Re: [Elecraft] RE: Sad day
I don't think it REALLY will either. What I fear is the "SSB/digital" bunch will demand use of the whole band! It's a bitch to work QRP thru the Spanish SSB on 40, so I can imagine what will happen when a jillion screaming USA SSB'ers take over the whole band! The other shoe hasn't dropped yet! (Expanding the 'phone bands). I hope the FCC hasn't an unpleasant surprise when it becomes a NPRM. 73, Sandy W5TVW - Original Message - From: "James Kern" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Craig Rairdin'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 11:20 AM Subject: RE: [Elecraft] RE: Sad day | Thinking about it, |I don't think dropping the code will make one bit of difference to CW. I | agree with Craig in that the guys that just squeak by the CW test most | likely won't be found on the CW bands. The people who want to learn CW will. | 99% of my HF operating is in CW. I'm not on HF that often, but when I do | it's almost always CW. I imagine there will be (at least in the beginning) a | flood of HF phone activity and then it will taper off back to 'normal' or a | little higher than normal afterwards. | | James Kern | Network Administrator | Kurt S. Adler, Inc. | 1107 Broadway | New York, NY 10010 | 212-924-0900 x222 (work) | 212-807-0575 (fax) | 908-451-6801 (cell) | 800-209-7438 (pager) | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | | -Original Message- | From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Craig Rairdin | Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 12:03 PM | To: elecraft@mailman.qth.net | Subject: RE: [Elecraft] RE: Sad day | | | I sympathize with you, and certainly welcome your contributions to the hobby | and to your local emergency services organizations (as if my "welcome" were | necessary or even important). | | On the other hand, there are concepts on the written test that seemed like | garbage to me no matter how much I studied. I have a computer science degree | with lots of advanced math and engineering but some of the formulae and | algorithms required for the Extra exam just leave me scratching my head. | | So my question is, should a bunch of us be able to get together and ask that | all the technical requirements for ham licenses be dropped just because it's | hard? That's what this "no code" thing sounds like to me. To me dropping the | code and only having a written test is philosophically no different than | dropping the written test and keeping the code. | | In the end, the hobby is changing. Other countries have dropped the code | requirement. We should follow suit. It sounds like the tests have been | steadily getting easier over the last 100 years. This is just the next step. | | As a CW-only, HF-only ham, I think this seems more ominous and wrong-headed | to me than it does to others. I don't think other points of view are | invalid, though. Just trying to make my opinions known. The guys who squeak | by on a CW test just for the test's sake are probably never going to show up | in the CW bands anyway so it may be a net zero loss for the practice of CW. | | I think I'll stop posting on this subject now. :-) | | Craig | | | Original Message | From: DAN ABBOTT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Sent: 07/21/05 10:41 AM | To: elecraft@mailman.qth.net | Subject: [Elecraft] RE: Sad day -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= I have been | reading the comments about the possibility of dropping the requirement for | CW in order to advance your license. I have great respect for those who have | passed the code test and one day I would like to be able to use CW, but it | will take a converter and keyboard to accomplish the task. Let me explain. I | built my K2/100 while trying to learn the code to achieve my General license | [ it's been three months now] with absolutely no success, my K2 is now only | a listening device. I have used Ham University and Your Introduction to | Morse Code from ARRL with no success. If your familiar with the courses, I | get to the letter L and when you add all the other letters to the sentence | it sounds like garbage to me. | I guess my question is, does it make you less of an operator not knowing CW? | I have an EE degree, so there is no problem with the concepts and I am the | Resources Coordinator for ARES/RACES for my county. When the FCC dropped the | requirement for CW, that opened the door for me to be come a HAM and be able | to do the Emergency work I do now. So why should it stop me from expanding | and being of even more use to the community? | | 73's | | Dan N7DWA K2/100 # 4775 | ___ | Elecraft mailing list | Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net | You must be a subscriber to post to the list. | Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): | http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft | | Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subsc
Re: [Elecraft] RE: Sad day
Stephen wrote: "This is the time honored format that is traditionally used as the Final Exam for PhDs" That I think is my point. Amateur Radio is a hobby. And IMO I do not think we need to make the exam so stressful that it keeps some from entering the Ham community. Don't forget even with a written test some people freeze up and they think their mind is blank! Paul Gates K1 #0231 KX1 #1186 XG1 [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: "Stephen W. Kercel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 5:43 PM Subject: Re: [Elecraft] RE: Sad day > Stuart raises an interesting point. > > Who controls the scope and format of the licensing exams? > > Does the FCC require that it be a list of multiple choice questions? > > If you want a fair but thorough way of assuring that new licensees pay the > dues, why not do it on the basis of an oral exam? Each candidate spends 30 > minutes before a panel of three very experienced VEs (maybe 25 years > each). > The VEs ask questions reflecting the scope of the standard question pool. > This need not be done in either a hostile or high pressure atmosphere. The > objective is for candidates to demonstrate that they know what they're > talking about. The decision to pass or fail is based on a majority vote of > the three VEs. > > This is the time honored format that is traditionally used as the Final > Exam for PhDs. > > Steve Kercel > AA4AK > > > > > At 05:00 PM 7/21/2005 -0500, you wrote: > >I invite those seeking answers to why the code testing requirement was > >dropped to read the FCC's definition of the ham radio service given in > >the > >NPRM, as well as the detailed FCC comments to each of the petitions they > >considered. > > > >They clearly made a case of why test by mode, as CW is a mode; when there > >are so many other modes. > > > >They also made it clear the VEC was free to establish the test topics > >based > >on input from the tested community and existing ham operators. > > > >So, when the time to revise question pools is announced; be sure to > >notify > >the VEC of what you would believe hams should be tested upon. > > > >Stuart > >K5KVH > > > > > > > >___ > >Elecraft mailing list > >Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net > >You must be a subscriber to post to the list. > >Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): > > http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft > > > >Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm > >Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com > > > ___ > Elecraft mailing list > Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net > You must be a subscriber to post to the list. > Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): > http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft > > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm > Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com > ___ Elecraft mailing list Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
Re: [Elecraft] RE: Sad day
Stuart raises an interesting point. Who controls the scope and format of the licensing exams? Does the FCC require that it be a list of multiple choice questions? If you want a fair but thorough way of assuring that new licensees pay the dues, why not do it on the basis of an oral exam? Each candidate spends 30 minutes before a panel of three very experienced VEs (maybe 25 years each). The VEs ask questions reflecting the scope of the standard question pool. This need not be done in either a hostile or high pressure atmosphere. The objective is for candidates to demonstrate that they know what they're talking about. The decision to pass or fail is based on a majority vote of the three VEs. This is the time honored format that is traditionally used as the Final Exam for PhDs. Steve Kercel AA4AK At 05:00 PM 7/21/2005 -0500, you wrote: I invite those seeking answers to why the code testing requirement was dropped to read the FCC's definition of the ham radio service given in the NPRM, as well as the detailed FCC comments to each of the petitions they considered. They clearly made a case of why test by mode, as CW is a mode; when there are so many other modes. They also made it clear the VEC was free to establish the test topics based on input from the tested community and existing ham operators. So, when the time to revise question pools is announced; be sure to notify the VEC of what you would believe hams should be tested upon. Stuart K5KVH ___ Elecraft mailing list Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com ___ Elecraft mailing list Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
Re: [Elecraft] RE: Sad day
Yes, Aimee is off to a running start... Anything she does is that way. She has a 4.0 gpa in school and will be a senior next year. Paul Gates K1 #0231 KX1 #1186 XG1 [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: "W3FPR - Don Wilhelm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Paul Gates" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 4:14 PM Subject: RE: [Elecraft] RE: Sad day > Paul, > > That may have been the young lady I saw explaining to a woman about 20 > years > older than herself what a lot of the information covered in the book was > for - if she was indeed your granddaughter, I would say she is already off > to a running start technically. > > 73, > Don W3FPR > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Paul Gates > > Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 2:32 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; elecraft > > Subject: Re: [Elecraft] RE: Sad day > > > > > > I have a 17 year old granddaughter who just before Dayton indicated she > > wanted to get her ham ticket. I told her about the no code > > license. She told > > me she had no desire to have that. She wanted to learn the code > > and take the > > Extra Exam. I understand you have to take the Technician exam before > > you > > can take the General, is that right? Her mother and I went to > > Dayton and got > > the granddaughter the things she needed to start learning the > > theory. I made > > her a CD of K7QO's CW CD. > > Paul Gates > > K1 #0231 > > KX1 #1186 > > XG1 > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "James Kern" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "'Craig Rairdin'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; > > Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 12:20 PM > > Subject: RE: [Elecraft] RE: Sad day > > > > > > > Thinking about it, > > >I don't think dropping the code will make one bit of > > difference to CW. > > > I > > > agree with Craig in that the guys that just squeak by the CW test most > > > likely won't be found on the CW bands. The people who want to learn CW > > > will. > > > 99% of my HF operating is in CW. I'm not on HF that often, but when I > > > do > > > it's almost always CW. I imagine there will be (at least in the > > beginning) > > > a > > > flood of HF phone activity and then it will taper off back to > > 'normal' or > > > a > > > little higher than normal afterwards. > > > > > > James Kern > > > Network Administrator > > > Kurt S. Adler, Inc. > > > 1107 Broadway > > > New York, NY 10010 > > > 212-924-0900 x222 (work) > > > 212-807-0575 (fax) > > > 908-451-6801 (cell) > > > 800-209-7438 (pager) > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Craig Rairdin > > > Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 12:03 PM > > > To: elecraft@mailman.qth.net > > > Subject: RE: [Elecraft] RE: Sad day > > > > > > > > > I sympathize with you, and certainly welcome your contributions to the > > > hobby > > > and to your local emergency services organizations (as if my "welcome" > > > were > > > necessary or even important). > > > > > > On the other hand, there are concepts on the written test that > > seemed like > > > garbage to me no matter how much I studied. I have a computer science > > > degree > > > with lots of advanced math and engineering but some of the formulae > > > and > > > algorithms required for the Extra exam just leave me scratching my > > > head. > > > > > > So my question is, should a bunch of us be able to get together and > > > ask > > > that > > > all the technical requirements for ham licenses be dropped just > > > because > > > it's > > > hard? That's what this "no code" thing sounds like to me. To me > > dropping > > > the > > > code and only having a written test is philosophically no different > > > than > > > dropping the written test and keeping the code. > > > > > > In the end, the hobby is changing. Other countries have dropped the > > > code > > > requirement. We should follow suit. It sounds like the tests have
Re: [Elecraft] RE: Sad day
I invite those seeking answers to why the code testing requirement was dropped to read the FCC's definition of the ham radio service given in the NPRM, as well as the detailed FCC comments to each of the petitions they considered. They clearly made a case of why test by mode, as CW is a mode; when there are so many other modes. They also made it clear the VEC was free to establish the test topics based on input from the tested community and existing ham operators. So, when the time to revise question pools is announced; be sure to notify the VEC of what you would believe hams should be tested upon. Stuart K5KVH ___ Elecraft mailing list Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
Re: [Elecraft] RE: Sad day
I have a 17 year old granddaughter who just before Dayton indicated she wanted to get her ham ticket. I told her about the no code license. She told me she had no desire to have that. She wanted to learn the code and take the Extra Exam. I understand you have to take the Technician exam before you can take the General, is that right? Her mother and I went to Dayton and got the granddaughter the things she needed to start learning the theory. I made her a CD of K7QO's CW CD. Paul Gates K1 #0231 KX1 #1186 XG1 [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: "James Kern" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Craig Rairdin'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 12:20 PM Subject: RE: [Elecraft] RE: Sad day > Thinking about it, >I don't think dropping the code will make one bit of difference to CW. > I > agree with Craig in that the guys that just squeak by the CW test most > likely won't be found on the CW bands. The people who want to learn CW > will. > 99% of my HF operating is in CW. I'm not on HF that often, but when I do > it's almost always CW. I imagine there will be (at least in the beginning) > a > flood of HF phone activity and then it will taper off back to 'normal' or > a > little higher than normal afterwards. > > James Kern > Network Administrator > Kurt S. Adler, Inc. > 1107 Broadway > New York, NY 10010 > 212-924-0900 x222 (work) > 212-807-0575 (fax) > 908-451-6801 (cell) > 800-209-7438 (pager) > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Craig Rairdin > Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 12:03 PM > To: elecraft@mailman.qth.net > Subject: RE: [Elecraft] RE: Sad day > > > I sympathize with you, and certainly welcome your contributions to the > hobby > and to your local emergency services organizations (as if my "welcome" > were > necessary or even important). > > On the other hand, there are concepts on the written test that seemed like > garbage to me no matter how much I studied. I have a computer science > degree > with lots of advanced math and engineering but some of the formulae and > algorithms required for the Extra exam just leave me scratching my head. > > So my question is, should a bunch of us be able to get together and ask > that > all the technical requirements for ham licenses be dropped just because > it's > hard? That's what this "no code" thing sounds like to me. To me dropping > the > code and only having a written test is philosophically no different than > dropping the written test and keeping the code. > > In the end, the hobby is changing. Other countries have dropped the code > requirement. We should follow suit. It sounds like the tests have been > steadily getting easier over the last 100 years. This is just the next > step. > > As a CW-only, HF-only ham, I think this seems more ominous and > wrong-headed > to me than it does to others. I don't think other points of view are > invalid, though. Just trying to make my opinions known. The guys who > squeak > by on a CW test just for the test's sake are probably never going to show > up > in the CW bands anyway so it may be a net zero loss for the practice of > CW. > > I think I'll stop posting on this subject now. :-) > > Craig > > > Original Message > From: DAN ABBOTT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: 07/21/05 10:41 AM > To: elecraft@mailman.qth.net > Subject: [Elecraft] RE: Sad day -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= I have > been > reading the comments about the possibility of dropping the requirement for > CW in order to advance your license. I have great respect for those who > have > passed the code test and one day I would like to be able to use CW, but it > will take a converter and keyboard to accomplish the task. Let me explain. > I > built my K2/100 while trying to learn the code to achieve my General > license > [ it's been three months now] with absolutely no success, my K2 is now > only > a listening device. I have used Ham University and Your Introduction to > Morse Code from ARRL with no success. If your familiar with the courses, I > get to the letter L and when you add all the other letters to the sentence > it sounds like garbage to me. > I guess my question is, does it make you less of an operator not knowing > CW? > I have an EE degree, so there is no problem with the concepts and I am the > Resources Coordinator for ARES/RACES for my county. When the FCC dropped > the > requirement for CW, that opened the door for me to be come a HAM and be > able &
RE: [Elecraft] RE: Sad day
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005, Craig Rairdin wrote: So my question is, should a bunch of us be able to get together and ask that all the technical requirements for ham licenses be dropped just because it's hard? That's what this "no code" thing sounds like to me. To me dropping the code and only having a written test is philosophically no different than dropping the written test and keeping the code. Sureafter all, why impede the enjoyment of a hobby by making it difficult to join? I think you made a very interesting point...and I'm waiting for folks to have lots of words explaining wny dropping the technical requirements would be wrong, while they champion dropping the CW requirements. I think I'll stop posting on this subject now. :-) Before it's declared off topic, folks can visit the forum at http://www.zerobeat.net/qrp/phpBB2/ 73,Thom-k3hrn www.zerobeat.net Home of QRP Web Ring, Drakelist home page, Free Classified Ads for amateur radio, QRP IRC channel Elecraft Owners Database www.tlchost.net/hosting/ *** Web Hosting as low as 3.49/month ___ Elecraft mailing list Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
RE: [Elecraft] RE: Sad day
Thinking about it, I don't think dropping the code will make one bit of difference to CW. I agree with Craig in that the guys that just squeak by the CW test most likely won't be found on the CW bands. The people who want to learn CW will. 99% of my HF operating is in CW. I'm not on HF that often, but when I do it's almost always CW. I imagine there will be (at least in the beginning) a flood of HF phone activity and then it will taper off back to 'normal' or a little higher than normal afterwards. James Kern Network Administrator Kurt S. Adler, Inc. 1107 Broadway New York, NY 10010 212-924-0900 x222 (work) 212-807-0575 (fax) 908-451-6801 (cell) 800-209-7438 (pager) [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Craig Rairdin Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 12:03 PM To: elecraft@mailman.qth.net Subject: RE: [Elecraft] RE: Sad day I sympathize with you, and certainly welcome your contributions to the hobby and to your local emergency services organizations (as if my "welcome" were necessary or even important). On the other hand, there are concepts on the written test that seemed like garbage to me no matter how much I studied. I have a computer science degree with lots of advanced math and engineering but some of the formulae and algorithms required for the Extra exam just leave me scratching my head. So my question is, should a bunch of us be able to get together and ask that all the technical requirements for ham licenses be dropped just because it's hard? That's what this "no code" thing sounds like to me. To me dropping the code and only having a written test is philosophically no different than dropping the written test and keeping the code. In the end, the hobby is changing. Other countries have dropped the code requirement. We should follow suit. It sounds like the tests have been steadily getting easier over the last 100 years. This is just the next step. As a CW-only, HF-only ham, I think this seems more ominous and wrong-headed to me than it does to others. I don't think other points of view are invalid, though. Just trying to make my opinions known. The guys who squeak by on a CW test just for the test's sake are probably never going to show up in the CW bands anyway so it may be a net zero loss for the practice of CW. I think I'll stop posting on this subject now. :-) Craig Original Message From: DAN ABBOTT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: 07/21/05 10:41 AM To: elecraft@mailman.qth.net Subject: [Elecraft] RE: Sad day -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= I have been reading the comments about the possibility of dropping the requirement for CW in order to advance your license. I have great respect for those who have passed the code test and one day I would like to be able to use CW, but it will take a converter and keyboard to accomplish the task. Let me explain. I built my K2/100 while trying to learn the code to achieve my General license [ it's been three months now] with absolutely no success, my K2 is now only a listening device. I have used Ham University and Your Introduction to Morse Code from ARRL with no success. If your familiar with the courses, I get to the letter L and when you add all the other letters to the sentence it sounds like garbage to me. I guess my question is, does it make you less of an operator not knowing CW? I have an EE degree, so there is no problem with the concepts and I am the Resources Coordinator for ARES/RACES for my county. When the FCC dropped the requirement for CW, that opened the door for me to be come a HAM and be able to do the Emergency work I do now. So why should it stop me from expanding and being of even more use to the community? 73's Dan N7DWA K2/100 # 4775 ___ Elecraft mailing list Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com ___ Elecraft mailing list Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com ___ Elecraft mailing list Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
RE: [Elecraft] RE: Sad day
I sympathize with you, and certainly welcome your contributions to the hobby and to your local emergency services organizations (as if my "welcome" were necessary or even important). On the other hand, there are concepts on the written test that seemed like garbage to me no matter how much I studied. I have a computer science degree with lots of advanced math and engineering but some of the formulae and algorithms required for the Extra exam just leave me scratching my head. So my question is, should a bunch of us be able to get together and ask that all the technical requirements for ham licenses be dropped just because it's hard? That's what this "no code" thing sounds like to me. To me dropping the code and only having a written test is philosophically no different than dropping the written test and keeping the code. In the end, the hobby is changing. Other countries have dropped the code requirement. We should follow suit. It sounds like the tests have been steadily getting easier over the last 100 years. This is just the next step. As a CW-only, HF-only ham, I think this seems more ominous and wrong-headed to me than it does to others. I don't think other points of view are invalid, though. Just trying to make my opinions known. The guys who squeak by on a CW test just for the test's sake are probably never going to show up in the CW bands anyway so it may be a net zero loss for the practice of CW. I think I'll stop posting on this subject now. :-) Craig Original Message From: DAN ABBOTT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: 07/21/05 10:41 AM To: elecraft@mailman.qth.net Subject: [Elecraft] RE: Sad day -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= I have been reading the comments about the possibility of dropping the requirement for CW in order to advance your license. I have great respect for those who have passed the code test and one day I would like to be able to use CW, but it will take a converter and keyboard to accomplish the task. Let me explain. I built my K2/100 while trying to learn the code to achieve my General license [ it's been three months now] with absolutely no success, my K2 is now only a listening device. I have used Ham University and Your Introduction to Morse Code from ARRL with no success. If your familiar with the courses, I get to the letter L and when you add all the other letters to the sentence it sounds like garbage to me. I guess my question is, does it make you less of an operator not knowing CW? I have an EE degree, so there is no problem with the concepts and I am the Resources Coordinator for ARES/RACES for my county. When the FCC dropped the requirement for CW, that opened the door for me to be come a HAM and be able to do the Emergency work I do now. So why should it stop me from expanding and being of even more use to the community? 73's Dan N7DWA K2/100 # 4775 ___ Elecraft mailing list Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com ___ Elecraft mailing list Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
