[QCWA] the future of CW

[Walcott, Paul]

Jim, I can see your point, but I think we're discussing definitions more
than anything else.  It seems to me that the skill to operate AM is
"behind the scenes."   It takes no special talent to ragchew where
crystal-clear signals are the rule, but as you point out, it takes a
certain level of technical skill to keep that signal crystal-clear.  The
skill to operate CW on the other hand is an inherent part of the
operating.  

Another point which I meant to make in my original posting, but I guess
I didn't express too well is that while I don't think CW is anywhere
near the death-bed, I do expect that with the advancements in data
communications, the importance of CW will tend to diminish somewhat.   I
just think that to quote someone (Was this Mark Twain, W. C. Fields or
someone else?), "Reports about the death of CW have been greatly
exaggerated."

73's,
Paul
WD8H



-----Original Message-----
From: qcwa-bounces at mailman.qth.net [mailto:qcwa-bounces at mailman.qth.net]
On Behalf Of Jim Wilhite
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2005 11:51 AM
To: Discussion of QCWA
Subject: Re: [QCWA] the future of CW

Paul I am not sure I fully agree with all your statements.  CW testing
will 
probably be dropped in favor of more technical questions and operating 
procedure on the written test.  However, I dispute your statement that
"It 
doesn't require and special skill to operate full carrier AM".

The reason I dispute that statement is that operating AM and the
associated 
equipment almost globally requires the operator be capable of repairing
the 
equipment.  There are no factory shops to repair the equipment giving
rise 
to people with greater technical skills than most people who just plug
and 
play.  Also most people who operate AM have a greater understanding of 
problems associated with overdriving equipment than some who operate SSB

with amplifiers.

Another thing is that many people who have the tube type of equipment 
operate CW as well.  They just choose to operate the old equipment
rather 
than the new stuff.  I would say "skill" mode is defined by the operator
not 
the mode.

73  Jim
W5JO



> 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
>


_______________________________________________
QCWA mailing list
QCWA at mailman.qth.net
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/qcwa