"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

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

"John" wrote in message
...


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


I base it on my experience as a traffic handler in both Amateur and MARS
radio. I base it on my experience of personally copying 5 character coded
groups in phone and in CW modes on a military circuit.

CW has better through put. You hit on the problem yourself. Having to slow
down to make sure the other operator copied the text sent. Normally by
using the phonetic alphabet. A good CW circuit does not have that problem,
and with the use of "cut" characters a whole word/sentence can be sent
without sending each individual character.

Dan/W4NTI

I hope you idiots that bottom post without snipping almost all of the
relevant quoted message understand that 95% of us wouldn't take the trouble
to see what such an ignoramus posted.

Jim

"John" wrote in message
...

RST Engineering wrote:

I hope you idiots that bottom post without snipping almost all of the
relevant quoted message understand that 95% of us wouldn't take the trouble
to see what such an ignoramus posted.

Jim

I see that your last brain cell finally threw in the towel and died.
:-(

--
Former professional electron wrangler.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida