Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
an old friend wrote:
wrote: What you folks are describing is just a form of RTTY using Morse Code as the encoding method, rather than ASCII or Baudot or some other scheme. indeed we are Glad you agree Of course it can be done, and has been done. Why it would be done is another issue. It is certainly not a "better way". that does depend on the goal, and the operator. True enough. Personaly I find the idea of the manual morse and compter morse interacting the only redeeming virtue of the mode (please I know you disagree but go along for a minute) It's just *one* good thing about Morse Code (the ease and flexibility of human-machine interface. There are many more good things (redeeming virtues?) of Morse Code. That someone could use the simple assembly of the QRP rig to reach out to a station like mine reading fby machine and sending it back the same way. One more tool in the toolbox. It is one the few occasion I can realy see much use in the mode during an emergency gives the user the low signal abilities of RTTY or PSK 31 but allowing the station in the affected area to despense with a PC If the operators know Morse Code, there's no reason for a PC at either station. Thus it is 'better" in some ways, indeed I am a much better operator of computer morse than manual and it would make my staion a bteer station by your standards (more modes more abilities) In that regard, it is "better". But it is not universally "better", just as an automobile is not universally "better" than a bicycle. so where your beef? The idea that machine operation is somehow universally better. it is not your cup of tea sure fine Consider a bicycle. If another wheel is added, the rider doesn't need to worry about falling over, so the skill required to ride it is greatly reduced. Add a small gasoline engine and a suitable transmission, and pedaling becomes much easier. A simple cover will protect the rider from rain and other inclement weather. Eventually you wind up with a small, three-wheeled automobile that could win the Tour de France. Except it's not a bicycle anymore, and its rider isn't a cyclist by any stretch of the imagination. Or consider the piano. Pianos and similar keyboard instruments have been around for hundreds of years. It takes considerable skill and practice to play them, and reading sheet music is a skill of its own. With modern computers and software, however, one can simply have a machine that scans in the sheet music and turns it into a "performance" - without all those lessons, practice, etc. all depends on what you want, to listen or to play Point is, there's a big difference. There are many such analogies. But they are lost on some people - those who Shaw described as "knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing." John Smith wrote: Len: Yep, that is one way alright, and produces good results, there are others, some better. Adaptive learning by the program is the key, and the program must learn what the senders' length of a di to a dah is, and the breath of the width he is spanning of each the di and the dah. The amateur abbreviations are in a table, and the dictionary from a spell checker can be borrowed to check decoded morse words against which are not abbreviations. You are right, a high speed machine affords you time to do abundant error checking--and here is where you gain close to 100% accuracy from, final fall back is the ear and the mind, to correct any mistakes the program cannot, yet, handle... All words which do not match the table of abbreviations or the dictionary have a copy of that word thrown into an error file, along with di's represented by periods and dah's represented by underscores or hyphens, of the word thought to be an error. This error file can be studied later and the program "tweaked" to handle such errors in the future. However, what interests me most is your knowledge on the subject, you most certainly have a good grasp of the logic necessary to begin to put one together. Perhaps you have programmed and played with such yourself? Perhaps you have a relative or friend in the field? John On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 22:23:57 -0700, LenAnderson wrote: From: "John Smith" on Tues 2 Aug 2005 20:29 b.b.: They are not "sending code so poorly that a pimply-faced No-Code Tech with a code reader..." can't read it, they are attempting to send so badly that a computer running software coded by one both CW and computer savvy has set up--I suspect they think themselves smarter than the computer... maybe... grin Indeed, a very good programmer would inject "nuances" into the way the app translated his keyboard code to morse, making it virtually impossible for them to tell they were copying automaton generated code, at a very respectable speed! grin I would think it would be a game, an enjoyable one... John, that discussion took place in here a few years ago, my remarking on what I'd seen, lent my Icom HF receiver for an air test, on an ADAPTIVE decoder for morse. It was written by a professional programmer as an intellectual exercise for his own benefit, just wondering if it could be done. The ADAPTIVE part was in automatically adjusting to the differences in weighting of dits and dahs, their combination resulting in a word rate equivalent. The ADAPTIVE part took most of the source code...the translation of morse characters to ASCII for immediate display was a small, small part of the source, just a small look-up table in effect. It was done on a medium-old clock rate PC but would be a snap to work at a 2 GHz clock. To reverse the process, to add weighting to dits and dahs, even to having different weighting for different characters, is a snap with a random number routine. That wasn't done, but is viable without much alteration of the source. The PCTA extras in here will have NONE of such things! They will attempt to THRASH anyone in a monumental display of deus ex machina worthy of the most devout Luddite. shrug don dit |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
wrote: an old friend wrote: wrote: What you folks are describing is just a form of RTTY using Morse Code as the encoding method, rather than ASCII or Baudot or some other scheme. indeed we are Glad you agree Of course it can be done, and has been done. Why it would be done is another issue. It is certainly not a "better way". that does depend on the goal, and the operator. True enough. Personaly I find the idea of the manual morse and compter morse interacting the only redeeming virtue of the mode (please I know you disagree but go along for a minute) It's just *one* good thing about Morse Code (the ease and flexibility of human-machine interface. There are many more good things (redeeming virtues?) of Morse Code. IYO not in mine it is a fact manual morse is quite useless to me and others That someone could use the simple assembly of the QRP rig to reach out to a station like mine reading fby machine and sending it back the same way. One more tool in the toolbox. and yet you opose allowing me in the playing feild at all My station is at least one if not several such tool but you don't wish to allow it without ahvng that ONE tool It is one the few occasion I can realy see much use in the mode during an emergency gives the user the low signal abilities of RTTY or PSK 31 but allowing the station in the affected area to despense with a PC If the operators know Morse Code, there's no reason for a PC at either station. agreed but so what this doesn't justify keeping me from being there and using my sation to help the pcles staion Thus it is 'better" in some ways, indeed I am a much better operator of computer morse than manual and it would make my staion a bteer station by your standards (more modes more abilities) In that regard, it is "better". But it is not universally "better", just as an automobile is not universally "better" than a bicycle. I have never said it was it is your side that varies from stating or impling that Manaul is always better which just isn't so so where your beef? The idea that machine operation is somehow universally better. and my beef is your insitance that manual morse is always better it is not your cup of tea sure fine Consider a bicycle. If another wheel is added, the rider doesn't need to worry about falling over, so the skill required to ride it is greatly reduced. Add a small gasoline engine and a suitable transmission, and pedaling becomes much easier. A simple cover will protect the rider from rain and other inclement weather. Eventually you wind up with a small, three-wheeled automobile that could win the Tour de France. Except it's not a bicycle anymore, and its rider isn't a cyclist by any stretch of the imagination. Or consider the piano. Pianos and similar keyboard instruments have been around for hundreds of years. It takes considerable skill and practice to play them, and reading sheet music is a skill of its own. With modern computers and software, however, one can simply have a machine that scans in the sheet music and turns it into a "performance" - without all those lessons, practice, etc. break all depends on what you want, to listen or to play Point is, there's a big difference. which by analogy is up to me. Id rather listen than play that tune and what about Manual Morse justifies making ME play that tune? |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
BBC Says Morse Code Still Alive and Well In UK | Policy | |||
Morse Code: One Wonders... and Begins to Think ! [ -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . ] | Shortwave | |||
Response to "21st Century" Part One (Code Test) | Policy | |||
Some comments on the NCVEC petition | Policy | |||
NCVEC NPRM for elimination of horse and buggy morse code requirement. | Policy |