On 2005-08-11 02:36:02 +1000, Lew Hodgett said:

John Proctor wrote:

Speak for yourself Lew!

I'm 59 and I still get a kick out of learning new stuff.

A mere youngster.


I have to preface this with the fact that I am an EE grad who worked in
the IT sector for 30+ years. But keeping up with new comms technology
keeps you young! Nothing like digital voice, OFDM modems et al. Hell in
a couple of years SSB could be going the way of Ancient Modulation even
on HF!


SFWIW, the State of Ohio gave me a PE license a long time ago and as
long as I send them some money every year, it remains in tact.

Never had to use it, but it looked good hanging on the wall of my office.

Doing techie things was a way to feed the bull dog all those early
years, but today my horizons have broadened.

Today I learn less and less about more and more until someday I will
know absolutely nothing about everything.

Perhaps that day is closer than I thinkG.

Lew

Lew,

The true search for knowledge begins by understanding what you don't
know. From this point the quest is a wonderful journey. I am flattered
that at 59 I am a mere youngster. I've been saying that for years ;-)

The rate of change in technology is marvelously stimulating and one of
the things that keeps me feeling young.

--
Regards,
John Proctor VK3JP, VKV6789
S/V Chagall

John Proctor wrote in
news:2005081107103716807%lost@nowhereorg:

The true search for knowledge begins by understanding what you don't
know. From this point the quest is a wonderful journey. I am flattered
that at 59 I am a mere youngster. I've been saying that for years ;-)


I'm 59, too. My neighbor's 9-year-old girl asked me what it was like to be
59. I told her it was like being 9, but with money...(c;

--
Larry

In article , Larry
wrote:

I'm 59, too. My neighbor's 9-year-old girl asked me what it was like to be
59. I told her it was like being 9, but with money...(c;


LOVE it! SOOOOO true for those that work to live instead of the other
way around.

They're demanding "extra hours" at work currently. In my case, that just
means that I'm taking fewer of those hours off I scheduled months ago
with my managers' blessing. Come December --use or lose-- I doubt I'll
be near the office much. [Nephew lives in Florida, is a member of a
co-op sailing club, and has offered us the time he can't use. Life can
get VERY good!]

--
Jere Lull
Xan-a-Deux ('73 Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD)
Xan's Pages: http://members.dca.net/jerelull/X-Main.html
Our BVI FAQs (290+ pics) http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/

Lew -

I find myself on both sides of this debate.

On the one hand ... Eliminate the code requirement ---

* I agree that perhaps the time for CW TESTING has passed. Not the use of CW
mind you, just the testing. Not the use of CW mind you, just the testing.
CW is still quite popular and active for casual QSOs as well as intense
contesting. It will be a popular mode for awhile. CW is still quite popular
and active for casual QSOs as well as intense contesting. It will be a
popular mode for awhile.As the last generation of Hams who "had to " learn
CW fade away -- perhaps CW will start to wind down too because not enough
people are being introduced to this mode. But that will because of "the will
of the people" not some silly FCC regulation.

*The CW requirement is being dropped in most other jurisdictions in the
world --- not that they are any smarter than we are --- but it clearly is
the trend.

* If I am to be true to my generally conservative beliefs, then the
requirement probably should go. The government should not be using its
regulatory powers to control our hobbies in this manner. Band allocations
yes, emission types - perhaps --- to insure there is no RF anarchy. Beyond
that --- butt out my life.

On the other hand -- keep the code requirements -- AKA no change.

*I believe the argument that code should be dropped because it is killing
the hobby is, at best, specious. I am not at all convinced that dropping CW
is going to breath and great amounts of life into the hobby. NO-CODE
licenses have been available for years. No great influx of young hams in
the VHF/UHF bands.

*From listening to the no-code debate for years, I am convinced that most
(not all) people who want to drop the code requirement because they want the
HF privileges, but they don't want to bother to learn the code. There is no
deep concern for the future of ham radio hidden in there anywhere; Just the
increasingly popular "I want..." but "I don't want to...". I want a lot of
money, but I don't want to work too hard. I want a nice car, but I don't
want to get a job". I want access to Winlink200 for free email while
cruising, but I don't want to learn the code. I don't think that is a
sufficient reason to change the requirement.


Today, kids have so much to pick from. Their communications options are
amazing (compared to 50 years ago --- hell, compared to 10 years ago!) cell
phone voice, cell phone IM, email, internet IM, chatrooms, websites... Back
in the old days those of us who were classified as "geeks" turned to
electronics and ham radio as a way to express our geekiness. Today, the
geeky kids turn to robotics and/or programming. Count the number of
websites devoted to building robotics VS the number devoted to building RF
stuff. Worthy of note --- not much of that communications technology did
anyone much good around ground zero on 9-11 of the hurricanes in Florida
last year, or ... pick your disaster. Cell phone service was pretty much
crippled on the east coast (entire country???) on 9-11. Ham radio kept on
ticking... But, it just where the excitement is right now. I think that is
the biggest challenge to Ham radio's future

If the genesis of ham radio was one of insuring that the country had a good
standby supply of communications technicians available during times of war
(WW1 / WW2 ??) then the history of CW knowledge is very obvious. That
national defense requirements are no longer the same. Now, there may be a
legitimate Homeland Defense, Emergency Readiness need to have back up (or
supplemental) communications in the hands of a larger number of trained and
organized citizens. Ham participation in the aftermath of Hurricanes, in
the aftermath of 9-11, in the aftermath of the next natural/terrorist
disaster may be reasons for the FCC to want to Keep Ham radio alive. I
think that having a good base of ham operators can be a good thing for the
country --- but only if they are ON THE AIR practicing their various
communications specialties.

I am starting to ramble...

To summarize, I am firmly on the fence with conservative tendencies leaning
to - less regulation is better regulation.


"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
nk.net...
"Gerald" wrote:

If you aren't interested in HAM radio as a hobby, then why should the
hobby have to change to accommodate you?

Depends on whether you expect the HAM hobby to survive.

Unless some serious changes are made, there won't be enough new blood
attracted to the hobby for it to survive when all the existing old farts
are gone.

Lew

Plus -

I still have and use paper charts right next to my GPS fed computer with
charting software.

Which is all located at my nav station where I keep my sextent that I enjoy
using whenever I am offshore. It is good to be able to verify that the GPS
is working ok!

A little of the new, a little of the old.


"Gerald" wrote in message
...
Lew -

I find myself on both sides of this debate.

On the one hand ... Eliminate the code requirement ---

* I agree that perhaps the time for CW TESTING has passed. Not the use of
CW mind you, just the testing. Not the use of CW mind you, just the
testing. CW is still quite popular and active for casual QSOs as well as
intense contesting. It will be a popular mode for awhile. CW is still
quite popular and active for casual QSOs as well as intense contesting.
It will be a popular mode for awhile.As the last generation of Hams who
"had to " learn CW fade away -- perhaps CW will start to wind down too
because not enough people are being introduced to this mode. But that will
because of "the will of the people" not some silly FCC regulation.

*The CW requirement is being dropped in most other jurisdictions in the
world --- not that they are any smarter than we are --- but it clearly is
the trend.

* If I am to be true to my generally conservative beliefs, then the
requirement probably should go. The government should not be using its
regulatory powers to control our hobbies in this manner. Band allocations
yes, emission types - perhaps --- to insure there is no RF anarchy.
Beyond that --- butt out my life.

On the other hand -- keep the code requirements -- AKA no change.

*I believe the argument that code should be dropped because it is killing
the hobby is, at best, specious. I am not at all convinced that dropping
CW is going to breath and great amounts of life into the hobby. NO-CODE
licenses have been available for years. No great influx of young hams in
the VHF/UHF bands.

*From listening to the no-code debate for years, I am convinced that most
(not all) people who want to drop the code requirement because they want
the HF privileges, but they don't want to bother to learn the code. There
is no deep concern for the future of ham radio hidden in there anywhere;
Just the increasingly popular "I want..." but "I don't want to...". I
want a lot of money, but I don't want to work too hard. I want a nice
car, but I don't want to get a job". I want access to Winlink200 for free
email while cruising, but I don't want to learn the code. I don't think
that is a sufficient reason to change the requirement.


Today, kids have so much to pick from. Their communications options are
amazing (compared to 50 years ago --- hell, compared to 10 years ago!)
cell phone voice, cell phone IM, email, internet IM, chatrooms,
websites... Back in the old days those of us who were classified as
"geeks" turned to electronics and ham radio as a way to express our
geekiness. Today, the geeky kids turn to robotics and/or programming.
Count the number of websites devoted to building robotics VS the number
devoted to building RF stuff. Worthy of note --- not much of that
communications technology did anyone much good around ground zero on 9-11
of the hurricanes in Florida last year, or ... pick your disaster. Cell
phone service was pretty much crippled on the east coast (entire
country???) on 9-11. Ham radio kept on ticking... But, it just where the
excitement is right now. I think that is the biggest challenge to Ham
radio's future

If the genesis of ham radio was one of insuring that the country had a
good standby supply of communications technicians available during times
of war (WW1 / WW2 ??) then the history of CW knowledge is very obvious.
That national defense requirements are no longer the same. Now, there may
be a legitimate Homeland Defense, Emergency Readiness need to have back up
(or supplemental) communications in the hands of a larger number of
trained and organized citizens. Ham participation in the aftermath of
Hurricanes, in the aftermath of 9-11, in the aftermath of the next
natural/terrorist disaster may be reasons for the FCC to want to Keep Ham
radio alive. I think that having a good base of ham operators can be a
good thing for the country --- but only if they are ON THE AIR practicing
their various communications specialties.

I am starting to ramble...

To summarize, I am firmly on the fence with conservative tendencies
leaning to - less regulation is better regulation.


"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
nk.net...
"Gerald" wrote:

If you aren't interested in HAM radio as a hobby, then why should the
hobby have to change to accommodate you?

Depends on whether you expect the HAM hobby to survive.

Unless some serious changes are made, there won't be enough new blood
attracted to the hobby for it to survive when all the existing old farts
are gone.

Lew

"Gene Kearns" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 08:06:01 -0400, "Gerald"

I don't agree with the code argument, though there needs to be some
form of rite of passage to prevent the airwaves from becoming like
1976 CB radio.

I don't belive that will be a real issue. CB was a passing FAD. I don't
see the 70's type of activity on CB anymore. Aside from the truckers legit
use of the service and the ever-present LIDS (they exist in HAM land too),
it seems pretty quiet most of the time. No-code has been the law of the
land for VHF/UHF for years --- no CB crap problem there.

Want another potentially usefull communications option? If you do much
offshore work, you should consider getting a hand held Aviation VHF radio
with a AA battery pack to put in your "ditch bag". Legal to own? yes.
Legal to operate? Not with out an appropriate license.

Technically, not legal to operate, period.... but in distress. you
will surely get away with it. Anybody that expects to rely on that
sort of emergency com equipment should stay on shore.

Rely on it? No. Available as a back up? why not?


But, if you just
stepped up from your boat into your life raft, it might be nice to talk
with
commercial airline pilots overhead while the rescue people figure out who
the unregistred EPIRB you activated belongs to. --- ILLEGAL ??? COME
ARREST
ME --- PLEASE ---- NOW!!!!

I'm not betting that you'll actually talk to an airplane with that
screwy set-up... as for reliability, I've never seen an aviation unit
I'd trust around water/humidity...

I'm not sure what you mean by "screwy" setup. Aren't airliners are supposed
to monitor 121.5? Most probably actually do. I have a Yaesu VXA-100
aviation transceiver in a waterproof bag in my ditch bag. It's there if I
need it. Once I'm in the liferaft, it's a little late to wish I had it.
FedEx doesn't deliver 150 miles offshore. Oh well, each to therir own...

Then there is that damn USCG Master License test. You need to know inland
river rules when you only operate in the atlantic coast.
You need to know that to get an OUPV.... because most of us expect to
pass through some form of inland water to enter COLREGS water.

I have neen boating up and down the coast of the US / and bahamas for 40
years. Never had any use for the inland river rules. They apply to the
Mississippi, Ohio... rivers --- not the ICW or rivers along the US East
Coast.

This
seems to be some reference to one's inability to communicate via radio
without knowing code.... I can talk and I can type.

No, it is a reference to people decideing what they think they should learn
to get a license --- and a geneal desire to dumb things down.

Bear in mind that the USCG hasn't used any Morse radiotelegraphy
services in over 10 years...

I will try to keep that in mind... thanks. Although, RACONS all still use
it. As do aeronautical VORs and NDBs --- but you knew that. So it's not all
that DEAD after all, is it?

You need to know
how many bolts on a 6 inch fire hose coupling when you only operate a 50
foot motor vessel.

Only if you seek a master's rating.... if one has no interest in
carrying more than 6 people for hire, why would one bother?

Merit badge. What if the 7th person shows up? Because I can. Why not? Is
learning more than you think you need to know a bad thing?

If one only wants to communicate via voice or digital, why would one learn
to
use code?

If you are only going to operate store bought radio equipment, why bother to
learn the electronics? If you are just going to hook a store bought marine
vertical or hook up to a back stay, why learn about antennas? If you are
only going to use WinLink2000 and participate in the Waterway Nets, why
bother with all that silly satellite knowledge? Why should any license test
cover material that you say you don't need to know? That's an interesting
proposition --- let the applicant pick the questions they feel they should
be asked.

They actually expect you to know how to navigate with a
chart, dividers, parallel ruler and a pencil --- how archaic is that?

They know that an understanding of TVMDC, tides, winds, and the
likelihood that equipment can fail is important.

I'm not disagreeing with you there, but a backup gps or two is a lot cheaper
than a set of current charts. I'll bet you a buck that within the next 5-10
years, we will be having the same discussion about the TVMDC stuff as we are
about CW. Just out of curiosity, couldn't we use your argument above to
justify a resurgence in Celestial navigation? What if all the equipment
fails and my charts blew away? Could happen!!!!!!! Sorry, I'm losing it
here ... the HVAC guys should be done any minute now and I can get back to
my real life.

CW is not the *basis*
for any electrical/electronic knowledge.... in the present day, it is
a poor language for communication.

So just what does that mean? A poor language for communication? It's not
really a language, it is a mode. It may not be "state of the art". It may
not be as widely used as cell phones. It may not be as popular as internet,
but it is very efficient and very effective. I will grant you that it is
not a very popular mode of communications. No if you want poor
communication, just listen to any politician answer almost any question
during an interview.

Your argument should be that learning crystals and
tubes is necessary to understanding solid state technology... Not,
learning pig-latin make you part of the Ham Club....

Not at all. In fact I don't think I have argued that CW should be kept. My
only objection to its removal is because it seems to be driven by people who
don't want to learn it for one personal reason or another. The "good for
ham radio" line is usually a bucnh of nice sounding crap.

_ ___c
\ _| \_
__\_| oooo \_____
~~~~|______________/ ~~~~~
~~~ ~~~~~~
~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~
~~~~ }((((o ~~~~~~ }{{{{o ~~~~~~~

Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Southport, NC.

Passed through there and in/out the inlet many a time.

"Gerald" wrote in
:

Worthy of note --- not much of
that communications technology did anyone much good around ground zero
on 9-11 of the hurricanes in Florida last year, or ... pick your
disaster. Cell phone service was pretty much crippled on the east
coast (entire country???) on 9-11. Ham radio kept on ticking...

[Lots of clipping from the above post]

So what did morse code have to do with the above? How much of the
communication during the hurricane(s) was code vs voice? I can guess that
it was probably close to 100% voice. I would also point out that cell
service was disrupted in the immediate area around the 911 disaster, but
the rest of the country wasn't effected, other than perhaps overloaded
circuits. Q: How did the reports from the hijacked plane that crashed into
the field come in? A: Cell phones.

-- Geoff

Gene Kearns wrote:

Hmmmmm...... well, I'm not sure I'm ready to jump on the "good for ham
radio" bandwagon. Maybe it will eventually interest some more
qualified people.... that would be good, I think. If anybody wishes to
make the.... argument that the test is too *hard,* well, I just went
deaf. However, I *am* willing to listen to those people that aren't
wishing to make things easier (because it's just too hard), but want
the test to be more about what they intend to *do* with Amateur Radio.

A couple of questions.

My only interest in HAM radio is to be able to get necessary weather
forecasts and communicate with other sailors who happen to be in my net
at the moment, when I'm at sea or in an anchorage.

I choose not to want to open up the box and play with what's inside.

I choose not to design and build radio equipment.

I quit building Heath Kits more than 30 years ago.

I think of HAM radio as nothing more than a utility, like electricity or
water or sewers.

If I have to stop and review operational procedures every time I turn it
on, it becomes a bigger PITA than it is worth.

Given all of the above, what are my best options?

Lew

Well, if you just plan to run down the coast a ways and use sailmail or
check in with the local nets you probably don't need to learn much. But if
you are half way to Hawaii and the "eathers" are not right you need to know
some about propagation in order to choose a good frequency. There are also
several knobs on that black box that can either screw up your signal or make
it clear so it is better to know what effect each has and how to use it.

A good bit, if not the majority, of the tests these days is about safety and
the rules that try to prevent the bands from becoming totally chaotic.
Compared to 40 years ago when you pretty well had to know how to build a
transmitter out of bailing wire and cow patties the technical part these
days is laughable. The only hard part is memorizing the band frequencies.

Ham radio is more than a utility. I realize that building boats on the
scale that we are turns us into a sort of hermit but sitting out an off
season in some foreign anchorage it can become a center of your social life.

--
Glenn Ashmore

I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack
there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com
Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
ink.net...
Gene Kearns wrote:

Hmmmmm...... well, I'm not sure I'm ready to jump on the "good for ham
radio" bandwagon. Maybe it will eventually interest some more
qualified people.... that would be good, I think. If anybody wishes to
make the.... argument that the test is too *hard,* well, I just went
deaf. However, I *am* willing to listen to those people that aren't
wishing to make things easier (because it's just too hard), but want
the test to be more about what they intend to *do* with Amateur Radio.

A couple of questions.

My only interest in HAM radio is to be able to get necessary weather
forecasts and communicate with other sailors who happen to be in my net at
the moment, when I'm at sea or in an anchorage.

I choose not to want to open up the box and play with what's inside.

I choose not to design and build radio equipment.

I quit building Heath Kits more than 30 years ago.

I think of HAM radio as nothing more than a utility, like electricity or
water or sewers.

If I have to stop and review operational procedures every time I turn it
on, it becomes a bigger PITA than it is worth.

Given all of the above, what are my best options?

Lew

Geoff --


"Geoff Schultz" wrote in message
6...
"Gerald" wrote in
:

Worthy of note --- not much of
that communications technology did anyone much good around ground zero
on 9-11 of the hurricanes in Florida last year, or ... pick your
disaster. Cell phone service was pretty much crippled on the east
coast (entire country???) on 9-11. Ham radio kept on ticking...

[Lots of clipping from the above post]

So what did morse code have to do with the above?

Absolutly nothing. Just a litttle "pro ham radio" note.

How much of the
communication during the hurricane(s) was code vs voice? I can guess that
it was probably close to 100% voice. I would also point out that cell
service was disrupted in the immediate area around the 911 disaster, but
the rest of the country wasn't effected, other than perhaps overloaded
circuits.

And the differnece bwtween overloaded circuits and any other disruption
when you need to get a call through and cann't is......?

Q: How did the reports from the hijacked plane that crashed into
the field come in? A: Cell phones.

And your point is??????

I think we are loosing some sense of where this thread came from and is
about.

-- Geoff