[Boatanchors] historical question who many running CW compared to the 60s?

[Bry Carling]

Let us hear you on CW Bill!

14,000 folks in SKCC would welcome a QSO with you.

Best regards - Brian Carling
 AF4K Crystal Co.
http://af4k.com

Tel: 321-262-5471




> On Nov 30, 2015, at 4:25 AM, Fuqua, Bill L <wlfuqu00 at uky.edu> wrote:
> 
>   So many using  keyboard rather than key these days. 
> I find it annoying, 
> 73
> Bill wa4lav
> ________________________________________
> From: Boatanchors [boatanchors-bounces at puck.nether.net] on behalf of Ed Sharpe via Boatanchors [boatanchors at puck.nether.net]
> Sent: Monday, November 30, 2015 3:14 AM
> To: gzook at yahoo.com; bcarling at cfl.rr.com
> Cc: boatanchors at puck.nether.net; tetrode at googlegroups.com; Novice-Rigs at mailman.qth.net
> Subject: Re: [Boatanchors] historical question who many running CW compared     to the 60s?
> 
> Thanks Glenn!  that is interesting!  Good  to hear  there is interest.  but
> what  do you attribute an increase to  even when it is not  needed?
> Ed#
> 
> 
> In a message dated 11/29/2015 8:39:53 P.M. US Mountain Standard Time,
> gzook at yahoo.com writes:
> 
> 
> Interestingly enough, the number of people  who are now actually learning
> the International Morse code is increasing even  though a working knowledge
> of the code is no longer required.  However,  at least when listening to the
> bands, the actual percentage of operators using  CW, as opposed to using
> SSB, is quite small.  Of course, on one of the  few weekends during the year,
> when there is a major CW contest, like this  weekend, the usage is
> considerable.  But, after 0000Z this evening, the  number of signals dropped to almost
> zero!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remembering back to the 1960s, if I am  remembering correctly, the actual
> number of CW stations operating, at any 1  time, was considerably more than
> what it is today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, in those "goode olde dayes",  considering the average wages of
> people, equipment was considerably more  expensive in terms of percentage of
> wages.  Back then, CW equipment was  often barely affordable, by most
> amateur radio operators, AM transmitters were  expensive, and, until at least
> around 1966, SSB equipment was, generally, VERY  expensive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, low powered AM equipment, like  the Heath DX-40 and DX-60, were
> not that expensive.  But, especially on  80, 40, and 20-meters, after dark,
> when the "big boys" came on, those with the  low powered equipment went to
> CW or stopped operating completely.  Today,  when inflation is taken into
> consideration, and the effective purchasing power  of money is considered,
> equipment is dirt cheap!  One can get, today, a  100-watt SSB, AM, FM, CW HF
> transceiver for quite a bit less than what a  100-watt output AM / CW
> transmitter cost, in equivalent purchasing power, in  the 1960s and that equipment is
> light years ahead in terms of  performance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Glen,  K9STH
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Website:  http://k9sth.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________
> From: "COURYHOUSE at aol.com"  <COURYHOUSE at aol.com>
> To: gzook at yahoo.com; bcarling at cfl.rr.com
> Cc:  boatanchors at puck.nether.net; tetrode at googlegroups.com;
> Novice-Rigs at mailman.qth.net
> Sent: Sunday, November 29, 2015 8:54  PM
> Subject: historical  question who many running CW compared to the 60s?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> historical question :How many operators are running CW now compared  to the
> 60s?  numbers? percentage?   I am curious.
> Ed Sharpe Archivist  for SMECC
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Boatanchors mailing list
> Boatanchors at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/boatanchors
> _______________________________________________
> Boatanchors mailing list
> Boatanchors at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/boatanchors