"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ...
"N2EY" wrote in message
m...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...
"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
there is nothing "magical" about Morse
and the insistence on using "wetware" instead of software to do the
decoding is an anomaly of ham radio.
And you say you're not against the use of the mode, just the test,
Carl?
;-)
That's correct... I am NOT against the use of the mode.
Maybe. But the way you write about the mode makes me wonder. For
example, when you call those who use the mode "beepers" and other
disparaging names, a different image is projected by you.
Just pointing
out the fact that there are better modulation/coding techniques than OOK
Morse ...
Ah, see, there you go. "Better modulation/coding techniques than OOK
Morse", with no qualifiers as to how they are "better".
OK ... "Better" in terms of weak signal performance, data throughput,
and reliability (robustness in the face of channel impariments and lack
of operator error in decoding).
Does that satisfy you?
Not really. How about this:
"There exist some 'digital' modes other than OOK Morse which
outperform OOK Morse in various performance measures such as (but not
limited to) weak signal performance, data throughput, robustness in
the face of certain channel impairments, and lack of decoding error,
though not necessarily all at the same time. OOK Morse will outperform
all other 'digital' modes now in use in equipment simplicity and
adaptability to human operator encoding and decoding by non-visual
means. OOK Morse will also outperform some other 'digital' modes in
various performance measures such as (but not limited to) weak signal
performance, data throughput, robustness in the face of certain
channel impairments, and operator-detected data errors."
IOW, it all depends on what criteria you use for "better". Morse is
better for some things, while other 'digital' modes are better for
other things. Or perhaps we should say that Morse is better in some
way, while other 'digital' modes are better in other ways.
For example, look at PSK-31. Uses very little bandwidth, has some
error detection/correction, very good weak-signal performance in the
face of Gaussian noise. OTOH, it requires a very stable transmitter
and receiver, and is usually implemented by means of a
soundcard-equipped PC, greatly increasing equipment power consumption
and complexity. PSK-31 is also susceptible to phase distortion and
noise, both in the equipment and the transmission channel. (This is
one reason why it is sometimes possible to 'hear' a PSK-31 signal but
the decoder cannot decode the received signal).
Other 'digital' modes have their own strengths and weaknesses.
that does NOT mean that I mind/care/object to others CHOOSING
to use OOK Morse ...
Yet you wrote:
"there is nothing "magical" about Morse and the insistence on using
"wetware" instead of software to do the decoding is an anomaly of ham
radio."
There is nothing "magical" about Morse ...
Sure there is - it's fun for hundreds of thousands of hams all over
the world. But of course that fact alone is no reason to have test for
it.
You're missing some of the main motivations of most radio amateurs,
Carl - they see radio as fun, as an end in itself, as "magic". That
"magic" is not limited to Morse code, of course. But take away the
"magic" and you take away the motivation for most hams.
Maybe "There is nothing "magical" about Morse" for YOU, but for
others, there is.
with the exception of the
(mis)use of the term "magical" in the nostalgia sense. (That doesn't
mean it's "bad" ... just that it has no magical, mystical properties ...
nor does any other mode, for that matter, it's just a matter of physics.)
You're missing the motivational forest for the reductionist trees,
Carl.
Consider an analogy - why do people bother to learn how to play
musical instruments anymore, and pay serious sums of money for
instruments and lessons, when almost any music and instrument can be
synthesized much more easily? Why do orchestras still exist, and why
do people go to concerts, when so many excellent recordings exist,
more are being produced every day, sound reproduction quality is
excellent and the whole thing can be synthesized by feeding the sheet
music into a computer anyway?
The answer is simple - people want to experience the "magic" of live
perfomance by human beings.
Or consider this: Why are there so many different type fonts? It's
understandable that there be different sizes of type in, say, a
newspaper, but why does ever wordprocessor allow such a wide range of
choices of what the letters and numbers look like? Does the meaning of
a word change if it's printed in Arial Bold instead of Times New
Roman?
and
"This "do it the hard way, rather than the smart way" approach to
things
that is held by so many hams leads to stagation, backwardness, etc."
I maintain that the statement is true.
It's your opinion, nothing more. Is the marathon "stagnated and
backward" because it's done "the hard way"? After all, it would be so
much easier on roller skates. How about swimming - why won't they
allow the use of flippers in swimming competitions?
If you say those things aren't "technical", just look at Indy-car
racing. All sorts of limitations on what can be entered into
competition on that circuit.
Note I said "so many hams" ... not ALL hams.
I did. "so many hams" implies that there are a lot of them.
only that I am disseminating some facts that the more
"hard-core" Morse enthusiasts don't like disseminated because they fly
in
the face of the "Morse Myths" (like "Morse will get through were nothing
else will.")
There you go again. I'm about as hard-core a Morse enthusiast as you
will ever come across, yet have you ever seen me write "Morse will get
through were nothing else will" ? I don't think so.
I know you're a hard-core Morse enthusiast, but you're not as narrow-minded
about it as SOME (I did limit the comment to SOME) ... and I don't see you
as having a "religious zeal" or "I'm superior" attitude ... to your credit.
Then I'm a living disproof of your statement.
Yes. When you describe someone's choise of mode as "the hard way" and
"ridiculous!!!!!", it becomes difficult to accept that you don't
"mind/care/object to others CHOOSING to use OOK Morse ..."
Take me at my word ... I was talking about fanatical attitudes, not the
norm.
Who defines what is 'fanatical'? Many would say that the insistence on
total removal of code testing is 'fanatical', given the extremely
basic nature of Element 1 and the many training methods now available.
And the fact is that you were ridiculing others' choice of mode for a
particular use, while not being able to demonstrate a 'better' way.
[more on EME when I have something to report ... this summer is
intended for some serious antenna work ... winter should bring some
progress on other projects that work demands have kept me from
longer than I had hoped]
OK, fine. Let us know when you have something working. Please note
that the challenge is to develop a system that is easy and inexpensive
for most hams to implement. For example, it should not take 'serious
antenna work' for such a system. A single Yagi or small dish on a
polar mount with an inexpensive rotator/indicator is what's needed,
with all parts readily available. Just a suggestion if you want the
system to ever be widely accepted.
(I am not so hung up on myself that "my way" and "what I've done" are
the
ONLY ways that things can/should be done.)
Sure you are, Carl. For example, you insist that the only correct way
for the future of amateur radio is without any form of code testing,
regardless of what the majority wants. That's insisting on "your way".
1) I believe I am right. YMMV
But you INSIST on your way (no code test of any kind for any amateur
license anywhere) as the only way.
2) I am not at all convinced that "the majority wants" something other
than what I am advocating.
Look at the comments to 98-143. The MAJORITY of those who bothered to
comment wanted two or more code test speeds, and no "sunset clause".
That is very, very different from what you advocate.
There hasn't been an effective poll or survey of what the amateur
community wants in the code-test area in many, many years. So nobody
really knows. But when it mattered, the majority of those who
expressed an opinion disagreed with you.
I think FCC knows this and will bypass any NPRM, NOI or other
rulemaking method that allows public commentary, and will simply dump
Element 1 by MO&O as soon as they can do so legally. One little
sentence, something like 'Credit for Element 1 is hereby granted to
all applicants for and holders of an amateur radio license of any
class'. Poof, bye bye code test, game over, thank you for playing.
What "bothers me" is that some folks deny the fact that there ARE better
ways than OOK Morse (apparently in an attempt to bolster their "real
ham" and "everyone MUST know Morse" viewpoints)
That's because your statement is too general. You don't define what
you mean by "better" in any way. And you don't seem to accept that
Morse is better in some ways, while other modes are better in other
ways.
I've attempted to define "better" better above :-)
Your new definition is somewhat better but still far too general. And
you still don't mention the fact that Morse is better in some ways,
while other modes are better in other ways.
Good luck with the EME system.
73 de Jim, N2EY
|