[CW] Re: [NoGaQRP] Fwd: [BrassPounders] Interesting subject!!

[fkamp at comcast.net]

N2EY at aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 1/11/06 9:54:08 PM Eastern Standard
> Time, n1ea at arrl.net writes:
> 
> 
> 
>> In one of the opening scenes of the "Titanic" movie,
>> there is a bearded tech who explains the rivets popped
>> from the ship's side "like Morse Code."
> 
> 
> 
> As I recall it, he was explaining that the gash in the
> side was like that - not one continuous hole, but a bunch
> of smaller ones.
> 
> 
>> Right then, I knew it was going to be "anti-Radio".
>> 
> 
> 
> Well, I've seen that film a few times, and it didn't seem
> "anti" anything. My biggest complaint is that it left so
> much good history out in favor of a fictional love story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> I can't prove it, but I have a feeling that it was
>> intentional - there was at the time the movie came out
>> a big push by EXXON and Royal Shell (Netherlands) Oil
>> Companies to get rid of the Radio Officers and their
>> hated morse code.
>> 
> 
> 
> ??
> 
> The film came out in 1997. IIRC, the regulations
> requiring Morse-capable radio on ships were changed years
> earlier, with the mandatory requirement eliminated at the
> end of 1997.
> 
> There was no reason to make a movie pushing a change that
> had already been set in place.
> 
> 
> 
>> The problem with Wireless Telegraphy (WT) was that it
>> worked very well, and up until the time the problems
>> with satellite systems could be overcome, there was no
>> mode that could be relied upon "all the time" except
>> WT. (Remember ships had radiotelegraphy before
>> continous wave, so we called it WT and not CW.)
>> Radiotelephone didn't work as well, satellites would
>> drop out of communications but 500 kHz (below the AM
>> broadcast band) had a ship-to-ship range of over 1200
>> miles during the daytime and much longer at night.  See
>> http://www.qsl.net/n1ea/sos.htm for more information on
>> this subject.
>> 
> 
> 
> Of course!
> 
> The problem was that radio operators cost the shipowners
> considerable money. By eliminating the mandatory Morse
> capability, they saved some money, which is the name of
> their game.
> 
> Unless I'm mistaken, the only big passenger-carrying
> ocean-going ships today are the cruise liners. Their
> number is tiny compared to the container ships, oil
> tankers, etc.
> 
> In 1912 the Morgans, Astors, Ismays and such traveled by
> ship whenever there was water to be crossed. On land they
> traveled by railroad. Today they travel by jet aircraft.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> If attention had been given to the job that
>> radiotelegraphy had and continued to do, then the
>> powers that be probably wouldn't have been able to get
>> rid of Morse at sea.
> 
> 
> How many of the powers that be travel by ship or rail
> today?
> 

An interesting discussion but somewhat pointless.

Why should anyone care if anyone else uses CW or not.

If you see its advantages, then use it. If you dont see its 
advantages, then dont use it. No one is saying you must use 
it and no one is saying you must not use it.

I think that is the way it should be.

Just because some ship owners decided they dont need CW is 
no reason for anyone else to follow their lead.

Regards,
Frank Kamp
K5DKZ