Return-Path: Received: (qmail 59571 invoked from network); 5 Aug 2004 20:39:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ptb-spamcore02.plus.net) (192.168.71.3) by ptb-mailstore01.plus.net with SMTP; 5 Aug 2004 20:39:01 -0000 Received: from mailnull by ptb-spamcore02.plus.net with spamcore-l-b (Exim 4.32; FreeBSD) id 1Bsp3h-000GQH-S2 for dave@picks.force9.co.uk; Thu, 05 Aug 2004 21:41:54 +0100 Received: from [192.168.67.1] (helo=ptb-mxcore01.plus.net) by ptb-spamcore02.plus.net with esmtp (Exim 4.32; FreeBSD) id 1Bsp3h-000GQE-Po for dave@picks.force9.co.uk; Thu, 05 Aug 2004 21:41:53 +0100 Received: from post.thorcom.com ([193.82.116.20]) by ptb-mxcore01.plus.net with esmtp (Exim 4.30; FreeBSD) id 1Bsp0u-000Not-RY for dave@picks.force9.co.uk; Thu, 05 Aug 2004 20:39:00 +0000 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1Bsp0e-0000Du-NX for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Thu, 05 Aug 2004 21:38:44 +0100 Received: from [193.82.116.30] (helo=relay.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1Bsp0e-0000Dl-BA for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 05 Aug 2004 21:38:44 +0100 Received: from thumbler.kulnet.kuleuven.ac.be ([134.58.240.45]) by relay.thorcom.net with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1Bsp0a-0004X0-V6 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Thu, 05 Aug 2004 21:38:44 +0100 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by thumbler.kulnet.kuleuven.ac.be (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86815137655 for ; Thu, 5 Aug 2004 22:38:35 +0200 (CEST) Received: from antonius.kulnet.kuleuven.ac.be (antonius.kulnet.kuleuven.ac.be [134.58.240.73]) by thumbler.kulnet.kuleuven.ac.be (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB1811376A6 for ; Thu, 5 Aug 2004 22:38:34 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (webmail2.cc.kuleuven.ac.be [134.58.242.4]) by antonius.kulnet.kuleuven.ac.be (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA1EC4C0D1 for ; Thu, 5 Aug 2004 22:38:34 +0200 (CEST) Received: from 199.37-201-80.adsl.skynet.be (199.37-201-80.adsl.skynet.be [80.201.37.199]) by webmail2.kuleuven.be (IMP) with HTTP for ; Thu, 5 Aug 2004 22:38:34 +0200 Message-ID: <1091738314.41129acab3020@webmail2.kuleuven.be> Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2004 22:38:34 +0200 From: Rik Strobbe To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org References: <003501c479b0$4e06f3e0$4ce4fc3e@l8p8y6> In-Reply-To: <003501c479b0$4e06f3e0$4ce4fc3e@l8p8y6> MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) 3.2-cvs X-Originating-IP: 80.201.37.199 X-Virus-Scanned: by KULeuven Antivirus Cluster X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=no,RCVD_IN_SORBS=0.1 Subject: Re: LF: CW MODE Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.63 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: rs_out_1@blacksheep.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No; SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-Spam-Filtered: by PlusNet SpamCORE (v3.00) Whaw ... I am impressed. Superman is a ham ! 73 Rik ON7YD > It seems every time that CW is mentioned as an efficient mode of > communications, especially on LF when one has to consider bandwidth > because we only have about 2khz available, some seem to get upset and > reply in a derogatory manner. > There is no other mode currently in use that suits radio amateur type > activity when considering bandwidth and transfer of information. > Commercial activity is entirely different where large amounts of > through traffic is essential and the users employ appliance > operators, with basic skills. > I have been involved over the years with FDM and TDM systems and > other associated modes and these are fine for commercial applications > but not suitable for the radio amateur with only a signal report > exchange. > For those enquiring. I started computer technology in the days when > one had to build/assemble their own computer and write the > appropriate software. I also started amateur radio when the only > option was self build, especially the TX or modify ex govt > equipment.The GPO licence then was for CW only for the first 12 > months and phone was only permitted after proving that the licencee > had worked a minimum of 200 successful CW QSO'S. > How things have changed. Some one on here recently remarked that the > most difficult part of getting a radio amateur licence at present was > being able to fill in the appropriate FORMS !!!!!!!!! > > de G3KEV (retired RADIO and Electronics Officer, Aeronautical, Marine > and Fixed Services) > for those who do not know what that means. Licensed to operate from > aircraft, ships, fixed ground stations aeronautical or marine and > government establishments. > The morse test was at a speed of 25 wpm or 30 wpm for the extra class > and the duration of the test was for 15 minutes non stop. The > technical papers examinations required at least 60 percent pass but > most achieved between 70 - 90 percent. > To day the pass mark required is around 30 percent at university. > These statistics might upset even more people !! > > end > > > > > > > >