RadioBanter - View Single Post

October 15th 04, 05:41 PM

(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...
In article , "Kim"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Steve

In article ,

(Len Over 21) writes:

Morse code is slower that ALL modes.

"slower that ALL"??

Dug this up this morning. Goodness, it's getting hard to find anything on
this newsgroup that is really worth even bothering with.

"Morse code is slower than ALL modes." Hmmmm, that's a rather interesting
observation. I think it would have to be determined on when and where. If
there's a CW net in progress and there are not very experienced people, then
it probably would be pretty darned slow--and repetitive.

Kim, you are welcome to hold any belief system you wish, but the
FACT that on-off-keyed "CW" morse IS the slowest communications
mode in use today or in use a half century ago.

I think you left out a word there, Len.

In any event, "CW" Morse Code is *not* the slowest communications mode
in use.

And that's a fact.

I've seen it up close
and personal throughout this whole past half century.

Maybe "up close", but you haven't been operating Morse Code for this
whole past half century. Kim has more Morse Code operating experience
than you do, Len.

It is evidenciary
in the REST of the radio communications world.

What is?

The slowest teleprinter rates of a half century ago was 60 WPM and,
to some degree still with old, worn-out surplus teleprinters of that
era.

So?

With Mark-Space shift of 170 Hz, those old, cranky 60 WPM
Teletypes need less than 400 Hz of bandwidth to transmit in FSK.

That's about right. They also require considerable additional
equipment to send or receive.

Those ancient machines (already around well before Jimmie was
born) can run continuously at 60 WPM throughput as long as they
are fed paper rolls and paper tape.

They require no maintenance? No replacement of ribbons, no
lubrication, no cleaning, just paper and tape?

If so, why did you call them "cranky"?

The point you gloss over is that bit about the paper tape. Somebody
has to punch that tape, complete with "LTRS" and "FIGS" and "LF" and
"CR", or the message is quickly garbled.

I once watched over 200 such
teleprinters busy, busy working continuously 24/7 in the same
place on several "networks."

"Watched"...that's the key word.

Did they require no maintenance?

And why are you living in the past, Len?

Several years back, hams pioneered the use of a new mode called
PSK-31. Does about 50 wpm maximum in about a 32 Hz bandwidth. Does
upper and lower case, and more symbols than the old 5 level Baudot
code. Easily implemented on PCs with free software. Even has a level
of error correction built in.

Lots of other "soundcard modes" in use by hams, too.

Why all this focus on old RTTY machines?

The old electromechanical Teletypes of the 1970s can sustain 100
WPM throughput as long as the old 1940s era machines did. A
modern PC can emulate either of them and go faster, having much
more mass memory to store archives of network messages.

Of course.

But the fact remains that *somebody* has to type the messages in. And
the system can be no faster than the typing speed of that operator,
and no more accurate. If the operators type 10 wpm, the system is a 10
wpm system, no matter how fast the machines are.

In the WW2 era, high speed Morse Code systems were developed and used
on HF radio. The sending operator would send Morse into a recorder
first. Then the recording would be used to key the transmitter at very
high rates of speed - several hundred WPM was used successfully when
conditions were good. At the receiving end, the high speed
transmission was recorded, then played back at slower speed for
transcription.

The systems were developed not for transmission speed but to reduce
the ability of others to DF the transmitting station.

Hams are currently using a modernized version of the technique for
meteor-scatter communications.

It is the EXCEPTIONAL rarity now to find any two morsemen at
each end of a ham radio circuit

Yes, it is a rarity to find two operators at each end of a circuit.
Usually it only takes one.

who can do SUSTAINED "network"
communications by on-off-keyed "CW" morse at 40 WPM for
hours.

How do you know, Len? You don't operate CW/Morse. You're not a ham.
Maybe you've seen it done a few times, but that's all.

HOURS. Networks need hours if the number of messages
are great.

So? You keep telling us that "ham radio is a hobby". If so, why all
the fuss about "networks" and "great numbers of messages"?

What about just communicating with each other on the radio? Morse Code
is really good for that. But you wouldn't know about that...

I've known a couple of speed freak morsemen who had regular
QSOs along the California coast, doing bursting rates of about
60 WPM for a minute or so at a time. I took their word for it, not
hearing their ham transmissions.

So you really don't know at all.

A minute or so at a high rate of
morse is not good enough for real networking, copying down and
recording for later re-transmission of message content.

Why is that important to hams?

However, under dire circumstances when, presumably, a CW net would be
underway with very experienced communicators and would be the fastest, most
efficient method of communication (hands down, no pun intended). For once,
this is a thread wherein the real point of CW can be highlighted. CW may or
may not ALWAYS be the "one mode that gets through when no other will." But,
it's hard to argue that CW--if clear and done well--is the fastest and most
efficient mode.

Nonsense alive and well only in the imaginative fantasies of mighty
macho morsemen.

Is Kim a "mighty macho morsemen"?

Real networks don't operate on imagination.

All networks start with an idea.

"Error-free" messages don't get relayed through self-glorified boasting.

Then why do you do so much of that, Len? ;-)

The rest of the radio communications AND wire communications world
learned that between a full century and a half century ago. That's why
NONE of them use morse code for message communications now.

Not true at all.

All that said, I think that radiotelegraphy IS faster than the old British
and French semaphore communications systems. Morse radio-
telegraphy IS faster than the pony express and IS faster than paper
surface mail. Radiotelegraphy does reach out farther than the human
voice can transmit unaided by anything but the human body.

So you were wrong about it being the slowest mode.

Other than that, morse radiotelegraphy still remains the slowest
mode of communications available to radio amateurs.

Wrong again, Len!

The speed of *any* mode is highly dependent on, and limited by,
operator skills. If the operators can only type 10 wpm, then they can
do 10 wpm RTTY, regardless of how fast the machines go. If someone can
only write at 20 wpm, then voice messaging speed is 20 wpm. Or less,
given the need for phonetics.

This isn't a complicated concept, but you avoid it for some reason.

Those who want to fantasize that morse is "faster" or "better" will
have to set up a controlled test NOT in morse favor to demonstrate
that alleged fact.

Like what? Allowing the RTTY machines to be fed prepunched paper tape,
but requiring the Morse operators to work real-time?

Do you think that's a fair test?

Let all those might macho morsemen sustain
20 to 40 WPM continuously for an 8-hour period...and do the
communications with LESS error than any teleprinter circuit.

All depends on the conditions, Len. Does FSK "always get through"? How
do you account for the additional cost, complexity and power
requirements of RTTY?

btw, back in my college days, the University ham station had a pretty
good amateur RTTY setup. Model 19s and similar stuff, TT-L2
demodulator, Heath scope for tuning in, paper tape, the whole shebang.
Plus a Collins S-line, big antennas, NCL-2000 amplifier, etc. I got
pretty good at using it. Was a lot of fun.

So what it comes down to, Len, is that I have far, far more experience
with and knowledge of RTTY than you have of Morse Code.