RadioBanter - View Single Post

October 19th 04, 01:25 AM

(N2EY) wrote in message . com...
(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message ...
Subject: Doing Battle? Can't Resist Posting?
From: (William)
Date: 10/14/2004 5:34 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

Jim has stated that the throughput of a rtty system may be limited by
the typing speed of the operator. The example he used is that the
rtty operator might only be able to type 10wpm, thus rendering the
rtty a 10wpm machine.

I responded that the throughput of a CW system might be limited by the
Morse Code operator only knowing the code at 10wpm.

I wanted to know how that was different from his example. So far no
response.

No response because I don't read most of what "William" writes here. I
only saw this because it was quoted by Steve.

Of course. Hi!

Besides, why should I answer "William's" questions when he won't
answer mine? Also, I've already answered the above question in another
post.

I didn't see it because I don't read most of what "Jim" posts.

Even if the operator can type 120 WPM, if s/he can't be interrupted in the
midst of the string and asked for a repeat, as a good QSK CW operator can,
then
that error will exist until the end of the transmission and the error
resolved.

That's a side benefit.

Assuming both ops have QSK. And there's nothing inherently wrong with
asking for "all again after xxx." SOP if you know what I mean.

Here's the plain facts:

The speed and accuracy of *any* mode that requires a human operator is
highly dependent upon that operator's skill. Doesn't matter if it's
done with a key, keyboard or microphone. If you have 10 wpm Morse
operators, you have (at best) a 10 wpm system. If you have 10 wpm
teletypists, you have (at best) a 10 wpm system regardless of what the
maximum speed of the system is rated. Same for voice.

That's just common sense.

But you chose to imply that the CW op was somehow better than rtty for
throughput. And you got called on it.

The use of prerecorded storage can speed things up somewhat if, say, a
10 wpm teletypist is punching tape while receiving. But that takes the
systems out of real-time communications. One could prerecord Morse and
transmit it at high speed, as was done over 60 years ago, just as
well.

Unless you have an Extra Class operator who vows to do his best to
make machine copy impossible. Ever heard of such stupidity?

The basic fact is that Morse code is *not* the slowest mode available
to hams.

It is among the very slowest, all else being equal.

Assuming the interruption it to tell the transmitting station that it's
ALL garbled, your 60-100WPM teletype just became zero.

Yup.

Ditto W0EX sent cw.

Various forms of error detection and correction, checksums, ACK/NAK
and other methods can do a lot of that stuff automatically. At a cost
in speed, of course.

But that's not really the issue.

Never is. CW is better than everything else. That is the issue.

A bridge out in the middle of the Autobahn means everyone goes zero until
the bridge is replaced regardless of what the thoroughfare will otherwise
allow. Same thing.

Exactly!

Ever heard of changing bands, or relaying?

Or:

The bridge is down to one lane in each direction, and the speed limit
is such that only 1/10 as many cars/hour get through as would normally
be able to use the bridge. The effective capacity of the road is then
reduced to 1/10 of normal (between the exits before and after the
blockage).

73 de Jim, N2EY

The only blockage are the eyes rolled back Morse Code elitists.