N2EY wrote:

In article et, robert casey
writes:


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


Telling "S" from "O" is hard if you don't already
know from looking at other characters what the speed
must be.


No, it's easy.

"S" is one time unit on, one time unit off, one time unit on, one time unit
off, one time unit on. Then at least three time units off.

"O" is three time units on, one time unit off, three time units on, one time
unit off, three time units on. Then at least three time units off.

The only true ambiguity is between "E" and "T" sent all by themselves. Unless
you know the speed from some other source, there's no way to tell them apart.


Something easy for the brain but hard for
computers to do when the sender varies his speed.


Naw, just requires a bit more software.

And let's not forget Farnsworth. This will confuse matters a bit. I
have seen CWGet confuse S for O until it "settles in". My guess is that
Farnsworth Morse might be involved.

But it is odd that a binary method requires all that software. ;^)

But I think I have the confusion figured out. What is happening is that
people are starting by defining Morse code as a 2 state on and off
system, and trying to offer proof of that by suddenly changing that to a
base 2 system.

Can anyone offer a proof that does not switch between the two definitions?

I cannot accept Morse as a two part on and off system because there are
more than two parts, as is made clear when people try to switch to base 2.

- Mike KB3EIA -