[QCWA] the future of CW

[L M]

Well stated, Paul.

73 de Lew
n2rq at arrl.net

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Walcott, Paul" <PWalcott at smartbus.org>
To: "Discussion of QCWA" <qcwa at mailman.qth.net>
Cc: <pcwalcott at juno.com>
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2005 9:46 AM
Subject: RE: [QCWA] the future of CW


> I'd just like to add one observation about the future of CW from my
> viewpoint.  That is of a "once in a while" CW operator who's a 42 year
> licensed ham who passed the extra class exam back when it was still the
> FCC giving the 20 wpm test:
> 
> I agree that in the next few years mandatory CW testing will probably be
> dropped at least for most classes of license.   BUT I disagree that this
> will cause CW operation to diminish to the point that full-carrier AM
> had diminished.   The reason for saying that is that full-carrier AM has
> diminished for reasons which don't directly apply to CW:   1)
> Full-carrier AM is less efficient than SSB voice.  2)  Full-carrier AM
> doesn't really have any advantages except possibly in cases where the
> highest possible voice fidelity is important.  3)  It doesn't require
> any special skill to operate full-carrier AM.  
> 
> On the other hand:  1)  CW is an efficient mode of communications.   2)
> CW is a "skill" mode and with that skill comes a certain degree of
> pride.  
> 
> Let me suggest that a valid comparison to CW would be the use of
> wind-powered boats.   Before Robert Fulton all boats were wind-powered.
> (Well, at least unless you count those powered by people using oars.)
> With the successful application of steam power to boats and the later
> development of diesel and gasoline power, wind-power is no longer
> mandatory.   BUT  at least for recreational sailors, there are more
> sailboats now than at any time in the past.   I look at CW as fitting
> into the same model as the sailboat.
> 
> 73's
> Paul
> WD8H