wrote in message
oups.com...
an_old_friend wrote:
wrote:
Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
Dee Flint wrote:
"Chris" wrote in message
Already tried it.
And dismissed it.
esp dimissing the abilty of the human operator of the machine to fill
in the problems and correct the process
As I said while it is the best that is available, it
is
still far below the capabilities of a human operator.
Correction. ...a few human operators.
indeed the PC alone far exceeds the abilties of many licensed ham
operators but hat doesn't count
I've tried it
under a
wide range of conditions and CWGet still needs a pretty good
signal to
function.
Dee, N8UZE
Morse Myth #119: All CW signals are good signals (Its the corollary
of
Morse Myth #1: CW always gets through).
Unrelated to my comments.
You would like to think that, but without efforts from folks like Carl,
Bill, Len, hans, myself and others, you would still be repeating such
myths, and would never make statements such as "Not all CW signals are
good."
You can thank us, but that's probably not very likely.
No one has said all CW signals are good.
And they aren't.
If they were always good, CWGet
would always work, which it doesn't. The ones who tout the software
solution are those who wish that it would always work.
And those who dismiss the software solution think all amateur operators
are superb morsemen.
In addition, I have repeatedly stated that each and every mode has
its
advantages and disadvantages.
If you were to compare and contrast all existing modes, it think it is
likely that you would claim that CW is the best mode.
The extremists on each side don't want to
hear that.
Dee, N8UZE
Because of the efforts made to dismiss countless Morse Myths over the
years, you were just now able to state that not all CW signals are good
without 1x2 PCTAs pooh poohing such talk.
well it is a thankless job
Dees coming around in her own way, but the brainwashing that she's
undergone is strong. Perhaps in another decade... if there's still an
amateur radio. If only she had been able to think spontaneously and
resist, the brainwashing wouldn't have been so well received.
You are mistaken. I've always been one to think spontaneously. Since I have
personally experienced conditions where it had to be CW or turn off the
radio, I advocate all hams knowing code at a basic level. To insure that
they do learn it at a basic level, testing at some point in the licensing is
appropriate. Before entering these news I'd never heard much discussion
either way on code. My opinions on its usefulness and desireability were
formed based entirely on actual operating experience. I was surprised to
learn that there was a big discussion on it in the amateur community.
I do NOT and never have believed in the arguments about "keeping out the
riffraff", maintaining tradition, or the "I had to so you should to".
It's basic knowledge, pure and simple. Most of the people I know don't use
any of the theory either but it is part of the basic knowledge set. I've
used ohm's law only a couple of times in the 14 years I've been licensed.
I've used the dipole equation half a dozen times. I've never used smith
charts. One could get by without the theory but having learned it, I can
choose where I want to focus my attention in amateur ration.
Dee D. Flint, N8UZE