. They prefer to whine about how difficult it is. There is no challenge for them, because in their minds they have already been defeated.
I enjoy QRP cw. Running about a half watt input power on 80M at 2am and having a ZL come back is a lifetime thrill.
A previous poster commented on the ability of some hams to "make-do" and get operational with junk. I think that skill is valuable, and ham radio is the best place to develop it.
And don't get me wrong - I ENJOY this sort of thing, too. But it's about as relevant as a "requirement for admission" into the amateur community as the ability to repair a teletype machine. I hardly think that eliminating the CW requirement from the test would eliminate it as a popular operating mode.
My point had nothing to do with this; I'm just tilting at one of my favorite windmills, which is the massive level of confusion that surrounds the terms "digital" and "analog".
Simply being an on/off system doesn't make something "digital" - for example, consider the action of a switch-mode power supply. Fundamentally, this would have to be considered an "analog" system (if we MUST use one of these two terms - my personal preference is to restrict them to those systems carrying information), as the "on" time of the switch directly controls (i.e., IS ANALOGOUS TO) the output voltage level (which is what's being regulated) for a given load condition.
Sorry, I don't see that, either, unless you're going to suddenly start calling any sequential logic system (hey, if it's sequential, it includes a "time parameter", right?) "trinary".
I have no idea what "analog components" are. "Analog" refers to a system in which one parameter (say, voltage) is used to directly represent variations in (i.e., behaves ANALOGOUSLY TO) another (say, sound). "Analog" and "digital" both refer to means of encoding information - components cannot be either "analog" or "digital", although certainly some circuit designs are more useful in handling one type of communications over the other.
"Bob Myers" wrote in message news:3f280f4e$ snipped-for-privacy@usenet01.boi.hp.com...
Okay, let me try to understand why you take exception to me calling Morse a three state digital system.
I agree that being on or off does not make it digital, but when you settle on a small number of discrete, well defined states, you have then defined the system as being digital. Any time you disallow a continuous spectrum of values, you lose the whole concept of the system being analog. This is particularly true of a system of storing or transmitting information. Computers and serial communications are notable examples.
Nope. I have pointed out that there are two and only two states in the time regime.
The heart of the definition of digital is that there are discrete, well defined states for the system. States that do not fall within the defined conditions are disallowed or undefined. Analog systems have free ranging signals and there are typically no preset or discrete states recognized. They can be of literally any value that the physical system or space can support. The pedestrian definition often likens digital to a light switch, and analog to a light dimmer. The crux of it, though, is that in analog systems, you cannot "pigeonhole" the values in a small, well defined set of states. In other words, anything goes. In most straight serial communications, we have a binary system in that only two possible states are allowed. Those two states are the logical high and logical low state. They are represented as two distinct voltage levels in most schemes. Now, while the world is analog, and any type of signal is permissible, in order for a particular stream of information to qualify as binary it only needs to exhibit two unique and easily distinguishable states. Since we recognize the context and the definition, and no "in between" states are intentionally sent, we would all pretty much agree that any stream of data that regularly exhibits two and only two states can be thought of as binary. It can be voltages, as are commonly used in serial communications, or it can be currents such as the 20 mA system that Teletypes and other machinery (including CNC) used. But, it could also be light pulses (like IR remote controls use) or even squirts of water striking a microswitch- there are no limits to a binary stream of data. Pretty nearly ANY medium can carry it. You can use pulses of neutrinos or flashes of red and yellow light. All that matters is that the system supports two and only two states. Are we in agreement? Now, since we could also decide that conditions of "signal" and "no signal" are valid representations, we could (if we so chose) allow a carrier wave to be sent or not- and use a "carrier detect" scheme to decode the data. Now we have a system that sends binary states (carrier detected or not detected) and it can be used to transmit and receive data just as any other system. What if we encode that as long or short pulses? Now we have simply rearranged the system so that the presence of carrier simply tells us that data is present, and the length of the pulses can carry the actual message. I don't think I would get any argument that this is not a valid system- I can decide that a one clock cycle pulse is a zero, and a three clock cycle pulse is a one- and I can disallow any other state. In other words, loss of carrier means "nothing is being received", and when I do get carrier, I can say that those pulses of carrier are zeros or ones based on their length. There is precedent for this in humble serial communications, like RS-232. A disconnected wire is free floating and can be recognized by some systems as "hey, the wire is not hooked up!" All it takes is a resistor at the receiving end that pulls the signal input to a midway state- "illegal". Then, when a wire is in fact connected, you get only one or zero level signals. Now, to merge the two systems. We use a time period as defining a one and a zero, and we use a presence or absence of carrier to tell us when message data is coming in. Since the state of "carrier on for one pulse" is a zero, and "carrier on for three pulses" is a one, and "no carrier" is effectively a space, we have a three state system. It carries a variable length word of data, anywhere from one to five bits in length, and those bits are zeros and ones. While there are actually four states, two of them are degenerate and cannot be readily distinguished- a long "no carrier" state and a short "no carrier" state will elicit the same response from the system. We end up with three distinct conditions that the system recognizes, and that is all that is needed to define it as being trinary. I hope this makes my opinion (and the supporting evidence) clear.
Bob posted, in part: Bob, one argument in support for the continuing requirement for code
You're right that amateur radio as a whole has been justified, for years, on the grounds of its usefulness as an emergency service, and there are countless examples of hams stepping in and filling the gaps left in commercial or government communications in natural disasters and so forth. >>
--------------------- I believe the ARRL planted that seed so long ago that it is "general knowledge" that the primary justification of ham radio is emergency communications. But THAT IS NOT CORRECT. What the FCC says is:
"Amateur Service. A radiocommunication service for the purpose of self-training, intercommunication and technical investigations carried out by amateurs, that is, by duly authorized persons interested in radio technique solely with a personal aim and without pecuniary interest."
Regardless of how important it has become, there is no mention of providing emergency services in that FCC definition.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.