RadioBanter - View Single Post

July 30th 05, 02:02 AM

wrote:
From: K=D8=88B on Jul 29, 12:46 pm

"an old friend" wrote

gee I need more than the word of the people who developed it

The people who developed it did not call it an encryption method. (For =
the
simple reason that no cryptology is involved.)

Tsk, tsk, TSK! You FORGOT to mention the "papers" on the ARRL
website describing Peter Martinez' PSK31. [that's not like you]

You are skirting a very grey line on "cryptology." PSK31 is
NOT about "intentional obscuration of the meaning of a
communications," the boilerplate statement in Part 97 on
what can be sent or not sent by radio amateurs.

On the other hand, PSK31 is sufficiently UNLIKE conventional
TTY codings that it cannot be decoded by any TTY machinery
or even Hellschreiber.

and most artical I have read deal quickly with showing the PSK 31 which
Is a modulation different than most and an encoding of the character
different than most, that everyond kept talking about why is wasn't an
ilgeal code

Too many have the emotional labeling of "cryptology" in regards
to secrets and spies. In checking out Webster's New World
Dictionary, Prentice-Hall 1989, it defines "cryptography" as
"the art of writing or deciphering messages in code." Tsk, that
would apply to morse codes, wouldn't it? :-)

indeed it does as has been pointed out to hands in this or other
threads to Hans

a point or 2 about Morse as it compares to PSK 31

When someone says PSK 31 they mean the modulation and the character set

much like Morse Code you have the modulation which is assumed to be
OOKed CW, but doesn't have to realy (we have MCW sounds of dit and dah
on FM voice, or maybe alsoused to ID anautoumatic SSB to for all I
know)and the letter set

One could send Morse by FSK keying makeing it sound more like RTTY than
anything any ham would reconize and Morse, but one always means int eh
ARS the very specail mode/letter set
=20
dit bit