Oh boy! Here we go! The code/no code debate makes its way to this
list. Somee thoughts, below (from an admitted code biggot)
On Sep 13, 2006, at 7:39 PM, Colin McDonald wrote:
> Who wants to learn to communicate using a bunch of short and long
> beeps when
> you can talk, or use digital modes using computers.
I do. Well, I did. Admittedly, when I first started studying for my
ham license, I just learned the code because it was a requirement and
I *really* wanted a license. In 1987, there was no code-free license.
Anyway, to make a long story interesting, I liked it! I tried real
hard not to, but then I loved it!
> Learning CW has to be the most awcward thing imaginable at first.
> Until you
> become really good at it, its slow, tedious and takes much more
> time to
> convey a thought then simply speaking it or sending it via pSK31 or
> other
> digital modes.
The same can be said of anylearned skill. Learning to type, typing
takes a lot longer to do than speaking or even brailling (if you're
good with a brailler). Slate and stylus similarly takes a long time
until you're good at it (which I'm not, but I don't practice either).
Learning to ride a bicycle takes a helluva long time, and you fall
off a whole bunch. Why not just ride in the car? Because riding a
bicycle has its own rewards: while a car is faster, it uses more gas,
you don't get any exercise in the car, and you sure don't get that
outdoorsy feeling. Not to mention you can't take your car on the bike
trail.
> And the idea that CW is the one and only method of communication
> that can
> get through when nothing else can is also a very outdated theory.
No, it really isn't. While it's true that PSK31 is very narrow
bandwidth and a computer can really dig out very weak signals from
right at the noise floor, it's a mode that relies on a lot more
aparatus than morse does. Morse requires only the junk between your
ears and a very simple receiver and transmitter that can be carried
and deployed in the field without much fuss. It doesn't get any
simpler than a make and break of a carrier. PSK, on the other hand,
not only requires a more complicated transmitter and receiver, but
additionally requires extra computer hardware that, while able to
deply in the field, is definitely not as easy, quick, or simple.
While it's true that we're not likely to find ourselves in a
situation where all we have is a morse transmitter and a hunk of wire
out in the wilderness, it's still a reliable, simple mode that can be
interpreted and used by a skilled operator with no extra equipment.
True, there are other power-efficient modes, but morse still has real
advantages, and to deny this is at least denying a lot of real-world
data. Of course, it's equally true that it's just as intellectually
dishonest to deny that digital modes like PSK31 aren't efficient or
useful in similar, though not the same, ways.
> Any digital mode will accomplish the same task, and offen with much
> lower
> error rate then a typical CW operater who is attempting to pull a
> signal out
> of the noise, or below the noise floor.
Not any digital mode. Old-timey RTTY doesn't have any sort of error
correction, I don't think. Although error correction is, I
understand, a real strength of modes like amtor and certainly of PSK31.
> Using PSK31, you offten can't even hear the signal, but the
> computer can and
> puts it out to the screen as text.
This is true, but unlike morse or any voice mode, a computer is still
required.
> So the idea that not learning some antiquated form of communicated
> just for
> the sake of doing so, and therefore getting a free ride because you
> didn't
> have to learn it is a very narow minded and outdated point of view.
I admit to wanting to keep a code requirement, at least for one
license class. Partly it's sentimental reasons, but partly it's
because, in spite of those who would kill the mode off out of hand,
it's a very useful skill to have, and if a time comes when all the
fancy digital modes don't work, code is still a great backup. I'm
under no delusions, though; I'm sure that there will be no code
requirement at all in the near future. I don't have to like it, but
I've seen the service and its regs change over the past nearly 20
years, and I haven't seen operators get significantly worse (there
have always been lids and there always will be). It won't be a deal
breaker, I won't sell off all my gear, and I'll continue to love this
hobby and welcome all newcomers with open arms unless and until they
prove themselves to be jerks, no matter what requirements they pass
or what license they hold. If you're a pre-WW2 Class A but a jerk,
I'll still say you're a jerk. If you're new and pass current license
requirements and treat the service with the respect it's due and
treat fellow hams respectfully and operate considerately, I welcome
you and find you an asset to the hobby.
No, I don't think that the elimination of the code requirement will
turn the ham bands into a giant CB band. Only we hams can do that,
either by acting like jerks or allowing others to act like jerks
without making an effort to help them modify their behavior. C'mon,
guys. The hobby's been at death's door for about a hundred years.
Those damn cw ops will kill the hobby, long live spark! Those
hyellowy-sound slop bucketeers will kill off the hobby...long live
yay-yem! (I love a good-sounding yay-yem rig, BTW, and would love to
have one myself one of these days.) Those Novices are going to be the
death of the hobby! Hey, those no-coders are gonna kill off the 2-
meter band! Sure. We're all still here, and ham radio's still alive
and well, thanks to people who love it. Of course, we'd like to see
growth, and I don't think change for change's sake is helping, but I
don't think it's going to spell our doom either, as some would have it.
>
> Now, all that said, i think CW is a very important aspect of
> amateur radio
> below 30MHZ and that it certainly has its place and usage. I don't
> begrudge
> anyone their decision to use any mode of communication on any amateur
> frequency.
> However, i really don't believe anyone mode should be chosen over
> all the
> rest as one that a person must have near to absolute perficiency
> in in
> order to communicate below 30MHZ.
Except the difference here is that to operate cw and to understand
someonee else's cw transmission, you have to know it (unless it's
very good and a computer can decode it, but if it's a sloppy bug,
well...) I don't think anyone can decode PSK in his head...difference
is that you don't have to know more than how to hook up the equipment
and operate the keyboard to operate other digital modes. So code
really isn't the same sort of thing, and I think it's at least
somewhat important to be able to copy it at a very basic level. At
least at the higher license classes. I expect I'm in a minority, and
that's OK. BTW, I note with interest that a lot of the most diehard
"cw forever" guys never operate it after they pass the test. I'm not
sure what that means, but there you are.
>
> Naturally, the arguement that CW transmitters and receivers are
> some of the
> simplest and easy to setup and operate when compared to voice or
> digital
> stations always comes up. It comes up in the context of emergency
> measures
> or emergency communications.
> If that arguement is made, then the argument must also be made to
> include
> vastly more emergency training aspects to the general class or
> extra class
> licensing examinations.
Now this I definitely agree with. I'd love to see more focus on
emergency and public service aspects tested.
> If you are going to force someone to learn CW because there just
> might be a
> once in a life time situation where they absolutely must use it,
> then it
> should also be required for those same individuals to learn vast
> amounts of
> procedural knoledge regarding emergency communications and procedures.
Definitely. If more hams had more emergency training under their
belts, maybe there'd be less inept handling (and less QRM) on
emergency and welfare nets.
>
> Its a great mode, but its not the most important anymore.
Agreed, but it is still important.
>
--
Buddy Brannan, KB5ELV : Executive In Training! Watkins Manager #361534
Shop our catalog of timeless Watkins products at www.tastyshop.net
And see how becoming a Watkins associate will improve your family's
quality of life at www.tastybiz.com
|
