Mike Coslo wrote:
Len Anderson wrote:

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:


Len Anderson wrote:

In article
.com,
writes:



The big question is: what does it matter if Morse is binary or
not?

. . . finally . . of course not. But you already knew that . .


Quite true. The coslonaut (reaching for the threashold of
space
through surplus helium balloons) originally posted a troll
message
to liven up this "members-only" chat room cum group blog.

You betchya!


Webster's New World Compact School and Office Dictionary
(1989) has the definition of BINARY as following:

"1. Made up of two parts: double 2. designating or of a
number
system in which the base used is two, each number being
expressed by using only two digits, specifically 1 and 0."

How many states are there in Morse code? On, and Off? Is that all?


Coslo, do you have a reading defect? Here's what I wrote:

I can read.

==========
Webster's New World Compact School and Office Dictionary
(1989) has the definition of BINARY as following:

"1. Made up of two parts: double 2. designating or of a
number
system in which the base used is two, each number being
expressed by using only two digits, specifically 1 and 0."

Specifically 1 and 0, indeed.

That is why when we try to make Morse code computer compatible,

We?

W0EX did not, RIP. He specifically stated that he would send Morse
Code so that computer readers (manned by unworthy no-code Technicians)
could not copy his messages.

Besides, if something is digital, why would you have to try so hard to
make it computer compatible?

we
interpret the dah or dash as 3 '1's" in length, (followed by a 0) the

dit or dot as 1 "1" (followed by a 0, and various numbers of 0's for

spaces in between letters or numbers, or words.

As used in all electronics, the first definition is used with an
emphasis on STATE of something, such as on or off, there or
not there. Two-state.

In on-off keying (OOK) CW the carrier is either present or not
there. Two states.

No. At least to only two states. Obviously it is either there or not
there.

It has a time component that is what carries the information. The
"there" or "not thereness" of the signal is one thing. The
relationship
of one carrier pulse length to other carrier pulse length, and to the

intercarrier lack of pulse time is what is important.

Try the null hypothesis. Are you saying the silent periods are
valueless?