Hi Ernie,
In a message dated 97-02-03 22:04:42 EST, w8eh@infinet.com (Ernie Howard)
writes:
> Subj: ARRL License restructuring
> From: w8eh@infinet.com (Ernie Howard)
> The proposal looks good for hamradio and contesting, but
> I have two points to ponder.
>
> If the rules for examining were changed to require one
> minute solid copy AND a sending test, wouldn't that
> be a big time burden on the examiners? I think so!
>
> How is the ARRL going to address the situation where the
> VE team would be made of up of 3 Extras who got medical code
> wavers for the 20 wpm code test? Got a real problem here!
>
> 73 Ernie W8EH, CW IS FUN!
> --
I'm confused. I understood that the waiver was for individuals who were not
able
to demostrate their code profiency, not for those who have NO code
proficiency.
Maybe this is the way to clean out the NO CODE EXTRA's! YEA! ! ! ! ! !
73, K8Joe"Palooka"
>From fisher@hp-and2.an.hp.com (Tony Brock-Fisher) Tue Feb 4 14:34:51 1997
From: fisher@hp-and2.an.hp.com (Tony Brock-Fisher) (Tony Brock-Fisher)
Subject: CW contest filters
Message-ID: <9702041434.AA07037@hp-and2.an.hp.com>
Matt, K7BG asks:
>I run 500hz and we were wondering what advice the experts could offer before
he spends his donero? What would you advise him? He is AB7QE BTW (17 yrs old).
I'm sure you'll get as many opinions as responses on this one, Matt. For
every 250 Hz response I've heard, there's a 500 Hz. My own opinion is as
follows:
1. I bought my IC-735 new with the 500 Hz, then changed to the 250. I never
looked back, although I never sold the 500 either.
2. Since going to better rigs than the 735, (IC-765's) I still go to
the trouble of adding the 250's. They come stock with the 500, so
I'm paying extra for the priviledge.
So I like the 250's, and yes, I do CW contests. My reasons are:
If I'm running on CW, I ALWAYS have one hand on the RIT, and it's ALWAYS
tuning after every CQ. If not, you miss the UB5's with homebrew rigs
that zero beat your call, within 2 KHz.
The more 'cost effective' rigs (read cheaper) like the FT-900 tend to
have a lot of filter blow-by. I think the 250 helps this problem, particularly
with key-clicks on the low side of the passband.
You can usually switch out the CW filter if you really need the listening
space, but you can't get the 3 db NF improvement without one.
-Tony, K1KP, fisher@hp-and2.an.hp.com
>From k0wa@southwind.net (Lee Buller) Tue Feb 4 14:55:47 1997
From: k0wa@southwind.net (Lee Buller) (Lee Buller)
Subject: Restructuring Comments
Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19970204145547.006d1cd8@southwind.net>
Here are two points I would like to make....but not limited to...
1. VE examiners would have not trouble with the one minute of code. When I
grade a test and the person has flunked the multiple choice, I will look for
one minute of copy somewhere in the five minutes. There are some people who
make it. That is what I had to do when I took the test....
2. We need to fix the medical waiver for the code. That is so stupid that
I am at a loss for words. We need to come up with another way of doing
that. I believe you have to almost deaf to get a waiver. Because, if you
have that severe of learning disability, then you have real problems. Now,
I know, because I have a son who ha learning disabilities. But, by working
hard he has overcome them. We need to fix the medica waiver (PERIOD).
I reserve the right to furthur my comments....
Lee
k0wa@southwind.net.
(By the way, in a contest you have to copy less than a minute of code only
2000 times...well, in my case for SS this year about 1100 times)
>From kn6dv@qnet.com (Will, KN6DV) Tue Feb 4 15:04:31 1997
From: kn6dv@qnet.com (Will, KN6DV) (Will, KN6DV)
Subject: SCCC Sprint SSB team score.
Message-ID: <199702041504.HAA24006@ns2.qnet.com>
Team score Sprint SSB SCCC. (claimed score)
K6LL 277 X 48= 13,296
K6LA 255 X 47= 11,985
KC6CNV 233 X 45= 10,485
K5OT 204 X 44= 8,976
K4MA 207 X 42= 8,694
W6KY 211 X 41= 8,651
W6EEN 194 X 43= 8,342
N6HC 205 X 33= 6,765
WA7BNM 108 X 30= 3,240
N6RV *********** ********
-----------
TOTAL SCORE 80,434
Thanks 73 Will, KN6DV
Vice President SCCC
>From tonyjw@primenet.com (Tony Wanschura) Tue Feb 4 16:11:04 1997
From: tonyjw@primenet.com (Tony Wanschura) (Tony Wanschura)
Subject: CW contest filters
Message-ID: <32F75F93.5F1B@primenet.com>
When I first became a ham in the early sixties, I operated all cw (I
couldn't afford a rig with am phone), using a Hammerlund HQ129X
receiver. I had to learn to listen to several signals at a time,
filtering them with my ears and brain. Most of the time, I still
operate this way.
Depending upon how you use them, filters can be either a godsend or the
kind of crutch that hurts you more than helps. As far as contesting
goes, I use a cw filter for only two purposes: to filter out an
extremely strong adjacent station that is hitting my agc really hard, or
to improve my s/n ratio for weak signal reception. Too many calls can be
missed if your passbands are too tight. And I find that, in a contest,
it is simply too much effort to constantly retune the RIT or passband to
pick up stations slightly off-frequency.
My current rig is an FT107M (still not state-of-the-art). I normally
operate cw using my sideband filter with the passband narrowed
slightly. This lets me hear off-frequency stations perfectly well, and
helps keep the rate up. I have a Fox-Tango 500hz filter that I can
switch in if I really need it. I don't think I would ever use a 250
(too narrow).
Filtering with my brain is one of the ham radio skills that I am most
proud of. I can continually amaze a lot of newer, younger ops by the
stuff I can hear and copy on a crowded frequency.
My advice is to learn to filter with your ears and your brain. You'll
be glad you did.
Tony
KM0O
>From hwardsil@wolfenet.com (Ward Silver) Tue Feb 4 16:24:21 1997
From: hwardsil@wolfenet.com (Ward Silver) (Ward Silver)
Subject: Frequency vs. Power Privileges
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.95.970204081703.21838O-100000@gonzo.wolfenet.com>
Regarding some comments that it's very hard to check power privileges as
opposed to frequency privileges. True...but no-one checks on operating
privileges anyway, so what's the difference? Them that cheats is gonna
cheat.
I would rather concentrate on the 99% of the remaining populace that is
more interesting in having a good time than in figuring out how to cause
trouble. Give these guys and gals a reason to learn a little code by
giving them a wider variety of things to do. Once they figure out what is
fun for them, they'll upgrade to the point at which they're satisfied. If
they aren't given enough exposure to the hobby to understand why it's so
much fun, then there's no incentive to stay with it.
73, Ward N0AX
>From n0ss@socketis.net (Tom Hammond) Tue Feb 4 16:38:06 1997
From: n0ss@socketis.net (Tom Hammond) (Tom Hammond)
Subject: Restructuring Comments
Message-ID: <199702041638.KAA15204@mail.sockets.net>
Lee Buller wrote:
>2. We need to fix the medical waiver for the code. That is so stupid that
>I am at a loss for words. We need to come up with another way of doing
>that. I believe you have to almost deaf to get a waiver. Because, if you
>have that severe of learning disability, then you have real problems. Now,
>I know, because I have a son who ha learning disabilities. But, by working
>hard he has overcome them. We need to fix the medica waiver (PERIOD).
It used to be that we (the VEs) had the option of requiring a SENDING
exam if we had any question about someones knowledge of CW. That COULD
have been used WITH the waiver to verify actual knowledge. However, the
present rules regarding the waiver, unless I read them poorly, take this
option out of our hands and say that we MUST accept the waiver as complete
satisfaction of the requirement. THIS is where I see a big problem.
73 - Tom Hammond N0SS
>From n2uck@juno.com (Roman S Makuch) Mon Feb 3 21:44:13 1997
From: n2uck@juno.com (Roman S Makuch) (Roman S Makuch)
Subject: License restructuring/contesting
References: <19970203.054340.7927.3.k6ll@juno.com>
Message-ID: <19970204.121742.4215.0.n2uck@juno.com>
On Mon, 03 Feb 1997 00:45:07 EST k6ll@JUNO.COM (David O Hachadorian)
writes:
>How about a little discussion of the ARRL's proposed
>license restructuring and how it would affect contesting?
>
>If I understand the proposal correctly, the new
>Intermediate Class ops would have mainstream cw bands on
>80, 40, 15, and 10. It will be real fun mixing a 30 wpm cw
>contest with 5 wpm operators!
Sounds like the current Novice/Tech+ priviledges.
<<snip>
-------------------------------------------
>
>Dave Hachadorian, K6LL
>k6ll@juno.com
>From drussell@knox.net (Donald Russell) Tue Feb 4 17:22:53 1997
From: drussell@knox.net (Donald Russell) (Donald Russell)
Subject: Restructuring Comments
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.91.970204121718.6051A-100000@jasper.knox.net>
My only reply to restructuring is this:
Leave everything the same, except:
Drop general code speed to 10 wpm
Get rid of the no-code class (5wpm is not that darn hard!)
I lost priviledges the last time the ARRL fooled around with this. That
was called incentive licensing. Now they want to make it easier? My
interest in contesting gave me the ambition to get my Extra class.
Not all changes are for the better.
Don, WA8YRS drussell@knox.net
>From k0wa@southwind.net (Lee Buller) Tue Feb 4 17:52:05 1997
From: k0wa@southwind.net (Lee Buller) (Lee Buller)
Subject: Restructuring Comments
Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19970204175205.006bbebc@southwind.net>
At 10:38 AM 2/4/97 -0600, you wrote:
>Lee Buller wrote:
>
>>2. We need to fix the medical waiver for the code. That is so stupid that
>>I am at a loss for words. We need to come up with another way of doing
>>that. I believe you have to almost deaf to get a waiver. Because, if you
>>have that severe of learning disability, then you have real problems. Now,
>>I know, because I have a son who ha learning disabilities. But, by working
>>hard he has overcome them. We need to fix the medica waiver (PERIOD).
>
>It used to be that we (the VEs) had the option of requiring a SENDING
>exam if we had any question about someones knowledge of CW. That COULD
>have been used WITH the waiver to verify actual knowledge. However, the
>present rules regarding the waiver, unless I read them poorly, take this
>option out of our hands and say that we MUST accept the waiver as complete
>satisfaction of the requirement. THIS is where I see a big problem.
>
>73 - Tom Hammond N0SS
>
>
I agree with your point... My point is, we have to figure out a scheme that
is better than what we have. Because, all someone has to do is to get a
doctor to sign and he is off the hook. Even a podiatrist....(now watch all
the flames from ham radio podiatrists.)...cause he cannot send code with his
left foot.
This rule is way to liberal...
Lee
k0wa@southwind.net
>From kb5zud@tulsa.com (Charlie Calhoun) Tue Feb 4 19:18:15 1997
From: kb5zud@tulsa.com (Charlie Calhoun) (Charlie Calhoun)
Subject: Restructuring Comments
Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19970204191815.0067dc20@pop.tulsa.com>
I agree!!! Any Joe Blow can go to his doctor and slip him a fifty and get a
waiver. There is not any realistic way to confirm a doctor's opinion. I
know of at least three people here in my local area that have received code
waivers and they have no discernable physical or hearing impediments, except
laziness. This really makes it unnerving for those of us who work hard
learning the code. Sending doesnt require you to hear but it does require
you to know the code. Sending would not be possible, though, for those with
Arthritis or other debilitating physical conditions, we dont want to forget
about them.
73 - Charlie Calhoun, KB5ZUD
>It used to be that we (the VEs) had the option of requiring a SENDING
>exam if we had any question about someones knowledge of CW. That COULD
>have been used WITH the waiver to verify actual knowledge. However, the
>present rules regarding the waiver, unless I read them poorly, take this
>option out of our hands and say that we MUST accept the waiver as complete
>satisfaction of the requirement. THIS is where I see a big problem.
>
>73 - Tom Hammond N0SS
>
>
>From jmarchand@ecrm.com (MarchandJohn) Tue Feb 4 19:34:37 1997
From: jmarchand@ecrm.com (MarchandJohn) (MarchandJohn)
Subject: Frequency vs. Power Privileges
Message-ID: <n1357055555.45056@macgtwy.ecrm.com>
Hi Ward,
WELL SAID!, you took the words right out of my mouth.
Its really a pity how many people out there want everything handed to =
them
on a platter. (as long as someoneELSE has to work for it)
I'm all for updating the incentives to increase newbie interest....BUT....=
. make 'em put forth a little effort in order to earn the privilege, so =
they'll be more protective (reads appreciative) of that new privilege =
they've worked for...
Pardon my soapbox, but I think this thread is gonna turn into another "fla=
me city"- if we dont come up with some potential solutions instead of
Lets all get together and come up with some CONSTRUCTIVE ideas that can =
be "tuned and pruned" and turned into a good solid counter proposal.
Thanks for the BW.
John K1RC
__________________________________________________________________________=
_____
From: Ward Silver on Tue, Feb 4, 1997 13:01
Subject: Frequency vs. Power Privileges
To: contest reflector
Regarding some comments that it's very hard to check power privileges as
opposed to frequency privileges. True...but no-one checks on operating
privileges anyway, so what's the difference? Them that cheats is gonna
cheat.
I would rather concentrate on the 99% of the remaining populace that is
more interesting in having a good time than in figuring out how to cause
trouble. Give these guys and gals a reason to learn a little code by
giving them a wider variety of things to do. Once they figure out what =
is
fun for them, they'll upgrade to the point at which they're satisfied. =
If
they aren't given enough exposure to the hobby to understand why it's so
much fun, then there's no incentive to stay with it.
73, Ward N0AX
------------------ RFC822 Header Follows ------------------
Received: by macgtwy.ecrm.com with SMTP;4 Feb 1997 13:01:32 -0500
Received: by highlight.ecrm.com (AA10598); Tue, 4 Feb 97 12:10:13 EST
Received: from Leghorn.Cisco.COM by maildrop.ecrm.com (MAA09595); Tue, 4 =
Feb 1997 12:09:00 -0500 (EST)
X-Listname: Amateur Radio Contester's discussion list <CQ-Contest@tgv.com>=
Warnings-To: <>
Errors-To: owner-cq-contest@tgv.com
Sender: owner-cq-contest@tgv.com
X-Authentication-Warning: gonzo.wolfenet.com: hwardsil owned process =
doing -bs
From: hwardsil@wolfenet.com (Ward Silver)
Reply-To: hwardsil@wolfenet.com (Ward Silver)
To: cq-contest@tgv.com (contest reflector)
Subject: Frequency vs. Power Privileges
Message-Id: <Pine.OSF.3.95.970204081703.21838O-100000@gonzo.wolfenet.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=3DUS-ASCII
>From cooper@gmpvt.com (Tom Cooper) Tue Feb 4 19:48:27 1997
From: cooper@gmpvt.com (Tom Cooper) (Tom Cooper)
Subject: CW contest filters
Message-ID: <199702041948.OAA10469@web.gmpvt.com>
I like to use the 500 HZ filter most of the time and add
a narrow AF filter for "scouring" the band S & P. When I'm
at the peak freqency, I'm zero beat so I can move pretty fast
from one CQer to the next and be right on when I call. Running
QRP or low power/bad antennas, if you're not right on freq your're
toast.
A passive AF filter that isn't particularly narrow is very useful
just before the headphones to get rid of a lot of hiss, hum, QRN
and other stuff. I have one centered on 600 HZ that is about 1.5 KHZ
wide @-20db and I feel less tired after contests after using it.
The most important thing is to be extra aware of the pattern
dit dit-dah dah and to respond to it first, no matter how weak
or covered by QRM it is. This tip also applies to DXpeditioners.
Tom W1EAT
>From k4ro@music-city.tdec.state.tn.us (K4RO Kirk Pickering) Tue Feb 4
>20:17:59 1997
From: k4ro@music-city.tdec.state.tn.us (K4RO Kirk Pickering) (K4RO Kirk
Pickering)
Subject: Waivers & Contesting
Message-ID: <9702042017.AA11579@music-city.tdec.state.tn.us.state.tn.us>
I fail to see what all the waiver discussion has to do with CONTESTING.
I'll bet I'm not the only one. Now back to our regularly scheduled
bickering.
-Kirk K4RO
|