Dan/W4NTI wrote:
"Hamguy" wrote in message
...
Phone would'a kicked all of their asses! Heck...Echolink would have
SMOKED
'em too!

Think so, do you? I'll bet I can get more thru put on CW than you
can on
phone in the same amount of time. I'm not talking about a short
sentence.
I mean real traffic.

Dan/W4NTI

My money would be on Dan. He is a "real" cw operator, good fist too!

Les

"Dan/W4NTI" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Hamguy" wrote in message
...

Phone would'a kicked all of their asses! Heck...Echolink would have
SMOKED
'em too!

Think so, do you? I'll bet I can get more thru put on CW than you can on
phone in the same amount of time. I'm not talking about a short sentence.
I mean real traffic.

Dan/W4NTI



Tell him Dan.
We don't need no stinking text messaging.

Echolink : Play amateur radio operator "No radio or antenna needed".

Ace - WH2T

On 14 May 2005 17:53:38 -0700, wrote:
NNTP-Posting-Host: 131.22.200.44 - nelson.keesler.af.mil

My money would be on Dan. He is a "real" cw operator, good fist too!

Says Les as he (1) misuses taxpayer-furnished computing equipment at
Keesler AFB, and (2) fails to mention that he doesn't hold a ham
license and therefore isn't qualified to comment on someone's "fist."

The really odd part of this whole thread is that anyone at all thinks
the subject is important. If a code operator can send faster than
someone at an itty-bitty keyboard can, does a fish need a bicycle?

Dan/W4NTI wrote:

What a butt whippin. That so called "worlds fastest texter" was in total
shock when two average "real hams" whooped him like grannies stepchild. At
least twice as fast than so called modern technology.

Dan/W4NTI

I was sent this and thought it would fit in whit this post.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, the message consisted of 39 characters sent in approx. 22
seconds, which using the FCC rule of 5 characters per word comes out to
about 22 WPM, not 41. SMS is limited to 160 characters per message,
which the kid said he's entered in 57 seconds, and that would come out
to 32 WPM using the same rule. There is some latency in SMS, the telcos
say it's less than 10 sec. But the point is, the CW ops won with a
comfortable margin of error even though they used a slower rate than
they could have. Here are a few comments from K6CTW, who was on the
receiving end:

-----------------------------------------------

Well to answer some of the questions I have received:

1. Ben was just getting ready to start entering the last 2 words when I
was done.

2. None of us had any idea of the text we would be sending, not only for
the "show" but also for the 3 rehersals (in which we smoked em every time)
3. Chip, K7JA was sending and I, Ken, K6CTW was receiving.
4. The radios were FT-817's provided by Chip's company Yaesu and HRO.
Reason for that choice was that we needed the most frequency agile
radios we could get. When I talked to the technical folks, they
recommended we START at 2 meters and go up because of all of the lower
frequency noise and RFI from the other TV equipment. When I got there,
we took out a spectrum analyzer and studied all of the interference
possibilities. I ended up choosing 432.200 MHz because that guaranteed
no RFI from their equipment and we were high enough not to overload
their front ends either. This was then verified and it was what we were
using at the FT-817's lowest setting.

5. I already knew that 28-30 wpm would easily keep us in front of even
the current world record holder, and also it is the fastest speed that I
can make nice readable copy on paper with a "stick".

6. The telegrapher "costumes" were the producer's idea but it was fun
for both Chip and I.

7. In rehersal I, K6CTW had a number of lines which would have really
done a nice job of plugging ham radio and telegraphy however at our last
dress rehersal, they decided to cut them out to make the segment "fit".
(maybe next time).

8. I decided that I would be the receiver because I'm not bothered by
crowd noise etc.

If you enjoyed the segment, PLEASE email, write, etc. to let "The
Tonight Show" know about it. That way we may have a chance for a bigger
segment next time.
Thanks for the kind comments from all and let's keep on having fun! (It
is a hobby after all).

73,
Ken, K6CTW
-----------------------------------------------
73, Bob W9RAN

Dr.Ace - WH2T wrote:
"Dan/W4NTI" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Hamguy" wrote in message
. ..


Phone would'a kicked all of their asses! Heck...Echolink would have
SMOKED
'em too!


Think so, do you? I'll bet I can get more thru put on CW than you can on
phone in the same amount of time. I'm not talking about a short sentence.
I mean real traffic.

Dan/W4NTI




Tell him Dan.
We don't need no stinking text messaging.

Echolink : Play amateur radio operator "No radio or antenna needed".

Ace - WH2T



How do you figure that the CW throughput will beat phone - at least for
clear text. I know that good CW ops can sail along at 50 wpm ( like my
Dad, unfortunately not me). But I thought speech was more like 200-300
wpm. So if you do not need to spell out unusual words, phone should
beat CW easily. The results could differ if we factor in odd ball words
or code groups and QRM/QRN but I thought this was simply clear text.
John

Dan must be pretty fast if he can pound-out 200-300 words per minute!
Again...phone/voice will beat CW ANY day in a speed contest.




"KC8GXW" wrote in message
...


Dan/W4NTI wrote:

What a butt whippin. That so called "worlds fastest texter" was in
total
shock when two average "real hams" whooped him like grannies stepchild.
At
least twice as fast than so called modern technology.

Dan/W4NTI

I was sent this and thought it would fit in whit this post.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
First, the message consisted of 39 characters sent in approx. 22
seconds, which using the FCC rule of 5 characters per word comes out to
about 22 WPM, not 41. SMS is limited to 160 characters per message,
which the kid said he's entered in 57 seconds, and that would come out
to 32 WPM using the same rule. There is some latency in SMS, the telcos
say it's less than 10 sec. But the point is, the CW ops won with a
comfortable margin of error even though they used a slower rate than
they could have. Here are a few comments from K6CTW, who was on the
receiving end:

-----------------------------------------------

Well to answer some of the questions I have received:

1. Ben was just getting ready to start entering the last 2 words when I
was done.

2. None of us had any idea of the text we would be sending, not only for
the "show" but also for the 3 rehersals (in which we smoked em every time)
3. Chip, K7JA was sending and I, Ken, K6CTW was receiving.
4. The radios were FT-817's provided by Chip's company Yaesu and HRO.
Reason for that choice was that we needed the most frequency agile
radios we could get. When I talked to the technical folks, they
recommended we START at 2 meters and go up because of all of the lower
frequency noise and RFI from the other TV equipment. When I got there,
we took out a spectrum analyzer and studied all of the interference
possibilities. I ended up choosing 432.200 MHz because that guaranteed
no RFI from their equipment and we were high enough not to overload
their front ends either. This was then verified and it was what we were
using at the FT-817's lowest setting.

5. I already knew that 28-30 wpm would easily keep us in front of even
the current world record holder, and also it is the fastest speed that I
can make nice readable copy on paper with a "stick".

6. The telegrapher "costumes" were the producer's idea but it was fun
for both Chip and I.

7. In rehersal I, K6CTW had a number of lines which would have really
done a nice job of plugging ham radio and telegraphy however at our last
dress rehersal, they decided to cut them out to make the segment "fit".
(maybe next time).

8. I decided that I would be the receiver because I'm not bothered by
crowd noise etc.

If you enjoyed the segment, PLEASE email, write, etc. to let "The
Tonight Show" know about it. That way we may have a chance for a bigger
segment next time.
Thanks for the kind comments from all and let's keep on having fun! (It
is a hobby after all).

73,
Ken, K6CTW
-----------------------------------------------
73, Bob W9RAN

Top posting to save some scrolling.

All of this comes down to one thing, CW beat the TEXT guys. Whatever is
faster or slower, the rabbit or the hare, it's all redundant. There has
been three such test that I've heard of and in all three CW won. Maybe
the text lagged by 10 seconds, maybe K6CTW filled in the last 2 words.
The bottom line is that it was a race and CW won!

Hamguy wrote:
Dan must be pretty fast if he can pound-out 200-300 words per minute!
Again...phone/voice will beat CW ANY day in a speed contest.




"KC8GXW" wrote in message
...


Dan/W4NTI wrote:


What a butt whippin. That so called "worlds fastest texter" was in

total

shock when two average "real hams" whooped him like grannies stepchild.

At

least twice as fast than so called modern technology.

Dan/W4NTI

I was sent this and thought it would fit in whit this post.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

--

First, the message consisted of 39 characters sent in approx. 22
seconds, which using the FCC rule of 5 characters per word comes out to
about 22 WPM, not 41. SMS is limited to 160 characters per message,
which the kid said he's entered in 57 seconds, and that would come out
to 32 WPM using the same rule. There is some latency in SMS, the telcos
say it's less than 10 sec. But the point is, the CW ops won with a
comfortable margin of error even though they used a slower rate than
they could have. Here are a few comments from K6CTW, who was on the
receiving end:

-----------------------------------------------

Well to answer some of the questions I have received:

1. Ben was just getting ready to start entering the last 2 words when I
was done.

2. None of us had any idea of the text we would be sending, not only for
the "show" but also for the 3 rehersals (in which we smoked em every time)
3. Chip, K7JA was sending and I, Ken, K6CTW was receiving.
4. The radios were FT-817's provided by Chip's company Yaesu and HRO.
Reason for that choice was that we needed the most frequency agile
radios we could get. When I talked to the technical folks, they
recommended we START at 2 meters and go up because of all of the lower
frequency noise and RFI from the other TV equipment. When I got there,
we took out a spectrum analyzer and studied all of the interference
possibilities. I ended up choosing 432.200 MHz because that guaranteed
no RFI from their equipment and we were high enough not to overload
their front ends either. This was then verified and it was what we were
using at the FT-817's lowest setting.

5. I already knew that 28-30 wpm would easily keep us in front of even
the current world record holder, and also it is the fastest speed that I
can make nice readable copy on paper with a "stick".

6. The telegrapher "costumes" were the producer's idea but it was fun
for both Chip and I.

7. In rehersal I, K6CTW had a number of lines which would have really
done a nice job of plugging ham radio and telegraphy however at our last
dress rehersal, they decided to cut them out to make the segment "fit".
(maybe next time).

8. I decided that I would be the receiver because I'm not bothered by
crowd noise etc.

If you enjoyed the segment, PLEASE email, write, etc. to let "The
Tonight Show" know about it. That way we may have a chance for a bigger
segment next time.
Thanks for the kind comments from all and let's keep on having fun! (It
is a hobby after all).

73,
Ken, K6CTW
-----------------------------------------------
73, Bob W9RAN

KC8GXW wrote:

Top posting to save some scrolling.

All of this comes down to one thing, CW beat the TEXT guys. Whatever is
faster or slower, the rabbit or the hare, it's all redundant. There has
been three such test that I've heard of and in all three CW won. Maybe
the text lagged by 10 seconds, maybe K6CTW filled in the last 2 words.
The bottom line is that it was a race and CW won!

(2) Yaesu FT-817's $1178.45
(2) Telegrapher uniforms $ 156.99
The look on the text guys face Priceless

Lloyd wrote:
On 14 May 2005 17:53:38 -0700, wrote:
NNTP-Posting-Host: 131.22.200.44 - nelson.keesler.af.mil

My money would be on Dan. He is a "real" cw operator, good fist
too!

Says Les as he (1) misuses taxpayer-furnished computing equipment at
Keesler AFB, and (2) fails to mention that he doesn't hold a ham
license and therefore isn't qualified to comment on someone's "fist."

The really odd part of this whole thread is that anyone at all thinks
the subject is important. If a code operator can send faster than
someone at an itty-bitty keyboard can, does a fish need a bicycle?

I can copy it faster than you can send it peckerbreath!

Les

wrote in message
oups.com...

Dan/W4NTI wrote:
"Hamguy" wrote in message
...
Phone would'a kicked all of their asses! Heck...Echolink would have
SMOKED
'em too!

Think so, do you? I'll bet I can get more thru put on CW than you
can on
phone in the same amount of time. I'm not talking about a short
sentence.
I mean real traffic.

Dan/W4NTI

My money would be on Dan. He is a "real" cw operator, good fist too!

Les


Thanks Les, good to hear from you again.

Dan/W4NTI