RadioBanter - View Single Post

October 20th 04, 09:19 PM

In article ,
(William) writes:

(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!

"Steve" who? :-)

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.

"Jim" who? Jimmie Who?

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.

All mighty macho morsemen can do perfect copy. All the time.

They are "qualified" to do so. They have their ancient "degrees"
to prove it (suitable for framing, complete with engraved borders.

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.

We can "call" him on anything but he gots the "answers" which are
supposed to be "correct" and "without error" because he made them.

Hi hi.

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?

Tsk. We shouldn't make fun of W0s who may be SK.

[I think we did that while he was alive - metaphorically speaking -
in here...]

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.

Tsk. From Jimmie Who's vast experience in ALL communications
modes, he might argue that facsimile is "slower" but that isn't really
message/communications transmission but imagery. However, if
"a picture is worth 10,000 words" according to that old saw, then
FAX most definitely has more words per minute than any super
morseman's capability (10,000 "words" taking 10 minutes to FAX
would be 1000 WPM equivalent rate).

The experimental LF amateur trials, not allowed in the USA ham
bands, have been making records for others using "ESSM"
(extremely slow speed morse) which needs a computer and
program to decode. Hardly comparable. :-)

I dunno what he would explain about SSTV but I'm sure that he
could get all pixel-lated about sending imagery via morse. :-)
And "justify" it because interference hit every OTHER mode.
Hi hi!

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.

Tsk. Dick sent garble via computer-modem data in here.

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.

ABSOLUTE!

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?

He was too busy thumbing a ride on the Autobahn... :-)

Or driving a cruise ship bow-on to ice bergs in order to "survive."

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.

To quote a supervisor on a Texas road gang, "Whut we got here is
a failure to communicate!" [from a Paul Newman film "Hud"]

Jimmie must think the Tacoma Narrows bridge is still up and
swaying in Kitsap County, Washington. Aka, "Galloping
Gertie" that collapsed six decades ago. Spectacular failure
shown on "disaster" documentaries on TV. Of course it was
designed by PROFESSIONALS! :-)

Tsk. Oddly enough, the replacement Tacoma Narrows bridge
has been up and running traffic daily for five decades. Of course
that one was also designed and built by PROFESSIONALS! :-)

Jimmie Who is busy trying to build a "bridge over troubled waters."
Little does he know that the water dried up a long time ago, leaving
only a trickle ot morse water to be lapped up by elitist AMATEUR
morsemen.

Tsk. Everyone needs wading boots to walk on that "water."