| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
New Morse training tape
In light of the likelyhood that all US Amateur Radio testing may soon become
code-free, this 16-year-old article from WA6ITF has new applicability. GEARVAKf Research Basis of No-Code Tape --------------------------------------- Turlock, California-- April 32, 1989 - In a surprise announcement that has completely rocked the foundation of the educational community, the Wet-Link C.B. Radio Network has prematurely introduced a new "No-Code CW Training Tape Cassette' which was developed using lack of research material supplied by the world famous Gorbinsky Learning and Forgetting Center of Ohio. This GEARVAKf-sponsored facility is the hub of the GEARVAKf-funded research into "things." In a 1955 report authored two decades before the center was opened, it'sformer Director of Research Into Things, Dr. R. U. Kidding, PhD. (phud), posed the question: "Why is the sky blue and what does this have to do with learning morse code?" Using grant monies provided by the GEARVAKf Grant Monies Institute to Research Things, Dr. Kidding attempted to contact the late Samuel F.B. Morse to ascertain the answer. By 1966, Dr. Kidding had discovered that Morse had been dead for several decades and therefore was not a plausable source for garnering his information. While Dr. Kidding never did learn why the sky is blue, his 1979 paper titled "To Code or Not to Code--Is That a Question?" went unnoticed by the communications community for almost two decades, mainly because it as written in a VIC-20 computer, printed in 23-letter columns, and looked like a grocery list. The paper was resurrected about four days ago by the production staff at Wet-Link C.B. Radio as an excuse to put out a useless tape cassette to teach people No-Code at 0 WPM. Hosted by Niles East, the cassette is designed to instruct the listener and impart enough knowledge so that he or she can pass the Morse Code portion of the FCC No-Code ham radio exam. Since nobody in their right or left mind would buy such trash, the only way to get one is at the WESTLINK REPORT/220 NOTES booth at the 1989 Amateur RadioVention in Dayton, Ohio. The tapes are almost for free, but not quite. GEARVAKf members are advised to show their lack of ID cards while non-members need not. -- WA6ITF |
K=D8HB wrote: In light of the likelyhood that all US Amateur Radio testing may soon bec= ome code-free, this 16-year-old article from WA6ITF has new applicability. GEARVAKf Research Basis of No-Code Tape --------------------------------------- Hans, perhaps now amateurs can learn Morse Code without having unnecessary distraction/hurdles to jump through like the 5WPM, 13WPM, or 20WPM barriers. How long will it take the code teachers and code advocates to catch on to the concept, or will they coninue on with the stepped hoops? |
"b.b." wrote How long will it take the code teachers and code advocates to catch on to the concept, or will they coninue on with the stepped hoops? "Stepped hoops"? In my experience, people tend to learn Morse not in steps, but by gradual increases. Granted that there are some "plateaus" (approximately 10WPM and 25WPM) but these are found to be related to the "mental mechanics" of learning. Up to about 10WPM trainees can still "count the dits", so moving beyond that speed requires them to learn to recognize the "sound of the character" without deliberate "counting the dits". This is what makes the Farnsworth training method effective, in that the trainee is early acquainted to the "sound of the character" at the higher speeds. The 25WPM plateau seems related to sublimating copying to a "middle conscious" level, where the characters flow at an almost sub-conscious level from the ear to the fingertip without active thought about the actual characters heard. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
K=D8HB wrote: "b.b." wrote How long will it take the code teachers and code advocates to catch on to the concept, or will they coninue on with the stepped hoops? "Stepped hoops"? In my experience, people tend to learn Morse not in ste= ps, but by gradual increases. Granted that there are some "plateaus" (approximat= ely 10WPM and 25WPM) but these are found to be related to the "mental mechani= cs" of learning. Up to about 10WPM trainees can still "count the dits", so moving beyond t= hat speed requires them to learn to recognize the "sound of the character" wi= thout deliberate "counting the dits". This is what makes the Farnsworth traini= ng method effective, in that the trainee is early acquainted to the "sound o= f the character" at the higher speeds. The 25WPM plateau seems related to sublimating copying to a "middle consc= ious" level, where the characters flow at an almost sub-conscious level from th= e ear to the fingertip without active thought about the actual characters heard. 73, de Hans, K0HB Like I said... Maybe Morse can go back to being an encoding scheme, and Farnsworth can go back to being a teaching method. And maybe without artificial testing steps, Morse can develop more along the lines human learning and consciousness. |
b.b.:
The internet is wonderful. I just completed an exhaustive search and located that CW training tape in question, I downloaded it in .mp3 format and listened to it. Don't bother with getting it yourself, when I played it, all it said was, "Grab a BEEG RADIO (cb & leen-e-air) and go to it, if you want to have fun. Then it asked for a "donation" to be sent to the arrl for the tape! There was also a disgusting ad on the tape (the background sounded like it had been recorded at a flea market), some old ham trying to sell bicycle seats which had only been sniffed one time before! Keep your money! John "b.b." wrote in message oups.com... KØHB wrote: "b.b." wrote How long will it take the code teachers and code advocates to catch on to the concept, or will they coninue on with the stepped hoops? "Stepped hoops"? In my experience, people tend to learn Morse not in steps, but by gradual increases. Granted that there are some "plateaus" (approximately 10WPM and 25WPM) but these are found to be related to the "mental mechanics" of learning. Up to about 10WPM trainees can still "count the dits", so moving beyond that speed requires them to learn to recognize the "sound of the character" without deliberate "counting the dits". This is what makes the Farnsworth training method effective, in that the trainee is early acquainted to the "sound of the character" at the higher speeds. The 25WPM plateau seems related to sublimating copying to a "middle conscious" level, where the characters flow at an almost sub-conscious level from the ear to the fingertip without active thought about the actual characters heard. 73, de Hans, K0HB Like I said... Maybe Morse can go back to being an encoding scheme, and Farnsworth can go back to being a teaching method. And maybe without artificial testing steps, Morse can develop more along the lines human learning and consciousness. |
"KØHB" wrote in message
nk.net... The 25WPM plateau seems related to sublimating copying to a "middle conscious" level, where the characters flow at an almost sub-conscious level from the ear to the fingertip without active thought about the actual characters heard. 73, de Hans, K0HB Sigh, I hope to get to this level eventually. I'm at the point where I'm just starting to "hear" words like tnx, abt, the, fer, qsl, qsb, name, op, rst, etc. rather than spelling them in my head. -- Vy 73 de Bert WA2SI FISTS #9384/CC #1736 QRP ARCI #11782 |
Bert casually remarked at the "self-improvment session", "I'm at the point
where I'm just starting to "hear" words..." My gawd man, we are making progress. The first step is always the hardest--admitting you have a problem. For right now, we have some meds to stop the voices, while we work on that little problem. John "Bert Craig" wrote in message ... "KXHB" wrote in message nk.net... The 25WPM plateau seems related to sublimating copying to a "middle conscious" level, where the characters flow at an almost sub-conscious level from the ear to the fingertip without active thought about the actual characters heard. 73, de Hans, K0HB Sigh, I hope to get to this level eventually. I'm at the point where I'm just starting to "hear" words like tnx, abt, the, fer, qsl, qsb, name, op, rst, etc. rather than spelling them in my head. -- Vy 73 de Bert WA2SI FISTS #9384/CC #1736 QRP ARCI #11782 |
"Bert Craig" wrote in message ... "KØHB" wrote in message nk.net... The 25WPM plateau seems related to sublimating copying to a "middle conscious" level, where the characters flow at an almost sub-conscious level from the ear to the fingertip without active thought about the actual characters heard. 73, de Hans, K0HB Sigh, I hope to get to this level eventually. I'm at the point where I'm just starting to "hear" words like tnx, abt, the, fer, qsl, qsb, name, op, rst, etc. rather than spelling them in my head. -- Vy 73 de Bert WA2SI FISTS #9384/CC #1736 QRP ARCI #11782 Excellent Bert....CW is like music when sent well. It ebbs and flows like a river. A thing of beauty. Think of it this way....no many folks can talk with their fingers. Dan/W4NTI |
Bert Craig wrote:
"K=D8HB" wrote in message nk.net... The 25WPM plateau seems related to sublimating copying to a "middle conscious" level, where the characters flow at an almost sub-conscious level from the ear to the fingertip without active thought about the actual characters heard. Sigh, I hope to get to this level eventually. I'm at the point where I'm just starting to "hear" words like tnx, abt, the, fer, qsl, qsb, name, op, rst, etc. rather than spelling them in my head. You're talking about two different skill sets. Hans is talking about written copy - specifically, copying on a mill (typewriter). Those who get good at that skill set reach a point where they really don't think about the incoming copy - it just flows. In some cases the op literally doesn't know the content of the copy. What you're experiencing is the beginnings of conversational Morse Code. This is where you understand the incoming Morse "directly", like listening to someone talk. Similar skill sets occur with sending. -- Morse Code is much more than "an encoding scheme". -- 73 de Jim, N2EY 313 |
"b.b." wrote Maybe Morse can go back to being an encoding scheme, and Farnsworth can go back to being a teaching method. Thus it is, thus it always has been.... I don't understand "go back to".... 73, de Hans, K0HB |
K=D8HB wrote: "b.b." wrote Maybe Morse can go back to being an encoding scheme, and Farnsworth can go back to being a teaching method. Thus it is, thus it always has been.... I don't understand "go back to"..= ..=2E 73, de Hans, K0HB Morse had become merely a licensing hurdle, Farnsworth a testing scheme. Now if anyone bothers to learn Morse, it will be to use it. |
"b.b." wrote in message oups.com... KØHB wrote: "b.b." wrote Maybe Morse can go back to being an encoding scheme, and Farnsworth can go back to being a teaching method. Thus it is, thus it always has been.... I don't understand "go back to".... 73, de Hans, K0HB Morse had become merely a licensing hurdle, Farnsworth a testing scheme. Now if anyone bothers to learn Morse, it will be to use it. You know something? Your probably right....and actually that is a good thing. Dan/W4NTI |
Dan/W4NTI wrote: "b.b." wrote in message oups.com... K=D8HB wrote: "b.b." wrote Maybe Morse can go back to being an encoding scheme, and Farnsworth can go back to being a teaching method. Thus it is, thus it always has been.... I don't understand "go back to".... 73, de Hans, K0HB Morse had become merely a licensing hurdle, Farnsworth a testing scheme. Now if anyone bothers to learn Morse, it will be to use it. You know something? Your probably right....and actually that is a good thing. Dan/W4NTI People may not always agree with my opinions, but that's OK with me. There were plenty of Code Tape Extra's out there who never worked a dit in their lives. |
b.b.:
Uhhh, we "code tape wizards" and "computer taught b*st*rds" are "out there" (more ways than one, I suppose), and if a code reader can't display it on the screen--we can probably live without those "words of wisdom." Art Bell said, "CW is dead!" If Art Bell (even more trustworthy than Santa and the New York Times!) says it, Victoria, it is true! John "b.b." wrote in message oups.com... Dan/W4NTI wrote: "b.b." wrote in message oups.com... KØHB wrote: "b.b." wrote Maybe Morse can go back to being an encoding scheme, and Farnsworth can go back to being a teaching method. Thus it is, thus it always has been.... I don't understand "go back to".... 73, de Hans, K0HB Morse had become merely a licensing hurdle, Farnsworth a testing scheme. Now if anyone bothers to learn Morse, it will be to use it. You know something? Your probably right....and actually that is a good thing. Dan/W4NTI People may not always agree with my opinions, but that's OK with me. There were plenty of Code Tape Extra's out there who never worked a dit in their lives. |
"b.b." wrote in message oups.com... Dan/W4NTI wrote: "b.b." wrote in message oups.com... KØHB wrote: "b.b." wrote Maybe Morse can go back to being an encoding scheme, and Farnsworth can go back to being a teaching method. Thus it is, thus it always has been.... I don't understand "go back to".... 73, de Hans, K0HB Morse had become merely a licensing hurdle, Farnsworth a testing scheme. Now if anyone bothers to learn Morse, it will be to use it. You know something? Your probably right....and actually that is a good thing. Dan/W4NTI People may not always agree with my opinions, but that's OK with me. There were plenty of Code Tape Extra's out there who never worked a dit in their lives. Of course there were/are. Lots of folks never cared a lick if they actually operated CW or not. And to them it was a hurdle to do 13 or 20. But to those select few that actually enjoyed the mode it became a real pain hearing about how hard it was to learn, how useless, how unnecessary, etc. Now perhaps the debate will finally END. And those that like CW can continue to enjoy it. And help those that want to learn it, learn it, and also enjoy it. And use it and not have to put up with all the whinning any longer. Dan/W4NTI |
Dan/W4NTI wrote:
Now perhaps the debate will finally END. And those that like CW can continue to enjoy it. And help those that want to learn it, learn it, and also enjoy it. And use it and not have to put up with all the whinning any longer. You are an optimist Dan! The whining has only begun. Those writtens are just too darn HARD! - Mike KB3EIA - |
Dan/W4NTI wrote: "b.b." wrote in message oups.com... Dan/W4NTI wrote: "b.b." wrote in message oups.com... K=D8HB wrote: "b.b." wrote Maybe Morse can go back to being an encoding scheme, and Farnsworth can go back to being a teaching method. Thus it is, thus it always has been.... I don't understand "go back to".... 73, de Hans, K0HB Morse had become merely a licensing hurdle, Farnsworth a testing scheme. Now if anyone bothers to learn Morse, it will be to use it. You know something? Your probably right....and actually that is a good thing. Dan/W4NTI People may not always agree with my opinions, but that's OK with me. There were plenty of Code Tape Extra's out there who never worked a dit in their lives. Of course there were/are. Lots of folks never cared a lick if they actua= lly operated CW or not. And to them it was a hurdle to do 13 or 20. Even 5wpm was an unnecessary hurdle to folks not interested in the mode. But to those select few that actually enjoyed the mode it became a real p= ain hearing about how hard it was to learn, how useless, how unnecessary, et= c=2E Why? Now perhaps the debate will finally END. I hope so. And those that like CW can continue to enjoy it. I certainly hope so. Just one question; why must I have learned Morse Code for you to enjoy CW use? And help those that want to learn it, learn it, and also enjoy it. I hope so. And use it and not have to put up with all the whinning any longer. =20 Dan/W4NTI What whining? |
Mike Coslo wrote: Dan/W4NTI wrote: Now perhaps the debate will finally END. And those that like CW can continue to enjoy it. And help those that want to learn it, learn it, and also enjoy it. And use it and not have to put up with all the whinning any longer. You are an optimist Dan! The whining has only begun. Those writtens are just too darn HARD! - Mike KB3EIA - Darkguard, you're funny. |
John Smith wrote: b.b.: Uhhh, we "code tape wizards" and "computer taught b*st*rds" are "out there" (more ways than one, I suppose), and if a code reader can't display it on the screen--we can probably live without those "words of wisdom." Art Bell said, "CW is dead!" If Art Bell (even more trustworthy than Santa and the New York Times!) says it, Victoria, it is true! John I have no problem with folks wanting to use CW. It just ****es me off when they make claims of intentionally sending code so poorly that a pimply-faced No-Code Tech with a code reader can't listen in. |
"b.b." wrote It just ****es me off when they make claims of intentionally sending code so poorly that a pimply-faced No-Code Tech with a code reader can't listen in. Give it up Willy Weeper. "They" (a single guy) who said that is long since dead, but you keep writing jeremiads on a topic that no living soul remains to support. And why is it that you continue to hijack my satirical character, Billy Beeper? beep beep de Hans, K0HB (Apologies to Kurt Vonnegut) To all external appearances, Farnsworth Corners, U.S.A., is bright, cheerful, and happy. However, in dark corners of the city lurk Godless Nocoders who seek to undermine the moral fabric of our mighty Nation. In a dirty basement apartment, an underfed, seedy-looking old man wearing small, round spectacles and threadbare clothes, types furiously at a musty desk illumined only by a single, naked bulb. As the pages fly through his typewriter, an evil plan gradually emerges: a treacherous treatise which threatens the well-being of the upright citizens of Farnsworth Corners. The work is completed, and the old man leans back thoughtfully and smiles as he rubs the three-day stubble on his chin. The time has come for the Hammer of Leonard to strike! Some weeks later, in another part of town, little Billy Beeper walks home from school. Suddenly he hears a voice right next to his ear. "Psst! Hey, kid! Would you like to try my 2M HT? It's free!" Billy's eyes open wide as he faces the stranger. An embroidered patch on the mans soiled jumpsuit reads "Codefree Charlie". "Gosh, no! N2EY told me never to touch a radio which didn't beep!" "Aw, c'mon!" says the old man. "I only wanna be friends with you!" "Well, I don't know," replies Billy. "I was told that FM was bad for you!" "That's just what the grown-ups say to scare you!" says the drooling man. "The truth is that they don't want you to try it 'cause it'll make you grow up faster and be able to smoke cigarettes and drink liquor just like them!" Billy is hesitant, but suddenly a tall form looms before them and grabs the ruffian by the collar. "Golly!" exclaims Billy. "It's Captain Code!" Yes, Readers, it's Captain Code: faster than a Vibroplex Blue Racer, more powerful than an Alpha three-holer, able to leap tall pileups in a single bound. "You should be ashamed of yourself, old man," says Captain Code to the hoodlum. "There are far better ways to earn money than to hoodwink innocent children into a life of codelessness. It's to the FCC for you! "And as for you, young friend, take my advice and stay away from strangers, and believe nothing that they say. It's tragic, but until Godless Nocodism is abolished from the world, there will always be those who would like nothing better than to hurt you ." "Gee, thanks, Captain Code!" says Billy. "I promise that I'll always listen to Mom and Dad, and I'll keep away from strangers with shacks on their belt!" |
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 "b.b." wrote in message ups.com... John Smith wrote: b.b.: Uhhh, we "code tape wizards" and "computer taught b*st*rds" are "out there" (more ways than one, I suppose), and if a code reader can't display it on the screen--we can probably live without those "words of wisdom." Art Bell said, "CW is dead!" If Art Bell (even more trustworthy than Santa and the New York Times!) says it, Victoria, it is true! John I have no problem with folks wanting to use CW. It just ****es me off when they make claims of intentionally sending code so poorly that a pimply-faced No-Code Tech with a code reader can't listen in. |
KXHB:
OMG. The perverts have exchanged their boxes of lollipops for HT's... My gawd, those evil, evil men! John "KXHB" wrote in message ink.net... "b.b." wrote It just ****es me off when they make claims of intentionally sending code so poorly that a pimply-faced No-Code Tech with a code reader can't listen in. Give it up Willy Weeper. "They" (a single guy) who said that is long since dead, but you keep writing jeremiads on a topic that no living soul remains to support. And why is it that you continue to hijack my satirical character, Billy Beeper? beep beep de Hans, K0HB (Apologies to Kurt Vonnegut) To all external appearances, Farnsworth Corners, U.S.A., is bright, cheerful, and happy. However, in dark corners of the city lurk Godless Nocoders who seek to undermine the moral fabric of our mighty Nation. In a dirty basement apartment, an underfed, seedy-looking old man wearing small, round spectacles and threadbare clothes, types furiously at a musty desk illumined only by a single, naked bulb. As the pages fly through his typewriter, an evil plan gradually emerges: a treacherous treatise which threatens the well-being of the upright citizens of Farnsworth Corners. The work is completed, and the old man leans back thoughtfully and smiles as he rubs the three-day stubble on his chin. The time has come for the Hammer of Leonard to strike! Some weeks later, in another part of town, little Billy Beeper walks home from school. Suddenly he hears a voice right next to his ear. "Psst! Hey, kid! Would you like to try my 2M HT? It's free!" Billy's eyes open wide as he faces the stranger. An embroidered patch on the mans soiled jumpsuit reads "Codefree Charlie". "Gosh, no! N2EY told me never to touch a radio which didn't beep!" "Aw, c'mon!" says the old man. "I only wanna be friends with you!" "Well, I don't know," replies Billy. "I was told that FM was bad for you!" "That's just what the grown-ups say to scare you!" says the drooling man. "The truth is that they don't want you to try it 'cause it'll make you grow up faster and be able to smoke cigarettes and drink liquor just like them!" Billy is hesitant, but suddenly a tall form looms before them and grabs the ruffian by the collar. "Golly!" exclaims Billy. "It's Captain Code!" Yes, Readers, it's Captain Code: faster than a Vibroplex Blue Racer, more powerful than an Alpha three-holer, able to leap tall pileups in a single bound. "You should be ashamed of yourself, old man," says Captain Code to the hoodlum. "There are far better ways to earn money than to hoodwink innocent children into a life of codelessness. It's to the FCC for you! "And as for you, young friend, take my advice and stay away from strangers, and believe nothing that they say. It's tragic, but until Godless Nocodism is abolished from the world, there will always be those who would like nothing better than to hurt you ." "Gee, thanks, Captain Code!" says Billy. "I promise that I'll always listen to Mom and Dad, and I'll keep away from strangers with shacks on their belt!" |
"Dan/W4NTI" wrote in
ink.net: "b.b." wrote in message oups.com... Dan/W4NTI wrote: "b.b." wrote in message oups.com... KØHB wrote: "b.b." wrote Maybe Morse can go back to being an encoding scheme, and Farnsworth can go back to being a teaching method. Thus it is, thus it always has been.... I don't understand "go back to".... 73, de Hans, K0HB Morse had become merely a licensing hurdle, Farnsworth a testing scheme. Now if anyone bothers to learn Morse, it will be to use it. You know something? Your probably right....and actually that is a good thing. Dan/W4NTI People may not always agree with my opinions, but that's OK with me. There were plenty of Code Tape Extra's out there who never worked a dit in their lives. Of course there were/are. Lots of folks never cared a lick if they actually operated CW or not. And to them it was a hurdle to do 13 or 20. But to those select few that actually enjoyed the mode it became a real pain hearing about how hard it was to learn, how useless, how unnecessary, etc. Now perhaps the debate will finally END. And those that like CW can continue to enjoy it. And help those that want to learn it, learn it, and also enjoy it. And use it and not have to put up with all the whinning any longer. Dan/W4NTI That's a change of tune from you. When you're right, you're right! |
John Smith wrote: 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 personaly I have never had anyone but those in the know believe I was sending via machine ( I would do that back in the days 13 wpm was needed for real access to HF, after all anyine that can follow my offhand typing at 13wpm can manage to pass any test at that speed I would think it would be a game, an enjoyable one... John "b.b." wrote in message ups.com... John Smith wrote: b.b.: Uhhh, we "code tape wizards" and "computer taught b*st*rds" are "out there" (more ways than one, I suppose), and if a code reader can't display it on the screen--we can probably live without those "words of wisdom." Art Bell said, "CW is dead!" If Art Bell (even more trustworthy than Santa and the New York Times!) says it, Victoria, it is true! John I have no problem with folks wanting to use CW. It just ****es me off when they make claims of intentionally sending code so poorly that a pimply-faced No-Code Tech with a code reader can't listen in. |
K=D8HB wrote: "b.b." wrote It just ****es me off when they make claims of intentionally sending code so poorly that a pimply-faced No-Code Tech with a code reader can't listen in. Give it up Willy Weeper. "They" (a single guy) And a whole bunch of hanger's on... who said that is long since dead, The actuarial tables offer no apology. but you keep writing jeremiads on a topic that no living soul remains to support. If Dick were alive, a dozen amateurs of low intelligence would jump in to support him. And why is it that you continue to hijack my satirical character, Billy B= eeper? beep beep de Hans, K0HB (Apologies to Kurt Vonnegut) Continue??? You were asked if you wanted him back, and I would gladly return him to his rightful owner. You didn't reply. Are you asking now? If so, do it plainly so that I do not mistake if for just more Extra-class "stuff." With the mostest kindest regards, Billy Beeper To all external appearances, Farnsworth Corners, U.S.A., is bright, cheer= ful, and happy. However, in dark corners of the city lurk Godless Nocoders who= seek to undermine the moral fabric of our mighty Nation. In a dirty basement apartment, an underfed, seedy-looking old man wearing= small, round spectacles and threadbare clothes, types furiously at a musty desk illumined only by a single, naked bulb. As the pages fly through his type= writer, an evil plan gradually emerges: a treacherous treatise which threatens the well-being of the upright citizens of Farnsworth Corners. The work is com= pleted, and the old man leans back thoughtfully and smiles as he rubs the three-d= ay stubble on his chin. The time has come for the Hammer of Leonard to strik= e! Some weeks later, in another part of town, little Billy Beeper walks home= from school. Suddenly he hears a voice right next to his ear. "Psst! Hey, kid! Would you like to try my 2M HT? It's free!" Billy's eyes open wide as he faces the stranger. An embroidered patch on = the mans soiled jumpsuit reads "Codefree Charlie". "Gosh, no! N2EY told me ne= ver to touch a radio which didn't beep!" "Aw, c'mon!" says the old man. "I only wanna be friends with you!" "Well, I don't know," replies Billy. "I was told that FM was bad for you!" "That's just what the grown-ups say to scare you!" says the drooling man. "The truth is that they don't want you to try it 'cause it'll make you gr= ow up faster and be able to smoke cigarettes and drink liquor just like them!" Billy is hesitant, but suddenly a tall form looms before them and grabs t= he ruffian by the collar. "Golly!" exclaims Billy. "It's Captain Code!" Yes, Readers, it's Captain Code: faster than a Vibroplex Blue Racer, more powerful than an Alpha three-holer, able to leap tall pileups in a single= bound. "You should be ashamed of yourself, old man," says Captain Code to the ho= odlum. "There are far better ways to earn money than to hoodwink innocent childr= en into a life of codelessness. It's to the FCC for you! "And as for you, young friend, take my advice and stay away from stranger= s, and believe nothing that they say. It's tragic, but until Godless Nocodism is abolished from the world, there will always be those who would like nothi= ng better than to hurt you ." "Gee, thanks, Captain Code!" says Billy. "I promise that I'll always list= en to Mom and Dad, and I'll keep away from strangers with shacks on their belt!" |
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 |
Bert Craig wrote: "K=D8HB" wrote in message nk.net... The 25WPM plateau seems related to sublimating copying to a "middle conscious" level, where the characters flow at an almost sub-conscious level from the ear to the fingertip without active thought about the actual characters heard. 73, de Hans, K0HB Sigh, I hope to get to this level eventually. I'm at the point where I'm just starting to "hear" words like tnx, abt, the, fer, qsl, qsb, name, op, rst, etc. rather than spelling them in my head. Hans is talking about this sort of thing: http://hometown.aol.com/wa3iyc/myhomepage/photo.html=20 73 de Jim, N2EY |
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. 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". 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. 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 |
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 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. 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) 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. 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 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) so where your beef? 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 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 |
From: John Smith on Aug 3, 10:51 pm
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. There's no need to use a table of abbreviation...those can vary from time to time and operator to operator. The MAJOR problem is determining the "dit rate"...once that is done, the "dah" can be separated, also the inter-character spacing. 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... Those who've never gotten far INTO computer programming will NOT fully understand how blazing fast a 2 GHz clock PC really is! My platform isn't top-of-the-line at 2 GHz clock and 100 MHz RAM access...but it can almost blow the mind on how fast it can handle anything in the Win32 family...I am getting slowly into that through PowerBasic Compiler, calling the canned Win32 routines directly. Back in '92 I shifted over to a moderate PC with a 20 MHz clock and 1 MHz RAM access rate...and was checking various forms of complex number calculation combinations to handle LARGE two- dimensional arrays. Had those runing at tens of thousands of random-quantity repetitions in order to get the fastest. That was for a ported-over circuit analysis program from RCA in the 70s (which I had helped improve - along with others in Central Engineering - then). In the 1970s, any mainframe with a 10 MHz clock and 1 MHz RAM access was considered "top of the line." :-) I dug out the same PC time test routines and ran them on THIS platform and the runs were just an eyeblink long. :-) In order to actually time them, I had to increase the number of iterations a hundred times (from about 10K) in order to see some semblance of actually working hard! 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. I disagree. The first task is to ADAPT to the going rate. That requires only a temporary memory (but a large one at that since one dimension MUST be time) to set the approximate received rate. When rate is approximated, there can be a built-in weighting on time duration to determine dit from dah. Simple conditional yes- no on duration but the trick seems to be arriving at a good decision point in time. "Abbreviations" tables aren't needed. In fact, from seeing such a program working (and being able to look at the flow diagrams of the routines...source was in C++ but flow diagrams were in standard box-diamond form...the common abbreviations and Q codes could be left as they were in ASCII on the screen. Since morse operators tended to have a great variation in inter-character and inter-word spacing, those spaces were just left in the screen display and the human reader could do the final "adaptation" on what the spaces meant (or didn't mean). 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. In 1970 (at an RCA division in Van Nuys, CA) I got a chance to do programmed calculations on an HP 9100 desk calculator...did some statistics runs on aircraft collision avoidance estimates, part of a long-range R&D project at RCA devised by the late Jack Breckman (a genius type who could extemporaneously speak in ordered paragraphs). Found that programming and I got along very well and a "romance" of sorts happened, went full-flower with successful negotiations with bean counters to get corporate computer time (then horribly expensive). Got Dan McCracken's softcover on FORTRAN IV Programming to explain the program ordering (damn good book, Dan became President of the ACM for a time later), won a steak dinner bet with another on being able to make a running program and off it went to bigger, better things. The epiphany happened due to a supplier delay on some small inductors for a vital hardware delay line...could I use a "close, but not quite right" inductor which was plentiful? Did a simulation run for pulse shape on the corporate computer using the possible replacement, decided it was okay. When the replacement parts arrived, I quickly tack-soldered the delay line together, viewed the pulse shape though it and found the computer simulation waveform matched the real waveform EXACTLY! I was sold and a definite believer in accurate simulation ever since. Perhaps you have programmed and played with such yourself? Perhaps you have a relative or friend in the field? I never bothered with a "morse code reader" program. Wayyyyy TOO MANY OTHER kinds of calculations that would be of immense value. When my group at the RCA division was disbanded in '75, I had six programs in the Central Engineering software library and have had four other programs as Shareware back in times before the Internet went public. Those are all Freeware now, not that it matters much with Windows and other GUI-ey graphic screens being "what all want." :-) As a former voting member of the ACM, courtesy of cross-membership privilege of the IEEE, I've worked with/known a bunch of computer programmers. The kind that can DO THE WORK and DEMONSTRATE it without pointing to a bunch of framed/plaqued certificates on the wall. One of those was the guy I described...one who had the HOBBY of programming as well as doing it every day for a living. We were friends enough for him to let me look at all pages of his project notebook...and myself letting him use my Icom receiver as a morse signal source. He thought it was a fun program to do, while I thought morsemanship wasn't worth bothering about...but, it was a fascinating challenge to mechanize and to make work. His development platform was rather faster than my 20 MHz clock thing and - as it was written then without final optimization - wouldn't work with high rates of the speed-freak hams (I knew of two, one in Frisco, the other near San Diego, both retired and busy beeping each other most every day then). Right now I can order a Microchip PIC from DigiKey running at a 50 MHz clock, get a couple large EPROMs to hold the source code (if ported) and it would work fine, I'm sure. PIC's RISC instruction set is NOT compatible with 80x86 instruction set and takes a lot of translation. Thank you, I'll take canned PIC programs, use those and be done with it. I do NOT have ANY sort of decoder for morse, TTY, commercial SSB TTY tones, any of the TORs in-house. Not my cuppa either. The 'TOR peripheral boxes are cheap enough that I could buy one and use it if the interest struck. No problem. Someone else did the design, debug, engineering and I respect that; no sense in re-inventing wheels unless it's to make them more rounded, smoother, etc. :-) Note: Watch for Jimmie Noserve, the Nun of the Above, to pick up on that last sentence and use it later in chiding postings agin' me...it might be weeks before he do dat, but he gots a memory like an effluent and will issue it later. Predictable. NSA BSA |
N2EY:
Oh, we are talking about MUCH MORE than RTTY... Not even close... RTTY is dead... but some dead languages are still spoken, no surprise. Look at how long Latin was a dead language, but still pressed to service the the catholic church... John On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 09:24:21 -0700, N2EY 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. 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". 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. 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 |
Len:
It is not even close... The end of all that design in computer hardware and software, when efficient and up-to-date, would be impossible for a human operator to send let alone receive without hardware and software... RTTY is as dead as CW... John On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 10:22:01 -0700, 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 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. 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) 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. 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 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) so where your beef? 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 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 |
Len:
Right now I am running a 3.8Ghz processor clock with a 466Mhz memory clock on a bus capable of 266Mhz. The fastest keyer would leave the hardware/software killing time to await his next di or dah... The purpose of the "error file" is to catch new abreviations so they can be added to the table, let them come up with as many variations as they possibly can, in the end the reader is only made stronger... John On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 12:01:04 -0700, LenAnderson wrote: From: John Smith on Aug 3, 10:51 pm 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. There's no need to use a table of abbreviation...those can vary from time to time and operator to operator. The MAJOR problem is determining the "dit rate"...once that is done, the "dah" can be separated, also the inter-character spacing. 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... Those who've never gotten far INTO computer programming will NOT fully understand how blazing fast a 2 GHz clock PC really is! My platform isn't top-of-the-line at 2 GHz clock and 100 MHz RAM access...but it can almost blow the mind on how fast it can handle anything in the Win32 family...I am getting slowly into that through PowerBasic Compiler, calling the canned Win32 routines directly. Back in '92 I shifted over to a moderate PC with a 20 MHz clock and 1 MHz RAM access rate...and was checking various forms of complex number calculation combinations to handle LARGE two- dimensional arrays. Had those runing at tens of thousands of random-quantity repetitions in order to get the fastest. That was for a ported-over circuit analysis program from RCA in the 70s (which I had helped improve - along with others in Central Engineering - then). In the 1970s, any mainframe with a 10 MHz clock and 1 MHz RAM access was considered "top of the line." :-) I dug out the same PC time test routines and ran them on THIS platform and the runs were just an eyeblink long. :-) In order to actually time them, I had to increase the number of iterations a hundred times (from about 10K) in order to see some semblance of actually working hard! 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. I disagree. The first task is to ADAPT to the going rate. That requires only a temporary memory (but a large one at that since one dimension MUST be time) to set the approximate received rate. When rate is approximated, there can be a built-in weighting on time duration to determine dit from dah. Simple conditional yes- no on duration but the trick seems to be arriving at a good decision point in time. "Abbreviations" tables aren't needed. In fact, from seeing such a program working (and being able to look at the flow diagrams of the routines...source was in C++ but flow diagrams were in standard box-diamond form...the common abbreviations and Q codes could be left as they were in ASCII on the screen. Since morse operators tended to have a great variation in inter-character and inter-word spacing, those spaces were just left in the screen display and the human reader could do the final "adaptation" on what the spaces meant (or didn't mean). 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. In 1970 (at an RCA division in Van Nuys, CA) I got a chance to do programmed calculations on an HP 9100 desk calculator...did some statistics runs on aircraft collision avoidance estimates, part of a long-range R&D project at RCA devised by the late Jack Breckman (a genius type who could extemporaneously speak in ordered paragraphs). Found that programming and I got along very well and a "romance" of sorts happened, went full-flower with successful negotiations with bean counters to get corporate computer time (then horribly expensive). Got Dan McCracken's softcover on FORTRAN IV Programming to explain the program ordering (damn good book, Dan became President of the ACM for a time later), won a steak dinner bet with another on being able to make a running program and off it went to bigger, better things. The epiphany happened due to a supplier delay on some small inductors for a vital hardware delay line...could I use a "close, but not quite right" inductor which was plentiful? Did a simulation run for pulse shape on the corporate computer using the possible replacement, decided it was okay. When the replacement parts arrived, I quickly tack-soldered the delay line together, viewed the pulse shape though it and found the computer simulation waveform matched the real waveform EXACTLY! I was sold and a definite believer in accurate simulation ever since. Perhaps you have programmed and played with such yourself? Perhaps you have a relative or friend in the field? I never bothered with a "morse code reader" program. Wayyyyy TOO MANY OTHER kinds of calculations that would be of immense value. When my group at the RCA division was disbanded in '75, I had six programs in the Central Engineering software library and have had four other programs as Shareware back in times before the Internet went public. Those are all Freeware now, not that it matters much with Windows and other GUI-ey graphic screens being "what all want." :-) As a former voting member of the ACM, courtesy of cross-membership privilege of the IEEE, I've worked with/known a bunch of computer programmers. The kind that can DO THE WORK and DEMONSTRATE it without pointing to a bunch of framed/plaqued certificates on the wall. One of those was the guy I described...one who had the HOBBY of programming as well as doing it every day for a living. We were friends enough for him to let me look at all pages of his project notebook...and myself letting him use my Icom receiver as a morse signal source. He thought it was a fun program to do, while I thought morsemanship wasn't worth bothering about...but, it was a fascinating challenge to mechanize and to make work. His development platform was rather faster than my 20 MHz clock thing and - as it was written then without final optimization - wouldn't work with high rates of the speed-freak hams (I knew of two, one in Frisco, the other near San Diego, both retired and busy beeping each other most every day then). Right now I can order a Microchip PIC from DigiKey running at a 50 MHz clock, get a couple large EPROMs to hold the source code (if ported) and it would work fine, I'm sure. PIC's RISC instruction set is NOT compatible with 80x86 instruction set and takes a lot of translation. Thank you, I'll take canned PIC programs, use those and be done with it. I do NOT have ANY sort of decoder for morse, TTY, commercial SSB TTY tones, any of the TORs in-house. Not my cuppa either. The 'TOR peripheral boxes are cheap enough that I could buy one and use it if the interest struck. No problem. Someone else did the design, debug, engineering and I respect that; no sense in re-inventing wheels unless it's to make them more rounded, smoother, etc. :-) Note: Watch for Jimmie Noserve, the Nun of the Above, to pick up on that last sentence and use it later in chiding postings agin' me...it might be weeks before he do dat, but he gots a memory like an effluent and will issue it later. Predictable. NSA BSA |
John Smith wrote: N2EY: Oh, we are talking about MUCH MORE than RTTY... No, you're not. The systems you're talking about consist of a keyboard and visual readout, same as RTTY and other "keyboard modes". The error-correction and other features are simply enhancements - they do not change the basic method of communication, nor the experience of the end users. Not even close... RTTY is dead... but some dead languages are still spoken, no surprise. Look at how long Latin was a dead language, but still pressed to service the the catholic church... Morse Code, OTOH, is alive and well on the amateur bands. You will find many more radio amateurs on the HF/MF amateur bands using Morse Code than any other mode except single sideband amplitude modulated voice. Another analogy: Inexpensive pocket calculators can do basic arithmetic far faster and with more accuracy than most humans, even with pencil and paper. Does that mean there is no reason to learn how to add, subtract, multiply and divide? John On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 09:24:21 -0700, N2EY 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. 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". 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. 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 |
N2EY:
My gawd man, must you apply antique analogies to everything which is attempting to break archaic methods to attempt to obfuscate anything you don't like and/or agree with? Technology has passed you by man, the reins have passed, what you are holding in your hands are the ashes of yesteryear... don't embarrass yourself and others about you... speak on things you understand, or not at all... John On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 14:00:07 -0700, N2EY wrote: John Smith wrote: N2EY: Oh, we are talking about MUCH MORE than RTTY... No, you're not. The systems you're talking about consist of a keyboard and visual readout, same as RTTY and other "keyboard modes". The error-correction and other features are simply enhancements - they do not change the basic method of communication, nor the experience of the end users. Not even close... RTTY is dead... but some dead languages are still spoken, no surprise. Look at how long Latin was a dead language, but still pressed to service the the catholic church... Morse Code, OTOH, is alive and well on the amateur bands. You will find many more radio amateurs on the HF/MF amateur bands using Morse Code than any other mode except single sideband amplitude modulated voice. Another analogy: Inexpensive pocket calculators can do basic arithmetic far faster and with more accuracy than most humans, even with pencil and paper. Does that mean there is no reason to learn how to add, subtract, multiply and divide? John On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 09:24:21 -0700, N2EY 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. 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". 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. 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 |
"John Smith" wrote in message ... Len: It is not even close... The end of all that design in computer hardware and software, when efficient and up-to-date, would be impossible for a human operator to send let alone receive without hardware and software... RTTY is as dead as CW... John On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 10:22:01 -0700, an old friend wrote: Every mode has its advantages and disadvantages. Neither RTTY nor CW is dead. One just has more choices than in the past. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
wrote: John Smith wrote: N2EY: Oh, we are talking about MUCH MORE than RTTY... No, you're not. The systems you're talking about consist of a keyboard and visual readout, same as RTTY and other "keyboard modes". The error-correction and other features are simply enhancements - they do not change the basic method of communication, nor the experience of the end users. Not even close... RTTY is dead... but some dead languages are still spoken, no surprise. Look at how long Latin was a dead language, but still pressed to service the the catholic church... Morse Code, OTOH, is alive and well on the amateur bands. You will find many more radio amateurs on the HF/MF amateur bands using Morse Code than any other mode except single sideband amplitude modulated voice. making it Number 2 number 3 in the ARS as a whole most likely (incduing FM voice and the whole frequenct spread Another analogy: Inexpensive pocket calculators can do basic arithmetic far faster and with more accuracy than most humans, even with pencil and paper. Does that mean there is no reason to learn how to add, subtract, multiply and divide? but it means there isn't much purpose in testing for it as part of the ARS licens etest John On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 09:24:21 -0700, N2EY 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. 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". 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. 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 |
John Smith wrote: N2EY: My gawd man, must you apply antique analogies to everything which is attempting to break archaic methods to attempt to obfuscate anything you don't like and/or agree with? Technology has passed you by man, the reins have passed, what you are holding in your hands are the ashes of yesteryear... don't embarrass yourself and others about you... speak on things you understand, or not at all... John and Jim is the best of the Procoders the very best of them, and confirms my long standing conviction that if there is in fact a goodreason for Code testing the Procoders don't know what it is On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 14:00:07 -0700, N2EY wrote: massive cut |
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 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:33 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com