Ticking the boxes

RoundyMooney

Well, I took the plunge last week and sat the exam in Carrigtohill.

The general feedback (from those who attended classes there, in Waterford, and one or two from Dublin) was that it was a tough enough paper. Personally I didn't find it too bad, as I've had an interest in the field going back a few years, but there were a few tricky questions in it that beginners would not have found too easy. There were the bones of thirty attendees of various ages there, which is good to see.

Hopefully the results should be back to us midweek, so fingers crossed for both myself and all the other candidates (including the wife!).

Plaudits are due to Mike EI4HF who had the unenviable task of instructing us for the last six months together with Denis EI6HB, and Dave EI4BZ. Finbarr EI1CS deserves thanks too for his consistent support and advice throughout the classes and examination itself.

If all goes well I hope to tackle the CW in September.

OKenora

Hope you and the wife get the results you want form the exam. CW ? Is that an abbreviation for CWOT (Compete waste of time )

Luckily we don't have a CW requirement anymore for our A licence, not that it's made any difference to me as I still don't operate HF anyway.

watty

I started learning Morse in 1969. I never mastered it so now for my disablement I use a special CW bug key with 104 buttons.

To aid my cloth ears I find MixW turns the beeps into text quite well. The competion guys use machine CW all the time and full qwerty keyboards used for Morse from 1930s.

The PC can only decode relatively good CW, but it can be in the middle of a pair of RTTY tones or overlaid with SSB, no expensive CW filter needed.

I have cw chats occasionally with a retired marine operator and he likes the sound of it. No key clicks or splatter of course even on an old FT101 as the PC uses shaped envelope audio to SSB TX.


I hope you pass RoundyMooney ...

RoundyMooney

Thanks watty.

I suppose the big advantage of the morse is that it can be resolved over almost any amount of noise, but I haven't even got a rig yet so I'm only going by what I'm told online as such.

When things calm down a bit here I'll be on the air, results permitting, maybe we can organise a HR forum sked or something for those of us with calls.

watty

PSK31 is better, and WSJT better still, but they (mostly) need a Laptop. CW uses the gadget between your ears for DSP. I'm not "for" or "against" CW. It just shouldn't be a licence condition. It was essentially meaningless as a licence condition even by 1970 unless you were a Marine Radio operator. It's optional extra mode, just like RTTY, PSK31, Hellscriber, Pactor, Packet and DRM.

WSJT will let you work transcontinental to every continent via moonbounce, with possibly as little as a single 4.5m long 144MHz Yagi and 50W TX power.

WSJT is used for moonbounce. Not sure about "Tom Cocking EI4DQ - Worked All Continents on 144 MHz", if it was CW or WSJT. (even New Zealand!)

http://www.qsl.net/ei7gl/2mwac.htm

Why are you not on the moon?
.....By Tom, EI4DQ
http://www.qsl.net/ei7gl/2m_ei4dq.htm

WSJT
http://physics.princeton.edu/pulsar/K1JT/
http://www.vhfdx.de/wsjt/

See also http://www.mixw.net/
SSB, AM, FM - using WAV-files.
CW - using keyboard or paddle, soundcard receive.
BPSK31, QPSK31, FSK31, RTTY, Packet (HF/VHF), Pactor (RX only), AMTOR (FEC), MFSK, Hellschreiber, Throb, Fax (RX only), MT63.
Olivia and Q15X25
SSTV - Martin 1, Martin 2, Scottie 1, Scottie 2, Scottie DX, Robot 36, Robot 72, MP115, Black&White 8/12/24/36/43, 2nd RX
window. Up to 16 history bitmaps can be shown (smaller size).

TCP/IP connection via PACKET

http://www.mixw.net/index.php?j=downloads

I think there is only WSJT and releated modes and DRM not supported

watty

If course no licence is needed to LISTEN to Moonbounce. Since the Americans may be using 800W or more, even a lowly 10 element 144MHz yagi may hear them.

RoundyMooney

Thanks, as always, for those links.

edit: I've no opinion on Morse tbh, I'm just doing it because it's there, to shorten the callsign more than anything:) Some of it's supporters will hold that it serves to filter out those that aren't "real" amateurs (which is elitist nonsense really, but some people see it as a fact).

I know EI4DQ very well indeed, in fact, he's a colleague of mine, and is helping me with the CW!

I have yet to see his moonbounce set up (that despite contributing a few bits and pieces to it!), but I'll be seeing him in the morning so might get a chance to.

Small world eh?

PauloMN

RoundyMooney wrote:

I've no opinion on Morse tbh, I'm just doing it because it's there, to shorten the callsign more than anything:) Some of it's supporters will hold that it serves to filter out those that aren't "real" amateurs (which is elitist nonsense really, but some people see it as a fact).

Well said, I did it for the same reasons i.e. because it was there and to shorten the callsign.

The whole "you're not a real amateur unless you have morse" thing is just plain old snobbery. Never understood why someone wanting to use voice only modes on HF had to take a morse test. Point of fact, they should place a bit more emphasis on the practical side to operating radios to improve peoples' skills. I managed to get a full HF 'A' license without anyone ever checking whether I could operate a radio or not, which I think is pretty daft. Great, I can work out resistance in parallel, and the length of a half-wave dipole on 40m, but can I operate a radio? It's like giving someone the keys to a car when they've just passed the theory test and telling them to fire ahead and drive!

Thankfully morse is no longer a requirement to get on HF, although even though I'm not a huge morse fan, I still like to see it being used. Now hopefully this 'B' callsign thing will eventually be done away with.

Personally, I like the 3 tier approach in the UK. We need that here to get more people involved:
http://www.rsgb.org/getlicence/

arybvtcw0eolkf

From a CW snob, best of luck with the results.

watty

Yes, well I was a communications engineer in BBC (after I got my GI8JTR licence), and also designed RF gear for Westinghouse etc. In this country the official title is "Wireless Experimenter", CW is a tiny part. I've never agreed with the anti-CB sentiment especially prevalent in UK, as from my professional viewpoint as an actual engineer, most people pass exam and buy rig and chat.

So in that respect the CW, while of value in its self, is hardly a measure of technical competence, I think the idea of stages of licence limiting power only linked to doing some practical technology / gadget "home brew" is a good start. I think to attract teenagers etc the Technology/Science/Software/Mechanical aspects need emphasised not just "talking" on the air. They all have mobile phones. My kids (16 to 26) are not at all impressed when I tell them I spoke to someone in France or New Jersey. They are mildly interested in the DSP software for SDR, or the "home brew" gadgets or weird aerials (but they have learnt to be busy if I'm installing a new aerial )

RoundyMooney

Well, the letter from Comreg has arrived.

I passed, OH unfortunately didn't. Hopefully she'll be bitten by the bug good and proper when she sees all the fun I'll be having playing radio!

OKenora

It's like giving someone the keys to a car when they've just passed the theory test and telling them to fire ahead and drive!

But isn't that exactly what we do with new drivers ?

Sorry to hear the OH failed but congrats on your pass. Licensing requirements in the Republic seem to be a lot stricter still than the UK requirements. It's possible to do a course here run by your local radio club who then examine and mark you, send the passes off and you receive a foundation licence. Access to a lot (near all HF/VHF) of the bands with an erp of about 10w from what I remember.

It's a great way to egt people involved and our local club has a 11 year old starting it now as well as her mum.

watty

Rare event letters from Comreg. Congratulations. RM.

PauloMN

OKenora wrote:

But isn't that exactly what we do with new drivers ?/QUOTE]

No, as well as testing the theory side, people have to pass a practical (i.e. the driving test). It's not perfect, but my point is that I was able to get a full A license without anyone ever checking at any point that I could actually use a radio. I think the UK system is much better.

Congrats on the result RM, well done.

OKenora

people have to pass a practical (i.e. the driving test)

Agreed but making a mistake operating your radio is not likely to cause any loss of life, yet after a simple theory test we give people a provisional drivers licence and turn them loose on our roads where any mistake they make is capable of causing loss of life....

It's like giving someone the keys to a car when they've just passed the theory test and telling them to fire ahead and drive!

Original point still stands, isn't that what we do with new drivers ?

I was able to get a full A license without anyone ever checking at any point that I could actually use a radio. I think the UK system is much better.

I never got tested in any manner as to how to operate a radio either and I have a full A licence, 400w all bands. My callsign starts with a G so is UK so I fail to see how the UK system is better. In fact as a UK amateur I would say the standards in the UK have dropped dramatically over the last few years, especially since the removal of the RAE examination and in comparison to the Irish tests the UK ones are not nearly as demanding.

watty

The RAE was fairly demanding in 1972 (I was GI8JTR then).

But the UK emphasis on stages and construction is to be welcomed.

But unless you are using and maintaining WWII/1960s vintage VFO based gear with no built in frequency counter, most people in last 20 years simply cram for the exam and forget it all.

I think many are simply elitist CBers and have no real interest in technology or experimentation, so how important then is technical stuff in exam.

Without promotion of the technical & experimenting aspects the hobby would degenerate into a mix of chat clubs and stamp collectors (contesters).

So while on one hand a dumbing down does not much matter in terms of what most people do, having stages and more emphasis on construction, technology, software / DSP, measurement, experiments is good. There is nothing to stop IRTS, RSGB or anyone else introducing interesting advanced courses for people that DO want to do more than key in a frequency and press PTT.

Our secondary schools are pathetic for hands on Science & Technology. Transiton year should not be a doss, but programming, Radio Course for Exam, Lego mindstorms robots, electronics etc..

gyppo

Congrats on the result Roundy.

PauloMN

OKenora wrote:

Agreed but making a mistake operating your radio is not likely to cause any loss of life, yet after a simple theory test we give people a provisional drivers licence and turn them loose on our roads where any mistake they make is capable of causing loss of life....

Original point still stands, isn't that what we do with new drivers ?

I never got tested in any manner as to how to operate a radio either and I have a full A licence, 400w all bands. My callsign starts with a G so is UK so I fail to see how the UK system is better. In fact as a UK amateur I would say the standards in the UK have dropped dramatically over the last few years, especially since the removal of the RAE examination and in comparison to the Irish tests the UK ones are not nearly as demanding.

When did you do your test? The new system in the UK has only been around a few years. The link I posted above explains the system.

How do you learn these new skills, by taking the Foundation licence training course, which is an integral part of of obtaining a Foundation licence. Most of the training is practical. There is a small amount of radio and electronics theory but only enough for you to appreciate things like using the correct fuses in your equipment and how to build an antenna to get the most out of your radio station.

That sounds good to me. This is certainly better than a theory only exam here where people answer questions on resistors, half wave dipoles etc. and get full use of 100 watts plus across HF without anyone having checked whether they can plug the radio in or not! At least the basic entry level UK exam sounds more practical.

The Irish system is out of date. As soon as the V-necks in the IRTS realise this, we might not only get better quality new operators, but more of them. As it stands, the hobby is dying a death here.

OKenora

Well having heard a few foundation licensees operating and seen how the test for them works (more does not work) I still stick to my view of the standard having declined. I agree a few more amateurs would not hurt but you have to choose between quantity and quality somewhere. Foundation licences are not hard to get and the general level of operation from most of these stations is little better than CB if better at all. Being limited to 10 watts I presume the thinking is that they won't cause major international interference, but 10w used badly on a local repeater really can put you off bothering.

I obtained my license erm....can't remember when, it's a G7 so thats mid 90's ? Someone help please

watty

I'd like both.

bminish

RoundyMooney wrote:

If all goes well I hope to tackle the CW in September.

Morse is very efficient, with a reasonably skilled operator, definitely more efficient than PSK31 as well as being faster once you get good at it.
Morse is also a lot of fun, but to find out if you are going to like it or not you first need to learn it well enough to be able to use it on air.

Anyone thinking of learning morse should read the following on-line book which is free, well written and covers the subject well.
http://www.zerobeat.net/tasrt/

My advice is to use a PC as the tutor and learn using the koch method at a base speed of about 18 WPM, this will take only about the same length of time as learning slow code and trying to build speed to get to a usable speed.

moonbounce is also fun, my best EME to date is New Zealand on 6m, an EI first and not easy due to a very short common moon window.

73
Brendan EI6IZ

arybvtcw0eolkf

bminish wrote:

My advice is to use a PC as the tutor and learn using the koch method at a base speed of about 18 WPM, this will take only about the same length of time as learning slow code and trying to build speed to get to a usable speed.

18 WPM?.. Are you sure?.

I think the vast majority of students would find learning at that speed almost impossible. Honestly, I can't for a second believe that a student could decypher individual letter's at 18 WPM.

Even after passing they're test operating at 18 WPM is a task, and most would only be good enough for the usual 'De EI6,<similiar to your own> Name es Martin.... RST 599, QSL via...........' and not up to the task of a proper QSO.

bminish

Mairt wrote:

18 WPM?.. Are you sure?.

I think the vast majority of students would find learning at that speed almost impossible. Honestly, I can't for a second believe that a student could decypher individual letter's at 18 WPM.

The koch method is based around learning the sound of each letter at full speed. It's the fastest way to learn the code and one of the most effective methods since it goes directly to learning the sound of each letter.
I am suggesting 18 WPM as this is fast enough to prevent the student learning the code elements of each letter instead of the sound of the letter/number.

It's been around since the 1930's but has not been very practical until recently because it requires one on one tuition that progresses at the student's own pace. The PC is a wonderful one on one tutor and Koch tutors (or tutor software that can be adapted for Koch method) are available on for most operating systems (linux, Mac, Windows, DOS etc)

All of the traditional methods of learning CW have have evolved from the need to teach in classroom settings or to create code practice sessions.

The Koch method is different in that you right away learn at full speed, but only a couple of letters to begin with, this removes the tendency that occurs at lower speeds to learn the individual elements (dit dah dit etc) and focus instead on the sound of the overall letter. Moving from elements to letters is one of the causes of the speed barrier that many run into that makes progressing from 8-10WPM to faster speeds so time consuming.

I first learned code (slowly) in a classroom setting in Atlantic college (which nearly put me off for life!) but a number of my students have learned using the Koch method over the years and have gone on to become very accomplished CW operators in a short period of time.

Even after passing they're test operating at 18 WPM is a task, and most would only be good enough for the usual 'De EI6,<similiar to your own> Name es Martin.... RST 599, QSL via...........' and not up to the task of a proper QSO.

Good rag chew CW comes from knowing CW well firstly, then from the ability to headcopy. Headcopy takes a lot of practice but it's a skill one cannot even begin to acquire until one is fluent in CW at a decent speed.

Once again may I suggest that anyone with an interest in the subject read The Art & Skill of Radio Telegraphy. which is available here
http://www.qsl.net/n9bor/n0hff.htm
and here
http://www.zerobeat.net/tasrt/

arybvtcw0eolkf

Ok, so your suggesting learning individual letters and punctuation marks at 18WPM and not taking whole words and QSO's and that?.

That I can understand. But I thought you were talking about teaching a student at 18WPM, lol.. Sorry.

Ever try taking CW down with a type writer?. Now, thats fun

Like me you sound like you come from a professional RO background?.

bminish

Mairt wrote:

Ok, so your suggesting learning individual letters and punctuation marks at 18WPM and not taking whole words and QSO's and that?.

you lean the alphabet at 18WPM with normal or near normal 18WPM spacing, once you have learned the alphabet, numbers etc this way you are completely ready for words etc.
The downside of this is that it's hard to feel that you are making much progress until you get close to the end so it takes quite a bit of discipline to stick to a regular practice regime.

with the farnsworth method, you learn with the letters at, say 13WPM and long gaps. once you have mastered the full alphabet etc you shorten the gaps as your proficiency improves, the problem with this twofold

1/ you had to learn the code first, this probably consited of learning dits and dahs. to progress to a decent speed you need to move away from dits 'n' dahs and think about each letter as a sound, in effect you end up having to learn each letter twice as you progress

2/ the longer spacing gives the student time to think and to break each letter down into it's dits 'n' dahs in the mind and this makes progressing much harder


fransworth and it's relatives is probably the only way CW could be taught in a classroom setting or by practice tapes.
The PC changes the game by being a personal one on one tutor which is why the koch method now merits such serous consideration for those wishing to learn CW as useful means of communications

That I can understand. But I thought you were talking about teaching a student at 18WPM, lol.. Sorry.

I am and it works exceedingly well for those who persevere with this method.

Ever try taking CW down with a type writer?. Now, thats fun

In a sense this is what you initially learn to do when using a PC for tuition, certainly I can type faster than I can write long hand but my focus at the moment is on improving my head copy, since as amateurs 100% accurate hard copy is not required.

Like me you sound like you come from a professional RO background?.

I did the first year of the RO course in 1988 then went on to study electronic engineering, it was about 12 years after the RO course that I dusted off the key and went for the 12WPm amateur test.
I have never sailed as an RO but I have done quite a bit of /MM operating (in CW of course !)

watty

I have never really learnt CW, but call signs and some stuff is recognisable at normal speed, is just beeps when slow. Try and understand speech or music played 1/5th speed to realise what learning morse slow is like. Almost everyone I know who learnt it slow had to learn it again to get to a reasonable speed.

You don't read a letter at a time either.

arybvtcw0eolkf

I'm not doubting you that your method works, but I think you'd have to be very disciplined to learn like that.

I guess I come from a 'pressed ganged' school of learning morse where we had at minimum one hour CW in the morning, and another hour after lunch.

Between those time's we'd have other stuff like antenna theory, including propagation etc, voice/CW procedure. Equiptment and electronic's. Then other stuck like message clerk duties etc.

But always huge importance was placed on our CW proficency (sp'ing?) as the nature of our job's would be fishery protection. So stuff like fishing vessel arrest details etc had to be 100% accurate as those details taken/sent were used in court.

experimenter

I use what ever mode is needed to complete the qso..

Depending on band conditions of course.

For weak 50Mhz ops I use JT6M.. or FSK for 144MHz..

But I do belive that CW has it's uses. I would have missed alot of North America on 50MHz if I didn't use CW.

I also agree that the hobby is dying but no body really gives a damn.

Well I do not know what to say about the IRTS...that's another story.

BTW Good luck to the chap who passed his exam.