[AMRadio] Comment to a comment

Tue Nov 1 21:11:49 EDT 2011

Hi Tom,

The point is not to "draw people" but to have a higher level of
technical competence.
Modern technology.  The problem with what is usually in the set of
items considered to be modern communications is that they are almost
always digital and software driven.  That's a problem because
software, even machine or assembly language code, is a mental exercise
in the sense a cross word puzzle is a mental exercise, but they
involve no physics.  Radio, in particular analog radio with discrete
components and vacuum tubes, showcases the physics of radio in a vivid
and explicit way (albeit sometimes dangerously so) and as science, is
a different sort of exercise, and activity.   Solid state devices
involve physics of course (condensed matter) but are more impenetrable
for the science is "buried" if you will, within microprocessors and
other integrated circuits.  There isn't the outward and visible sign
of something happening that I think makes electronics and radio in
particular exciting and interesting with older design circuits, and I
think CW has a role in this.   I think the growing interest in vintage
radio may be partly due to boredom with modern equipment on the part
of people interested in how a rig works, in addition to what it does.
I find most of the comments in the modern equipment forums seems to
focus on performance; not how a product works.  I would like for ham
radio to have more people interested in the latter, not the former.
I have communicated this position to my local ARRL elected officials.
At least one of them responded by labeling me an elitist.  I am okay
with that.  I am always working to improve my practice in the hobby
and do not see why it is wrong to encourage this in others, so if that
is what being an elitist is in their eyes, so be it.  Good for you in
showing young people radio.  If they are not interested, it is
probably because they identify with performance; not the science.
That is too bad but eventually you may find some people who find the
science of radio interesting.  If I hear you calling CQ I will be
delighted to come back to you.

73

Rob
K5UJ

On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 7:06 PM, Tom Chesek <tchesek at epix.net> wrote:
> Gee, I'm an Extra-light having only taken the 5 wpm which was the
> requirement at that time.  I have no present desire to operate CW at this
> time, maybe sometime in the future.  I have a formal electronics education
> and work at the component level in my ham gear but I have never had to jump
> on a frequency with CW to test out some gear.  I think the psychology of
> today's younger generation is aimed toward today's technologies and I don't
> see where requiring CW will draw more to the fold.  Did CW draw people to
> the hobby prior to elimination of the CW requirement?  I've worked with many
> young people in my profession, computer repair, and no matter what radio
> "show and tell" I bring to work and no matter how much I talk up the hobby I
> have yet to interest anyone.  In some respects I understand their thinking.
> Being 60 years old my idea of a cool car is one from the late 50's through
> the early 70's.  My father's generation was interested in the cars of the
> 30's and 40's.  There are exceptions to every rule, although the above is
> not a rule, and it might just be opinion based on my life experiences.  I do
> enjoy the hobby and am glad there are people like you to answer my CQ.
>
> 73,
> Tom K3TVC
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rob Atkinson
> Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2011 6:43 PM
> To: Discussion of AM Radio in the Amateur Service
> Subject: Re: [AMRadio] Comment to a comment
>
> I disagree and here is why.  First, let me say that for some time I
> was in favor of doing away with CW testing.   I changed my mind
> because I realized that knowing CW is an important part of the basic
> building process.   How is this?  The most elementary (legal)
> transmitter is one that generates a continuous wave.  If you put a
> value on what is gained by building such a  transmitter then without
> CW there is no fulfilment in placing it on the air and using it to
> communicate.  I believe we are better off by encouraging new hams to
> experience some basic building along the lines of what was set forth
> in the old How to Become a Radio Amateur book the ARRL published, but
> the whole package depends on having CW as a basic skill by the time
> such a rig is ready to fire up and operate.  You can say that any one
> who wishes to do so can learn CW and do this now, but having it as a
> requirement to get a license insures that by the time an experimenter
> is ready to try out his work and get some feeling of accomplishment,
> he has the basic (i.e. slow) CW skill ready to use.
>
> Currently I think new hams are steered towards VHF FM and CB style
> communications and this has led to many hams getting bored and losing
> interest.  We need to go back to fostering electronics education and
> building and starting new hams out on HF.   CW is an important part of
> that.  No test of any time can "filter out poor character and
> unethical behavior" and that was never the intent of any FCC testing
> in the past as far as I know.  But an examination of some level of
> rigor can serve to attract people with a passion and love of radio and
> a curiosity of the science of radio.
>
> 73
>
> Rob
> K5UJ
>
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 4:12 PM, Kim Elmore <cw_de_n5op at sbcglobal.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> But, the idea that we can generate a test, of any kind, that will filter
>>> out poor character and unethical behavior is fiction.
>>
>> Which is part of the reason the FCC chose to remove the requirement,
>> as noted in their comments. Anyone who remembers listening to
>> WA4Doggie, "Fuzzy Zulu" and others from decades ago who passed the 13
>> or 20wpm test understand this all too well.
>>
>> The next project here is a 10m dipole in order to join in the fun of
>> excellent band conditions. Too many equipment repairs to list!
>>
>> ~ Todd,  KA1KAQ/4
> ______________________________________________________________
> Our Main Website: http://www.amfone.net
> AMRadio mailing list
> Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
> List Rules (must read!): http://w5ami.net/amradiofaq.html
> List Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio
> Post: AMRadio at mailman.qth.net
> To unsubscribe, send an email to amradio-request at mailman.qth.net with
> the word unsubscribe in the message body.
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 10.0.1411 / Virus Database: 2092/3989 - Release Date: 11/01/11
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Our Main Website: http://www.amfone.net
> AMRadio mailing list
> Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
> List Rules (must read!): http://w5ami.net/amradiofaq.html
> List Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio
> Post: AMRadio at mailman.qth.net
> To unsubscribe, send an email to amradio-request at mailman.qth.net with
> the word unsubscribe in the message body.
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>