Gordon's tapes are very good. There are a lot of good ones, but his are ones
lot of people use.
----- Original Message -----
From: "hank smith" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 10:09 PM
Subject: Re: New Frequencies
> it looks like I will have to start going for my general license
> any recommendations, should I shoot for the gordon west tapes again?
> those seem really good when I used them for my tech license
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Colin McDonald" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 6:58 PM
> Subject: Re: New Frequencies
>
>
>> technically yes.
>> but good luck finding anyone who uses it above 50MHZ.
>> 73
>> Colin, V A6BKX
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "hank smith" <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 6:56 PM
>> Subject: Re: New Frequencies
>>
>>
>>> can you do pSK31 with a tech license? I forget if so what equipment do I
>>> need to join in?
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "John Miller" <[log in to unmask]>
>>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>> Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 5:41 PM
>>> Subject: Re: New Frequencies
>>>
>>>
>>> > it takes some doing, but you can do PSK31, digital can be worked with
>>> > to
>>> > work, and that's an accessible PSK31 program that is self voicing,
>> problem
>>> > is, the voice goes out on the air though I have played with a few
>>> > things
>>> > and
>>> > made it useable. Also, the one for sighted people, digipan, you can
>>> > work
>>> > with that one, I've done it. the problem is, you need 2 sound cards. I
>>> > have
>>> > an external sound card on my radio desk computer, used to have the
>>> > echolink
>>> > link interface plugged in to it but I guess since that's down for now,
>>> > I
>>> > might use it for the digital modes for a bit. It is doable. Pactor and
>>> > stuff
>>> > like that you can do, I haven't tried them all but I think we can
>>> > pretty
>>> > much do any of them. Probably not the TV modes but so far, anything
>>> > else
>>> > seems possible. I'll play with it over the winter and fill people in
>>> > as
>> I
>>> > work with things. I'm single this winter so have all that time I was
>> with
>>> > my
>>> > gf last year, to play radio. She had every second last winter.
>>> > ----- Original Message -----
>>> > From: "Dan" <[log in to unmask]>
>>> > To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>> > Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 8:08 PM
>>> > Subject: Re: New Frequencies
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >> Speaking of PSK31, or any digital mode like that, is most o of the
>>> >> software
>>> >> for that accessible? Like will screenreaders be able to read what is
>> on
>>> >> the
>>> >> screen?
>>> >>
>>> >> -----Original Message-----
>>> >> From: For blind ham radio operators
>>> >> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>>> >> On Behalf Of Colin McDonald
>>> >> Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 19:39
>>> >> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> >> Subject: Re: New Frequencies
>>> >>
>>> >> I guess that makes me a chicken bander.
>>> >> I never new until now.
>>> >> That attitude is what is making ham radio an antiquated, excentric
>>> >> non-progressive hobby in many places.
>>> >> Who wants to learn to communicate using a bunch of short and long
>>> >> beeps
>>> >> when
>>> >> you can talk, or use digital modes using computers.
>>> >> 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.
>>> >> 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.
>>> >> 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.
>>> >> Using PSK31, you offten can't even hear the signal, but the computer
>> can
>>> >> and
>>> >> puts it out to the screen as text.
>>> >> 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.
>>> >>
>>> >> 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.
>>> >>
>>> >> 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.
>>> >> 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.
>>> >>
>>> >> Its a great mode, but its not the most important anymore.
>>> >>
>>> >> 73
>>> >> Colin, V A6BKX
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> > __________ NOD32 1.1803 (20061013) Information __________
>>> >
>>> > This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
>>> > http://www.eset.com
>>> >
>>> >
>>
>> __________ NOD32 1.1803 (20061013) Information __________
>>
>> This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
>> http://www.eset.com
>>
>>
>
|
