Hi Steve,

it is 99% certain that the WRC2003 conf will scrap
morse for full access.

That may be a bit too optimistic. I say 50%.

Why 2003 I will never know. It wwould be so easy for each
countries radio regulatory body to scrap it now, just like
they have lowered the 12wpm to 5wpm,

The bottleneck is art. S25 of the Radio Regulations.

Art. S25 states that a morse test is required for access below 30 MHz. It does however not specify a speed. So countries can individually decide on a different speed. To do away with the test altogether however requires an amendment of art. S25. And that requires a decision by the WRC.

Also note that in order to make that decision, the amendment has to be put on the agenda. Something that has not happened yet AFAIK and the closing date is nearing. Even if it does make it to the agenda, I would not make a 100 : 1 bet on the outcome. The numbers are decreasing but there are still countries that oppose.

73, Michiel

--- InterMail 2.29k
* Origin: PA0MMV, Driebergen, NL (2:280/5555)

Hi

it is 99% certain that the WRC2003 conf will scrap
morse for full access.

That may be a bit too optimistic. I say 50%.

Why 2003 I will never know. It wwould be so easy for each
countries radio regulatory body to scrap it now, just like
they have lowered the 12wpm to 5wpm,

The bottleneck is art. S25 of the Radio Regulations.

Yes, I have a copy of S25, and it states that morse is to be sent by hand and received by ear. Which means of course that you can't use a computer, yet, if you do pass the morse test, there is nothing to satop you sending by any method
you choose.
I send/receive morse on 6mtrs using a computer.
Don't get me wrong, I think morse is very usful, and no doubt it will always be
used by the die hards, but with things like PSK31 ect and computer progs, manual morse is a dying art.


73,s

Steve M1SWB

--- Gecho/32 1.20/Pro
* Origin: Transponder BBs Liverpool UK +44 151 226 4631 (2:250/220)

Quoting Steve Bainbridge to Michiel van der Vlist <=-

Don't get me wrong, I think morse is very usful, and no doubt it will always be used by the die hards,

And those that appreciate its simplicity and minimal bandwidth

but with things like PSK31 ect and

How much bandwidth and how much kit is needed?

computer progs, manual morse is a dying art.

Which death will be hastened by those who say it's dying
Are there any repeaters that don't use morse for identity?

Richard

--- FMail/386 1.02
* Origin: Another message via PackLink +44(0)2082972486 (2:254/235)

Hi Steve,

The bottleneck is art. S25 of the Radio Regulations.

Yes, I have a copy of S25, and it states that morse is to
be sent by hand and received by ear.

For the test of course...

Which means of course that you can't use a computer, yet, if
you do pass the morse test, there is nothing to satop you
sending by any method you choose.

One could use a computer. However morse is a code not designed for automated use. If one uses automated means, there are methods that are more suitable.

I send/receive morse on 6mtrs using a computer.

That only makes sense if the other party is human. Letting two machines talk to
each other in morse, is inefficient.

Don't get me wrong, I think morse is very usful, and no
doubt it will always be used by the die hards,

It sure will for a long time.

but with things like PSK31 ect and computer progs, manual
morse is a dying art.

And so is machine made morse. As I said; letting two machines talk two each other in morse is inefficient.

But that is not the issue. The issue is not should we retain morse as a transmission mode, but should we retain the morse test as a requirement for access?

For that we have to go back to the original reason for the test. The reason was
that we have shared bands. Among the other users are vital and emergency services. We needed to be able to recognise these services so that we could stay out of their way.

Note that the above is in the past tense. All other services have stopped using
morse. The military, aviation and marine services, none of them uses morse any more.

The original reasons for the morse test no longer apply. As a result the "authorities" no longer insist on it. The only ones standing in the way of getting rid of it now are the amateurs themselves...

73, Michiel

--- InterMail 2.29k
* Origin: PA0MMV, Driebergen, NL (2:280/5555)

Hi Richard,

Don't get me wrong, I think morse is very usful, and no doubt it will always be used by the die hards,

And those that appreciate its simplicity and minimal bandwidth

The simplicity is only on the part of the required equipment. Asd far as the effort required to learn the skill, it is far from simple.

but with things like PSK31 ect and

How much bandwidth and how much kit is needed?

Don't know the exact figures, but it required /less/ than morse and it also makes do with a smaller SNR....

computer progs, manual morse is a dying art.

Which death will be hastened by those who say it's dying

I don't think there is a self fulfilling element here. The test will go because
of the reasons I have stated in an earlier message. If the test goes, there will be very little incentive for newcomers to take the time and effort to aquire the skill. And for most of us, it does take effort. I passed the technical exam without any problem, but the morse took me a year of daily exercise. And that was 30+ years ago when I was still young and was a much quicker learner then I am now. I confess I only did it to get the full licence.
I tried to conserve the skill by making a morse qso every month or so, but some
15 years ago, I gave up.

I guess, it will be a dying art. Literally dying out with the ones that master the art.

Are there any repeaters that don't use morse for identity?

There were some in France last time I was there. Don't much care for it. Voice is too intrusive. After all one doesn't have to know the repeaters callsign to use it. The identification is mostle to satisfy the license authorities. For that morse with a low modulation depth is fine.

Which remind me that I do still use morse. For a quite different purpose. When my children still lived at home I was faced with the problem of controlling the telephone bill after I had installed a PABX. First two month the bill increased by 3 dB ;-)

So what did I do? I disassembled the programme, concocted an interface to input
the meter pulses to the processor and changed the internal programme to monitor
and store the cost information.

What was needed was a method to read out the collected data. There was only one
output medium available: the tone generator that supplied dial- and busy tone. So I programmed it so that by dialling a special code I could read out the cost
counters in morse!

Unfortunately that incentive to keep up the skill is also gone. The kids have long gone and I am a widower now. I have the house and the telephone system all
to myself. No more need for cost control...


Cheers, Michiel

--- InterMail 2.29k
* Origin: PA0MMV, Driebergen, NL (2:280/5555)

Quoting Michiel van der Vlist to Steve Bainbridge <=-

MvdV> Note that the above is in the past tense. All other services have
MvdV> stopped using morse. The military, aviation and marine services, none
MvdV> of them uses morse any more.

MIL still teaches morse as a backup. I'm (painfully) reminded of the call
made on reservists during the Gulf war. And the use of INMARSAT (funded
via taxes for the "peaceful exploitation of space") by Argentinian forces
for logistic support during their occupation of the Falkland Islands

Richard


--- FMail/386 1.02
* Origin: Another message via PackLink +44(0)2082972486 (2:254/235)

Hello Richard,

MvdV> All other services have stopped using morse. The military,
MvdV> aviation and marine services, none of them uses morse any more.

MIL still teaches morse as a backup. I'm (painfully)
reminded of the call made on reservists during the Gulf war.

They may have used it in the Gulf war. Note that that already is a decade into the past...

The Dutch military have stopped using (and teaching) it some time ago.

The official point of view of the RDR (the Dutch equivalent of the FCC) is that
there is no compelling reason to maintain the morse test as part of the exam since their are no other services left that use morse.

I gather many governments have taken a similar stance by now.

73, Michiel

--- InterMail 2.29k
* Origin: PA0MMV, Driebergen, NL (2:280/5555)

Hi Richard

Don't get me wrong, I think morse is very usful, and no doubt it will
always be used by the die hards,

And those that appreciate its simplicity and minimal
bandwidth

but with things like PSK31 ect and

How much bandwidth and how much kit is needed?

Very little bandwidth, all you need is Winpsk and a soundcard in your computer.
I tried it, receive only, on 14Mhz and it worked 100%.

computer progs, manual morse is a dying art.

Which death will be hastened by those who say it's dying
Are there any repeaters that don't use morse for
identity?

Not that I know of. I very rarely use repeaters, sort of defeats the whole object of AR :-)

73,s

Steve

--- Gecho/32 1.20/Pro
* Origin: Transponder BBs Liverpool UK +44 151 226 4631 (2:250/220)

Hi

tHE bottleneck is art. S25 of the Radio Regulations.

Yes, I have a copy of S25, and it states that morse is to
be sent by hand and received by ear.

For the test of course...

Of course, then if you wish, forget it.

Which means of course that you can't use a computer, yet, if
you do pass the morse test, there is nothing to satop you
sending by any method you choose.

One could use a computer. However morse is a code not
designed for automated use. If one uses automated means,
there are methods that are more suitable.

I send/receive morse on 6mtrs using a computer.

That only makes sense if the other party is human.
Letting two machines talk to each other in morse, is
inefficient.

They are human. It means that I can keep up with the old hands sending at 20wpm
:-)

Don't get me wrong, I think morse is very usful, and no
doubt it will always be used by the die hards,

It sure will for a long time.

I hope it does, just that now it should not be mandatory for full HF access.

but with things like PSK31 ect and computer progs, manual
morse is a dying art.

And so is machine made morse. As I said; letting two
machines talk two each other in morse is inefficient.

How true. With PSK31, it is basicly RTTY. The best bit about it is, using SSB you can have a perfect QSO even with very weak received signals.

73,s

Stege

--- Gecho/32 1.20/Pro
* Origin: Transponder BBs Liverpool UK +44 151 226 4631 (2:250/220)

Quoting Steve Bainbridge to Richard Town <=-

Hi

Havn't made a joke yet...

How true. With PSK31, it is basicly RTTY. The best bit about it is,

using SSB you can have a perfect QSO even with very weak received
signals.

In comparing that and morse, surely being FSK it overall occupies more bandwidth?

No just the one channel.It works like normal RTTY except the data is encrypted Get a copy of winpsk31 off the net and have a play.

OK, will have a sweep about, thanks
Richard


--- FMail/386 1.02
* Origin: Another message via PackLink +44(0)2082972486 (2:254/235)

Hello Richard.

07 Jul 01 16:20, you wrote to me:

I guess that's why there's no automated morse IDers on repeaters or
HF transmitters.

Yes there are. Marine HF FSK RTTY coast stations do their Idents in
morse

Obviously, they'd need some method of IDing. With RTTY, that's a given.
When they discontinue the use of RTTY and begin using digital
communications, morse IDing probably won't be there.

MvdV>> Note that the above is in the past tense. All other services have
MvdV>> stopped using morse. The military, aviation and marine services,
MvdV>> none of them uses morse any more.

Reduced, but MIL and marine still use it as detailed in previous
posts

Not here. Perhaps England is taking a back seat to modern technology.


... She Said if I didn't get off the radio she'd leave me, OVER!
--- Twit(t) Filter v2.1 (C) 2000
* Origin: Kicking Back, Six Paydays Included (1:10/22)

Hi Richard,

Are there any repeaters that don't use morse for identity?

There were some in France last time I was there.

Just came across one in the Netherlands: PI3MEP, 145.650. Male voice.

73, Michiel

--- InterMail 2.29k
* Origin: PA0MMV, Driebergen, NL (2:280/5555)

Quoting Michiel van der Vlist to Richard Town <=-

MvdV> All other services have stopped using morse. The military,
MvdV> aviation and marine services, none of them uses morse any more.
MIL still teaches morse as a backup. I'm (painfully)
reminded of the call made on reservists during the Gulf war.

MvdV> They may have used it in the Gulf war. Note that that already is a
MvdV> decade into the past...

You'll just have to accept that it is used for reasons of it's virtual impossibility to intercept especially if used with Picolo

MvdV> The Dutch military have stopped using (and teaching) it some time ago.

Overtly

MvdV> The official point of view of the RDR (the Dutch equivalent of the
MvdV> FCC) is that there is no compelling reason to maintain the morse test
MvdV> as part of the exam since their are no other services left that use
MvdV> morse.

Except between persons of course...

MvdV> I gather many governments have taken a similar stance by now.

Many governments have a vested interest in channelling all personal comms
via interceptable routes

Richard

--- FMail/386 1.02
* Origin: Another message via PackLink +44(0)2082972486 (2:254/235)

Quoting Steve Bainbridge to Michiel van der Vlist <=-

How true. With PSK31, it is basicly RTTY. The best bit about it is,
using SSB you can have a perfect QSO even with very weak received
signals.

But don't you need two such channels for this? Doesn't this and the
FSK nature of the emission increase required bandwidth somewhat?

Richard

--- FMail/386 1.02
* Origin: Another message via PackLink +44(0)2082972486 (2:254/235)

Quoting Roy Witt to Michiel van der Vlist <=-

I guess that's why there's no automated morse IDers on repeaters or HF transmitters.

Yes there are. Marine HF FSK RTTY coast stations do their Idents in
morse

MvdV> Note that the above is in the past tense. All other services have
MvdV> stopped using morse. The military, aviation and marine services,
MvdV> none of them uses morse any more.

Reduced, but MIL and marine still use it as detailed in previous posts

Richard

... "But Officer, I don't even know what kilo-watt means!"


--- FMail/386 1.02
* Origin: Another message via PackLink +44(0)2082972486 (2:254/235)

Quoting Roy Witt to Richard Town <=-

Yes there are. Marine HF FSK RTTY coast stations do their Idents in
morse

Obviously, they'd need some method of IDing. With RTTY, that's a
given. When they discontinue the use of RTTY and begin using digital communications, morse IDing probably won't be there.

Erm, RTTY is digital

Reduced, but MIL and marine still use it as detailed in previous
posts

Not here. Perhaps England is taking a back seat to modern technology.

UK takes a forward seat in winning conflicts.
With or without our friends' assistance

Richard

--- FMail/386 1.02
* Origin: Another message via PackLink +44(0)2082972486 (2:254/235)

Hello Richard,

How true. With PSK31, it is basicly RTTY. The best bit
about it is, using SSB you can have a perfect QSO even
with very weak received signals.

In comparing that and morse, surely being FSK it overall
occupies more bandwidth?

Compared to straight on/off keying there is a theoretical increase in bandwidth
of about 30%. Which is more than compensated for by the much better signal to noise ratio.


73, Michiel

--- InterMail 2.29k
* Origin: PA0MMV, Driebergen, NL (2:280/5555)

Hi Richard,

MvdV> They may have used it in the Gulf war. Note that that
MvdV> already is a decade into the past...

You'll just have to accept that it is used for reasons of
it's virtual impossibility to intercept

I'll accept any use made of morse. I think however that choosing it for it's difficulty to intercept is a mistake. There are many state of the art techniques that are far more difficult to detect, let alone intercept than plain old morse.

especially if used with Picolo

What is Picolo?

MvdV> The official point of view of the RDR (the Dutch
MvdV> equivalent of the FCC) is that there is no
MvdV> compelling reason to maintain the morse test as
MvdV> part of the exam since their are no other services
MvdV> left that use morse.

Except between persons of course...

Apparently the official point of view is that this does not exist except in the
amateur service.

MvdV> I gather many governments have taken a similar stance by now.

Many governments have a vested interest in channelling all
personal comms via interceptable routes

I am aware oif that, but I fail to see how this is relevant to the matter at hand.

Cheers, Michiel

--- InterMail 2.29k
* Origin: PA0MMV, Driebergen, NL (2:280/5555)

Hello Richard.

26 Jun 01 09:50, you wrote to Steve Bainbridge:

computer progs, manual morse is a dying art.

Which death will be hastened by those who say it's dying
Are there any repeaters that don't use morse for identity?

Plenty. Most use a CPU based motherboard to run their ID and other
things..


... Real OLD HAMs built their own gear and used Morse!
--- Twit(t) Filter v2.1 (C) 2000
* Origin: -.. . -.- -... -.... .--. .. -..-. .-. (1:10/22)

Hello Michiel.

26 Jun 01 06:59, you wrote to Steve Bainbridge:

you do pass the morse test, there is nothing to satop you
sending by any method you choose.

MvdV> One could use a computer. However morse is a code not designed for
MvdV> automated use.

Actually it's well suited for the automated purpose of IDing. A little hardware and a few diodes and one can have perfectly spaced morse.

MvdV> If one uses automated means, there are methods that
MvdV> are more suitable.

I guess that's why there's no automated morse IDers on repeaters or HF transmitters.

I send/receive morse on 6mtrs using a computer.

MvdV> That only makes sense if the other party is human. Letting two
MvdV> machines talk to each other in morse, is inefficient.

LOL! It's more efficient than two humans pounding a key.

Don't get me wrong, I think morse is very usful, and no
doubt it will always be used by the die hards,

MvdV> It sure will for a long time.

but with things like PSK31 ect and computer progs, manual
morse is a dying art.

MvdV> And so is machine made morse. As I said; letting two machines talk
MvdV> two each other in morse is inefficient.

MvdV> But that is not the issue. The issue is not should we retain morse
MvdV> as a transmission mode, but should we retain the morse test as a
MvdV> requirement for access?

MvdV> For that we have to go back to the original reason for the test.
MvdV> The reason was that we have shared bands. Among the other users are
MvdV> vital and emergency services. We needed to be able to recognise
MvdV> these services so that we could stay out of their way.

MvdV> Note that the above is in the past tense. All other services have
MvdV> stopped using morse. The military, aviation and marine services,
MvdV> none of them uses morse any more.

MvdV> The original reasons for the morse test no longer apply. As a
MvdV> result the "authorities" no longer insist on it. The only ones
MvdV> standing in the way of getting rid of it now are the amateurs
MvdV> themselves...

Not quite. There's the IARU or whatever they call it. Until they change
the requirement, the test is still required by every IARU member country.


... She said it was either her or the radio. <over>!
--- Twit(t) Filter v2.1 (C) 2000
* Origin: -.. . -.- -... -.... .--. .. -..-. .-. (1:10/22)

Hello Richard.

16 Jul 01 11:30, you wrote to me:

Yes there are. Marine HF FSK RTTY coast stations do their Idents in
morse

Obviously, they'd need some method of IDing. With RTTY, that's a
given. When they discontinue the use of RTTY and begin using digital
communications, morse IDing probably won't be there.

Erm, RTTY is digital

If you insist.

Reduced, but MIL and marine still use it as detailed in previous
posts

Not here. Perhaps England is taking a back seat to modern
technology.

UK takes a forward seat in winning conflicts.

Got any handguns in your house?

With or without our friends' assistance

:o)


... Real OLD HAMs built their own gear and used Morse!
--- Twit(t) Filter v2.1 (C) 2000
* Origin: Kicking Back, Six Paydays Included (1:10/22)

Hi

How true. With PSK31, it is basicly RTTY. The best bit about it is,

using SSB you can have a perfect QSO even with very weak received
signals.

But don't you need two such channels for this? Doesn't

No just the one channel.It works like normal RTTY except the data is encrypted Get a copy of winpsk31 off the net and have a play.

Steve

--- Gecho/32 1.20/Pro
* Origin: Transponder BBs Liverpool UK +44 151 226 4631 (2:250/220)