Eric and all, Will all due respect, I couldn’t disagree with you more! First, I don’t think it is accurate to suggest that CW was used to keep people out of the hobby. The requirement for this skill was much less obtuse than that. It was simply due to the fact that CW was/is probably the most basic method of communicating—at least it was for a long time. You could touch two wires together and send a coherent message! The device necessary to transmit such a signal was about as simple as it gets. CW is still far more efficient and effective than voice modes unless you use considerably more power with the latter. One shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that a dominant reason for us even being allowed to practice this hobby was that we could be a reliable alternative in case of emergency. There was a lot of competition for our place in the spectrum.
I don’t disagree that “perfect code” isn’t a mandate, but I do think it should be an objective. The farther away you get from perfect code, the less coherent it becomes. The closer you get to perfect code, the easier it is to interpret! Plain and simple! I hear a lot of crap CW on the bands. Some of it comes from folks who are just not very good at it, but are trying to get better. I’m not so bothered by that. However, those who don’t do CW very well, and don’t care, and don’t have any intention of getting better at it, don’t interest me very much. Trying to copy bad CW is a lot of work, and it is rather frustrating. If I’m helping someone get better, it is worth it, but if I am just enabling someone to not get better, I don’t see the point of it. As to the comparisons to accents that Ron made in his post, I would suggest that there is a distinction as to degree. It’s one thing to be “identifiable” because of some slight variation from perfect code, much like an accent in language is, but it is a completely different thing to be so far from perfect code that you become hard to interpret. That’s not just an accent, but more like using poor grammar! CW is, in effect, a language, and should be recognizable without excessive strain. My CW is far from perfect, but I try to make it sound as much “by the book” as I can. I definitely don’t try to jazz it up like some people do. Every so often someone comments that they find it easy to copy. I’d much rather hear a comment like that than have someone say they recognized my because of my accent! Cheers! Dave W7AQK -------------------------------------------- From: Eric J <eric_c...@hotmail.com> I'm with Ron. I've been in the hobby since 1957. CW has always been used as some sort of ham radio purity test. It was used to keep people out of the hobby altogether for decades. Many of those who persevered, learned the code under duress to get their license, then never touched a key again. And there's no evidence CW as a gatekeeper prevented lids as many of the worst offenders were General class or higher who had to have passed a code test. As empty as the CW portions are now, except during any contest, I welcome anyone who knows enough code to make a QSO. Perfect code is not necessary for reliable communication. Besides, I love hearing all the various fists, and enjoy recognizing individuals by their fist. Eric KE6US ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message delivered to arch...@mail-archive.com
