Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |