"N2EY" wrote in message
om...
"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.
For some digital modes, I would leave out the "though not necessarily all at
the same time" qualifier.
OOK Morse will outperform
all other 'digital' modes now in use in equipment simplicity
So what? Equipment simplicity is a non-starter ... with today's
level of integration, with gates so cheap, there is NO logical
reason to insist that a 1 transistor TX is "better" than a TX with
an IC or several ICs in it ... and the TX is invariably simpler than
the RX ... the RX for FSK, for example can be as simple as
one for OOK CW (maybe simpler).
and
adaptability to human operator encoding and decoding by non-visual
means.
Again, so what? The "human error factor" is, I am quite sure
larger than the probability of a well-coded digital signal being
decoded in error ... and many FEC schemes will "flag" a
decoding error if the coding can't correct it ...
To me, this goes PURELY to the "I like to do it myself." personal
preference for Morse ... I don't deny anyone's right to choose that
preference, but I simply don't see it as bolstering some sort of
"advantage" for Morse.
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,
Which ones will it outperform? As has been elaborated, even simple
BFSK, at the same information transfer rates, has about a 9 dB weak
signal advantage over OOK Morse (technical fact based in the math
and physics of modulation theory ...) Additionally, as I have pointed
out, at the same data rate as, say a 13-20 wpm Morse signal, a human
operator could learn to decode the FSK tone shifts by ear (some have
reportedly done it, but I don't have references to examples).
and operator-detected data errors."
I'll put my money on a good FEC system over a human operator
in bad signal conditions any day ... I've seen HF modems that were
so robust you could unhook the antenna cable for 20-30 seconds
and the system would not drop a single character ... that's how much
coding and interleaving was being employed. And, again, with today's
level of integration, such a device takes an IC or two ... what's the
big deal about that?
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.
Again, I don't buy the arguments about "complexity" ... because of the
low cost of high integration and the inherent reliablilty of such gear.
Power consumption is something that one plans for in one's emergency
preparedness planning ... all of my gear runs from 12VDC and I have
substantial batteries (and the means to charge them for a LONG time
without mains power). I plan to install a propane powered generator
here at the house as well, eventually. With the 1000 gallon propane
tank, and two vehicles as well, I figure I could keep my station batteries,
the notebook computers, etc. charged for months.
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).
PSK-31 has some interesting attributes, but, with all due respect to its
inventor, it is certainly not the "be all and end all" of digital
communications.
(nor do I belive the inventor ever intended it to be ...)
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 using "magical" like Disneyworld uses it ... as a way of saying
that something is entertaining, fun, and has its own "draw" for some
people.
I'm talking about "magical" in the sense of "having special powers to
do things beyond the ordinary." There is nothing "magical" about Morse
in that sense.
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.
See above ...
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.
No, I'm being REALISTIC that there is nothing magical (in the
practical sense) about Morse. (That STILL doesn't mean that
I have any desire to eliminate its use ... I DON'T. I just want
it to be viewed for what it really is ... one mode, whose value
is primarily entertainment/nostalgia and which doesn't deserve
a separate pass/fail test that keeps one from getting an HF license.
[snipped repetitive argments about what constitutes "magic"
and what doesn't]
[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 believe that I have a good grasp of what would be required for
an EME system to gain widespread use ... when I spoke of serious
antenna work above, I was talking about the task of installing at
least one (and preferably two) tower(s) and multiple antenna systems
before winter precludes further work (this is going to be hard, based
on my work travel committments, but I'm REALLY going to work
hard on getting at least one tower and associated antennas up.
(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.
The call was pretty close ... and I am confident that with the
continuing influx of no-code techs and the large number of
folks who have been able to upgrade without jumping through
the unnecessary 13/20 wpm code "hoop," that the tide has
inevitably swung well in the direction that I advocate.
(But, as I and others have previously said, the decision should
NOT be based on a popularity contest in the community of
incumbents, but should, rather, be based on the sound judgement
of the FCC as to what's regulatorily necessary and good for the
future of ham radio.)
Carl - wk3c
|