|
Proposal 3 (US Hams)
Code elements should be 13 wpm for General, and 20 wpm for Extra.
|
Proposal 3 (US Hams)
10 wpm novice, 20 wpm general and 35 wpm for extra class.
-- Regards, Gary...WZ1M "Slow Code" wrote in message ink.net... Code elements should be 13 wpm for General, and 20 wpm for Extra. |
Proposal 3 (US Hams)
gkb wrote:
10 wpm novice, 20 wpm general and 35 wpm for extra class. Well, this doesn't seem very relevant for folks here in rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors. We think the requirements should include being able to bench press a Collins R-390 and being tested on changing coupling capacitors with the B+ live. Other folks may consider other tests, for example testing someone for the ability to hold down the key for ten minutes straight while shouting "This is my channel, you don't own this frequency" over and over again. This is a skill that is becoming increasingly popular. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
blow code blows it again
Slow Code wrote: blow code blows it again |
Proposal 3 (US Hams)
On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 00:41:53 UTC, "gkb" wrote:
10 wpm novice, 20 wpm general and 35 wpm for extra class. Yes, that's the ticket, back to the past. As if enough people weren't abandoning ham radio already. I have never thought that code was essential. It is just another "hoop" that someone has to jump through. Once I passed the code test, I never used it again. Get real, this is 2006, and with all the innovations on the radio spectrum, code is the last thing on people's minds. -- "What do you mean there's no movie?" |
Proposal 3 (US Hams)
On 9/26/06 2:50 PM, in article g40vCXBzNU8x-pn2-xidDCXv10dGz@localhost,
"Count Floyd" CountFloyd@MonsterChillerHorrorTheater wrote: On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 00:41:53 UTC, "gkb" wrote: 10 wpm novice, 20 wpm general and 35 wpm for extra class. Yes, that's the ticket, back to the past. As if enough people weren't abandoning ham radio already. I have never thought that code was essential. It is just another "hoop" that someone has to jump through. Once I passed the code test, I never used it again. Get real, this is 2006, and with all the innovations on the radio spectrum, code is the last thing on people's minds. If there is ever a serious emergency, including no commercial communications, guys like you who can't build a simple transmitter and companion receiver, and can't do code, will be the first to scream for help. What makes you think people are abandoning ham radio? I don't see that at all, but I do see a reduction in new hams. But...... What goes around will come around. Ham radio will grow again if the ARRL will quit mucking it up with their friggin yuppy, elitist attitude. Don |
Proposal 3 (US Hams)
On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 22:02:15 UTC, Don Bowey
wrote: On 9/26/06 2:50 PM, in article g40vCXBzNU8x-pn2-xidDCXv10dGz@localhost, "Count Floyd" CountFloyd@MonsterChillerHorrorTheater wrote: On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 00:41:53 UTC, "gkb" wrote: 10 wpm novice, 20 wpm general and 35 wpm for extra class. Yes, that's the ticket, back to the past. As if enough people weren't abandoning ham radio already. I have never thought that code was essential. It is just another "hoop" that someone has to jump through. Once I passed the code test, I never used it again. Get real, this is 2006, and with all the innovations on the radio spectrum, code is the last thing on people's minds. If there is ever a serious emergency, including no commercial communications, guys like you who can't build a simple transmitter and companion receiver, and can't do code, will be the first to scream for help. Where did you get the part that I cannot build a radio? I simply said that I do not use code anymore! I have built many radios, repaired them and use them to this day! This attitude is typical of old-timers, and I am 54 myself! How may radios have you built pal? What makes you think people are abandoning ham radio? I don't see that at all, but I do see a reduction in new hams. But...... What goes around will come around. Ham radio will grow again if the ARRL will quit mucking it up with their friggin yuppy, elitist attitude. I agree with you on the ARRL! They are the ones who constantly keep pushing for "code" requirements to be raised! Check the figures on hams around the country. At a recent South Florida hamfest, it seemed that I was the youngest guy there! Don -- "What do you mean there's no movie?" |
Proposal 3 (US Hams)
Count Floyd CountFloyd@MonsterChillerHorrorTheater wrote:
Yes, that's the ticket, back to the past. As if enough people weren't abandoning ham radio already. I have never thought that code was essential. It is just another "hoop" that someone has to jump through. Once I passed the code test, I never used it again. Get real, this is 2006, and with all the innovations on the radio spectrum, code is the last thing on people's minds. Well, if that's the case, why not test them on use of the new innovations? How about making them demonstrate competence operating five different modes of their choice? They can choose between HF SSB, VHF/UHF FM, CW, SSTV, fax, RTTY, packet, what have you. That way folks who want to learn code and might use code have an advantage, but folks who can type 130 wpm also have an advantage... --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
Proposal 3 (US Hams)
"Count Floyd" CountFloyd@MonsterChillerHorrorTheater wrote in
news:g40vCXBzNU8x-pn2-xidDCXv10dGz@localhost: On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 00:41:53 UTC, "gkb" wrote: 10 wpm novice, 20 wpm general and 35 wpm for extra class. Yes, that's the ticket, back to the past. As if enough people weren't abandoning ham radio already. I have never thought that code was essential. It is just another "hoop" that someone has to jump through. Once I passed the code test, I never used it again. Get real, this is 2006, and with all the innovations on the radio spectrum, code is the last thing on people's minds. Dumbing it down cheapened the license, making being a radio amateur nothing special. No wonder they leaving. SC |
Proposal 3 (US Hams)
|
Proposal 3 (US Hams)
Dumbing it down cheapened the license, making being a radio amateur
nothing special. No wonder they leaving. ================================= Why should anybody be 'special' for being a radio amateur . AR is for most of us just a hobby ....a hobby involving lifelong learning on a huge range of radio communications related topics. It is a hobby for anybody interested in 'Communicating' by radio, whatever the level of past education. Sadly a number of AR licensees see the hobby as one reserved for the 'elite' and look down upon those with ,what they consider, a lower level ,even inferior , license. I fail to understand why superior skills in receiving and or transmitting Morse telegraphy would make anybody a better Ham ,considering the other aspects of the hobby ,like emergency comms (mostly without Morse telegraphy), satellite comms , propagation study ,digital modes and ......homebrewing ,just to name a few. The above referred elitist's attitude towards the hobby is not just apparent in the USA but also in Britain and many other European countries. Frank GM0CSZ / KN6WH |
Proposal 3 (US Hams)
Count Floyd CountFloyd@MonsterChillerHorrorTheater wrote:
On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 22:46:20 UTC, (Scott Dorsey) wrote: How about making them demonstrate competence operating five different modes of their choice? They can choose between HF SSB, VHF/UHF FM, CW, SSTV, fax, RTTY, packet, what have you. That way folks who want to learn code and might use code have an advantage, but folks who can type 130 wpm also have an advantage... I agree with you! It is organizations like ARRL who continue to insist on Code! Keep up with the times and test over what is current and actually being used. I have a restored 1940 Chrysler but I also have a 2005 PT Cruiser with A/C and all the options. I enjoy the 1940, but I would not take it on a cross-country trip. Well, the argument is that you have to do _something_ to ensure that people licensed are competent operators and have some usable skills. I think the code requirement is not the best way of doing that, but it's better than nothing. The only alternative I ever seen proposed is just that, nothing. So, I am in favor of dropping the code requirement, IF it can be replaced with something else that helps ensure licensed operators are competent and skilled. --scott But then, I _would_ take a 1940 Chrysler cross-country. -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
Proposal 3 (US Hams)
Slow Code wrote: Dumbing it down cheapened the license, making being a radio amateur nothing special. No wonder they leaving. I'll bet that most of the folks "leaving" are simply not renewing being SK. Code is in a way a dying art quite literally. Which is a shame. We have to face it, this hobby doesn't attract a lot of new blood and the existing stock is rapidly growing older. The advantage to me is that I can find old ham equipment at estate sales for next to nothing but that's not what I'm posting about.. :) I don't think things are all that "unfair" with the maximum code speed we currently test being 5 WPM. Of course that's what I got tested at so you can charge bias if you want. I currently don't operate CW (heck, I don't operate at all right now) but all that spectrum space in the lower part of the bands is starting to beckon. I've got a code practice program and I work on my code from time to time so maybe someday... So where do I fall in this debate? I certainly don't favor the removal of the code requirement for all license classes. Extra's surely need to be tested at the current 5 WPM. But the fact remains that the interest in this hobby as shown by the decline in the number of licenses needs some attention. We don't need to "dumb" down the hobby to get more folks in it, but we do need to bring the requirements into the current age. Before the advent of the personal computer 20 years ago, it would have been very expensive to set up an automated CW send and receive station, but now you can do it for next to nothing. One can actually send and receive CW without ever learning it and get transmission rates much faster than just about anybody can copy by ear, just hook up your PC to the rig load the software and voila, the no code licensee is sending and receiving at 25 WPM the day after he failed the 5 WPM test. On the other hand, you guys that struggled to get their code speed up to 20 WPM so they could get their Extra have my respect. I understand that lowering that requirement seems like we are dumbing down the hobby, but I hope you can understand that like AM, CW is being replaced by other modes that you and your generation have pioneered. My greatest fear is that the FCC will totally do away with code in it's testing requirements, which will logically lead to a mass spectrum reassignment to make more room for voice and we will likely loose our valuable spectrum space in the process. But once the last license goes to SK what's to stop the FCC from giving it all away? May code never die, there are times it's the only option, but we have to keep the hobby relevant or it will all go away when the hobby dies. -= Bob =- KC4UAI |
Proposal 3 (US Hams)
wrote in message
oups.com... I don't think things are all that "unfair" with the maximum code speed we currently test being 5 WPM. I don't think the code require is necessarily "unfair" somehow, but it does seem awfully "arbitrary" these days. In *today's* world, it's just one mode of many, and a rather unpopular one at that. So where do I fall in this debate? I certainly don't favor the removal of the code requirement for all license classes. Extra's surely need to be tested at the current 5 WPM. If we're going to make people show a certain commitment to amateur radio before giving them advance privileges -- reasonable enough --, to me it seems that the study should be of something more people are likely to use... say, error correction coding theory, or modulator design or something. Or maybe something even more practical such as demonstrating the ability to perform link planning (antenna selection, power selection, etc.). I imagine one of the reasons CW testing remains is because it is so easy to test compared to those options. I think I'm pretty much in agreement with you... 5 WPM is not an unreasonable barrier to entry, and I don't particular oppose keeping it around, but I do think it seems awfully arbitrary, and this refelcts somewhat poorly on hams as a group trying to present themselves as modern and professional. ---Joel Kolstad |
Proposal 3 (US Hams)
On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 12:32:22 -0700, bob_deep wrote:
Slow Code wrote: Dumbing it down cheapened the license, making being a radio amateur nothing special. No wonder they leaving. I'll bet that most of the folks "leaving" are simply not renewing being SK. Code is in a way a dying art quite literally. Which is a shame. We have to face it, this hobby doesn't attract a lot of new blood and the existing stock is rapidly growing older. The advantage to me is that I can find old ham equipment at estate sales for next to nothing but that's not what I'm posting about.. :) I don't think things are all that "unfair" with the maximum code speed we currently test being 5 WPM. Of course that's what I got tested at so you can charge bias if you want. I currently don't operate CW (heck, I don't operate at all right now) but all that spectrum space in the lower part of the bands is starting to beckon. I've got a code practice program and I work on my code from time to time so maybe someday... So where do I fall in this debate? I certainly don't favor the removal of the code requirement for all license classes. Extra's surely need to be tested at the current 5 WPM. But the fact remains that the interest in this hobby as shown by the decline in the number of licenses needs some attention. We don't need to "dumb" down the hobby to get more folks in it, but we do need to bring the requirements into the current age. Before the advent of the personal computer 20 years ago, it would have been very expensive to set up an automated CW send and receive station, but now you can do it for next to nothing. One can actually send and receive CW without ever learning it and get transmission rates much faster than just about anybody can copy by ear, just hook up your PC to the rig load the software and voila, the no code licensee is sending and receiving at 25 WPM the day after he failed the 5 WPM test. On the other hand, you guys that struggled to get their code speed up to 20 WPM so they could get their Extra have my respect. I understand that lowering that requirement seems like we are dumbing down the hobby, but I hope you can understand that like AM, CW is being replaced by other modes that you and your generation have pioneered. My greatest fear is that the FCC will totally do away with code in it's testing requirements, which will logically lead to a mass spectrum reassignment to make more room for voice and we will likely loose our valuable spectrum space in the process. But once the last license goes to SK what's to stop the FCC from giving it all away? May code never die, there are times it's the only option, but we have to keep the hobby relevant or it will all go away when the hobby dies. -= Bob =- KC4UAI I was under the impression that CW would get through under worse conditions and/or with lower power requirements than other modes. Does no one run "flea power" anymore? I sometimes listen in on 10 meters but don't hear much there. A bit of CW every now and then, but not much of anything, usually. Maybe I'm listening at the wrong times? Or is it mostly vacant and just freebanders buying the 10 meter rigs? |
Proposal 3 (US Hams)
a.k.a. The Stupidest Person in The World, wrote in message (nothing important, as usual) ///////remainig drivel flushed/////// |
Proposal 3 (US Hams)
wrote:
My greatest fear is that the FCC will totally do away with code in it's testing requirements, which will logically lead to a mass spectrum reassignment to make more room for voice and we will likely loose our valuable spectrum space in the process. But once the last license goes to SK what's to stop the FCC from giving it all away? Well, one of the nice things about code is that you don't _need_ very much bandwidth. And with modern DSP you should be able to make IF filters even narrower than my old R-390... should be possible to cram hundreds of carriers into the space of one SSB channel. And hey, what's happening to the 500KC marine allocation? That's pretty much dead... I wonder if the ITU could be convinced to give that to the ham radio operators. Nobody else wants it. May code never die, there are times it's the only option, but we have to keep the hobby relevant or it will all go away when the hobby dies. I don't think code ever will die, but I could see a world in which it is even less relevant than it is today. That's not to say we shouldn't encourage its use. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
Proposal 3 (US Hams)
Scott Dorsey wrote: wrote: My greatest fear is that the FCC will totally do away with code in it's testing requirements, which will logically lead to a mass spectrum reassignment to make more room for voice and we will likely loose our valuable spectrum space in the process. But once the last license goes to SK what's to stop the FCC from giving it all away? Well, one of the nice things about code is that you don't _need_ very much bandwidth. And with modern DSP you should be able to make IF filters even narrower than my old R-390... should be possible to cram hundreds of carriers into the space of one SSB channel. So true, and low bandwidth helps CW get though when SSB would be impossible. However, don't forget that CW can be done quite nicely with a cheap computer, some simple cables and some free software without learning it. I suppose that one could argue that a human ear can hear what a computer can't, but I'd be willing to argue that point in favor of the computer. I'll be willing to bet that there won't be much improvement over CW in the raw "get the message though under bad conditions" power with the new digital modes using the same bandwidth as CW. Simple is under-rated in my book. As an operating mode CW is alive and well and likely to stay, however it will be computer driven more and more as the art dies off and new blood is not required to learn it as well as the old. Change is neither good or bad, it's just change. -= Bob =- |
Proposal 3 (US Hams)
Scott Dorsey wrote: wrote: My greatest fear is that the FCC will totally do away with code in it's testing requirements, which will logically lead to a mass spectrum reassignment to make more room for voice and we will likely loose our valuable spectrum space in the process. But once the last license goes to SK what's to stop the FCC from giving it all away? Well, one of the nice things about code is that you don't _need_ very much bandwidth. And with modern DSP you should be able to make IF filters even narrower than my old R-390... should be possible to cram hundreds of carriers into the space of one SSB channel. So true, and low bandwidth helps CW get though when SSB would be impossible. However, don't forget that CW can be done quite nicely with a cheap computer, some simple cables and some free software without learning it. I suppose that one could argue that a human ear can hear what a computer can't, but I'd be willing to argue that point in favor of the computer. I'll be willing to bet that there won't be much improvement over CW in the raw "get the message though under bad conditions" power with the new digital modes using the same bandwidth as CW. Simple is under-rated in my book. As an operating mode CW is alive and well and likely to stay, however it will be computer driven more and more as the art dies off and new blood is not required to learn it as well as the old. Change is neither good or bad, it's just change. -= Bob =- |
Proposal 3 (US Hams)
Scott Dorsey wrote: wrote: My greatest fear is that the FCC will totally do away with code in it's testing requirements, which will logically lead to a mass spectrum reassignment to make more room for voice and we will likely loose our valuable spectrum space in the process. But once the last license goes to SK what's to stop the FCC from giving it all away? Well, one of the nice things about code is that you don't _need_ very much bandwidth. And with modern DSP you should be able to make IF filters even narrower than my old R-390... should be possible to cram hundreds of carriers into the space of one SSB channel. So true, and low bandwidth helps CW get though when SSB would be impossible. However, don't forget that CW can be done quite nicely with a cheap computer, some simple cables and some free software without learning it. I suppose that one could argue that a human ear can hear what a computer can't, but I'd be willing to argue that point in favor of the computer. I'll be willing to bet that there won't be much improvement over CW in the raw "get the message though under bad conditions" power with the new digital modes using the same bandwidth as CW. Simple is under-rated in my book. As an operating mode CW is alive and well and likely to stay, however it will be computer driven more and more as the art dies off and new blood is not required to learn it as well as the old. Change is neither good or bad, it's just change. -= Bob =- |
Proposal 3 (US Hams)
"Leroy" wrote in message d... On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 12:32:22 -0700, bob_deep wrote: I sometimes listen in on 10 meters but don't hear much there. A bit of CW every now and then, but not much of anything, usually. Maybe I'm listening at the wrong times? Or is it mostly vacant and just freebanders buying the 10 meter rigs? Has much to do with where we are in the sunspot cycle. A couple or three years from now 10 meters will start to be much busier. It's my misfortune I got my upgrade to General a year before the dead bottom of the cycle. At the age of 74 I'm just hoping to be around long enough to see what the high point in the cycle sounds like.(G) Harold KD5SAK |
Proposal 3 (US Hams)
"Leroy" wrote in message d... On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 12:32:22 -0700, bob_deep wrote: [SNIP] I was under the impression that CW would get through under worse conditions and/or with lower power requirements than other modes. Yes that can be true. They speak of PSK as being low power but that is only low transmit power. It takes more power to generate a 25w PSK signal than a 100watt CW signal. Computers draw a lot of power. Does no one run "flea power" anymore? There are a lot of QRP (low power) hobbyists. I sometimes listen in on 10 meters but don't hear much there. A bit of CW every now and then, but not much of anything, usually. Maybe I'm listening at the wrong times? Or is it mostly vacant and just freebanders buying the 10 meter rigs? Bad point in the sunspot cycle for 10 meters. It does open occasionally but not like it does at the peak of the sunspot cycle. Right now it is not open every day (although it may be open for a while each week). And the time of day it is open tends to be when people are working, doing errands after work, etc. Dee, N8UZE |
Proposal 3 (US Hams)
wrote in message ps.com... Scott Dorsey wrote: wrote: My greatest fear is that the FCC will totally do away with code in it's testing requirements, which will logically lead to a mass spectrum reassignment to make more room for voice and we will likely loose our valuable spectrum space in the process. But once the last license goes to SK what's to stop the FCC from giving it all away? Well, one of the nice things about code is that you don't _need_ very much bandwidth. And with modern DSP you should be able to make IF filters even narrower than my old R-390... should be possible to cram hundreds of carriers into the space of one SSB channel. So true, and low bandwidth helps CW get though when SSB would be impossible. However, don't forget that CW can be done quite nicely with a cheap computer, some simple cables and some free software without learning it. I suppose that one could argue that a human ear can hear what a computer can't, but I'd be willing to argue that point in favor of the computer. Actually, you would lose such an argument. There are many hams who have proven that they can decipher better than the computer. The computer hardware or software requires the following characteristics in the received transmission to work: 1. A strong signal 2. No distortion on the signal such as occurs from aurora, meteor scatter, etc. 3. The code sent is nearly equal in quality to that sent by a computer. Some one using paddles may achieve that but if they are sending with a manual key or bug, that is highly unlikely. I have frequently been able to copy better than the computer and my code skills are quite modest. The only time it beats me is when the code meets the above three criteria and is too fast for me to copy. I'll be willing to bet that there won't be much improvement over CW in the raw "get the message though under bad conditions" power with the new digital modes using the same bandwidth as CW. Simple is under-rated in my book. I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here. Did you leave something out? As an operating mode CW is alive and well and likely to stay, however it will be computer driven more and more as the art dies off and new blood is not required to learn it as well as the old. Change is neither good or bad, it's just change. While change is neither good or bad, sometimes the results of change can be undesireable. Dee, N8UZE |
Proposal 3 (US Hams)
"Leroy" wrote in message
d... I was under the impression that CW would get through under worse conditions and/or with lower power requirements than other modes. Various digital modes do better under low SNR conditions than CW, but they do require a computer at both ends to perform the encoding and decoding -- some people don't like that fact, that you seemingly need "more equipment" to work such modes than you do with CW. It's a bit of a red herring, however, in that these days pretty much every single amateur radio being sold commercially has a processor (computer) in it anyway, and while some are strictly for "control" (not modulation/demodulation), the percentage that does have raw number crunching power increases every day, and within a decade it's a fair bet that over 90% of all commerical amateur radios will use DSP techniques for modulation and demodulation. (Cell phone went to DSPs somewhere between 5-10 years ago now...) Does no one run "flea power" anymore? Absolutely they do, and it's a really cool part of the hobby... but for every 100 amateurs, I would guess that the number running QRP on a regular basis is about 1. ---Joel |
Slightly OT was Proposal 3 (US Hams)
"Joel Kolstad" wrote in message ... "Leroy" wrote in message d... Absolutely they do, and it's a really cool part of the hobby... but for every 100 amateurs, I would guess that the number running QRP on a regular basis is about 1. ---Joel My sole experience with QRP was accidental. I had reduced power to 5 watts to tune to a different band (17 meters) and forgot to turn the power back up. As a result I found myself speaking to a Swiss ham form my southern Oklahoma shack with 5 watts and getting a reasonably good signal report. I realize that for real QRPers 5 watts is high power, but for me it was an unusual pleasure. Moreso because bad weather had me using an indoor dipole mounted on the wifes sewing room ceiling (about nine feet above the earth). Harold KD5SAK |
Proposal 3 (US Hams)
kd5sak wrote:
Has much to do with where we are in the sunspot cycle. A couple or three years from now 10 meters will start to be much busier. It's my misfortune I got my upgrade to General a year before the dead bottom of the cycle. At the age of 74 I'm just hoping to be around long enough to see what the high point in the cycle sounds like.(G) Man, do anything you can to stick around. It's going to be good, and 10M FM is just more fun than anything. Get a PRC-8 and take lots of vitamin C. I predict that this next peak is going to be a really good one, at least as good as '78 was. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
Change (was : Proposal 3 (US Hams))
Change is neither good or bad, it's just change. ============================ IMHO Change enables people to retain an active mind..........and that in itself is positive --------- Good ! Frank GM0CSZ / KN6WH |
Proposal 3 (US Hams)
Yes that can be true. They speak of PSK as being low power but that is only
low transmit power. It takes more power to generate a 25w PSK signal than a 100watt CW signal. --- Computers draw a lot of power.----- ========== Unless you use a laptop Frank GM0CSZ / KN6WH |
Proposal 3 (US Hams)
Dee Flint wrote: wrote in message I'd be willing to argue that point in favor of the computer. Actually, you would lose such an argument. I don't think so, at least under most common operating conditions. There are many hams who have proven that they can decipher better than the computer. The computer hardware or software requires the following characteristics in the received transmission to work: 1. A strong signal Signal to noise ratio would be important, to be sure, however with the proper application of some limited computing power I'm sure one could construct a detector that would work with seriously low SNR. It is amazing what DSP's can do now days.. 2. No distortion on the signal such as occurs from aurora, meteor scatter, etc. Again, I've seen spectral displays that clearly show CW transmissions that could *not* be heard. 3. The code sent is nearly equal in quality to that sent by a computer. Some one using paddles may achieve that but if they are sending with a manual key or bug, that is highly unlikely. Sending code is not in question. Surely a computer is able to open and close the keying faster than a transmitter can possibly transmit. Also, remember that the faster you key, the higher bandwidth your signal will require and the higher the SNR will theoretically need to be for it to be decoded at the receiving end. I have frequently been able to copy better than the computer and my code skills are quite modest. The only time it beats me is when the code meets the above three criteria and is too fast for me to copy. I would contend that the software you are using is not utilizing the inputted signal at it's full potential. I've seen audio processing techniques that could pull out inaudible signals that where more complicated than CW would be. I would also ask if you where copying random characters or where you able to "fill in the gaps" by using the context? The latter would be a very different problem for a computer to solve. I'll be willing to bet that there won't be much improvement over CW in the raw "get the message though under bad conditions" power with the new digital modes using the same bandwidth as CW. Simple is under-rated in my book. I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here. Did you leave something out? I'm saying that if you pick any digital mode, restrict the bandwidth to that of the CW signal with the same data rate, keep the SNR the same with the same error rates, CW will be about as good as you can get. Not bad for an operating mode that has been around as long as CW. |
Proposal 3 (US Hams)
wrote in message oups.com... Dee Flint wrote: wrote in message I'd be willing to argue that point in favor of the computer. Actually, you would lose such an argument. I don't think so, at least under most common operating conditions. Define "common operating conditions". For a contester, common operating conditions often include murderous QRM. Yet contesting is common. I've always maintained that one can construct various scenarios such that there is one where the particular mode under discussion is "the best". For ragchewers, common operating conditions often include manually sent CW. There are many hams who have proven that they can decipher better than the computer. The computer hardware or software requires the following characteristics in the received transmission to work: 1. A strong signal Signal to noise ratio would be important, to be sure, however with the proper application of some limited computing power I'm sure one could construct a detector that would work with seriously low SNR. It is amazing what DSP's can do now days.. Yes and there are some very fine software programs already available. But even so they fail before the "EAR" fails, assuming a trained and experienced operator. 2. No distortion on the signal such as occurs from aurora, meteor scatter, etc. Again, I've seen spectral displays that clearly show CW transmissions that could *not* be heard. So I've seen displays of many types of signals that cannot be heard. That is an entirely different issue from distortion. When the auroras start playing, PSK (as an example) is so distorted that no matter how strong the signal, the computer cannot decipher it. If a CW signal is distorted but loud enough to hear, the human ear/brain combo can still decipher. 3. The code sent is nearly equal in quality to that sent by a computer. Some one using paddles may achieve that but if they are sending with a manual key or bug, that is highly unlikely. Sending code is not in question. Surely a computer is able to open and close the keying faster than a transmitter can possibly transmit. Also, remember that the faster you key, the higher bandwidth your signal will require and the higher the SNR will theoretically need to be for it to be decoded at the receiving end. Receiving is the issue. If the received code was manually sent, the computer often fails. I have frequently been able to copy better than the computer and my code skills are quite modest. The only time it beats me is when the code meets the above three criteria and is too fast for me to copy. I would contend that the software you are using is not utilizing the inputted signal at it's full potential. I've seen audio processing techniques that could pull out inaudible signals that where more complicated than CW would be. I''ve tested everyone I could find. I'm one of those people who gets pleasure out of trying all the new gadgets & software I can find and afford. I've also seen inaudible signals pulled out of all kinds. That's quite feasible when the bands are in good shape. Add a little thunderstorm activity, geomagnetic disturbances, solar flares, etc and the machine can't decipher them. It's not a matter of signal strength but a matter of signal quality. I would also ask if you where copying random characters or where you able to "fill in the gaps" by using the context? The latter would be a very different problem for a computer to solve. Yes it is a different matter. Humans definitely have the edge on "fill in the gaps". I'll be willing to bet that there won't be much improvement over CW in the raw "get the message though under bad conditions" power with the new digital modes using the same bandwidth as CW. Simple is under-rated in my book. I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here. Did you leave something out? I'm saying that if you pick any digital mode, restrict the bandwidth to that of the CW signal with the same data rate, keep the SNR the same with the same error rates, CW will be about as good as you can get. Not bad for an operating mode that has been around as long as CW. Ok, I understand. Actually many digital modes are, by their nature, narrower than CW already. You would have to open up the filter to get to the same bandwidth. Again the key item is quality of signal. For example, aurora induces phase shifts on PSK (phase shift keying) and makes it undecipherable. It also induces phase shifts in voice and CW. It gives the voice & CW signals a buzzy, raspy sound. Yet you can often understand voice when PSK is undecipherable. CW, when there is a phase shift, sounds like a series of buzzes but can still be copied if you are used to it. And yes CW does a fine job and will continue to be advantageous under certain conditions. Dee, N8UZE |
Proposal 3 (US Hams)
Joel Kolstad wrote: I think I'm pretty much in agreement with you... 5 WPM is not an unreasonable barrier to entry, and I don't particular oppose keeping it around, but I do think it seems awfully arbitrary, and this refelcts somewhat poorly on hams as a group trying to present themselves as modern and professional. Well, we agree that we should keep this requirement, but I don't agree that CW should seen as reflecting poorly on us hams. CW operation, albeit old fashion, remains a useful skill that I think should be encouraged. I do acknowledge that the new digital modes and computer based CW does make CW skills less necessary, but I don't think we should consider it old fashion or out of date. -= Bob =- |
Proposal 3 (US Hams)
|
Proposal 3 (US Hams)
wrote in message ... On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 23:15:13 GMT, "U-Know-Who" wrote: Not if it keeps you off HF. but it doesn't tom you know that BTW, you never did say what you use the AL-80 for. Keeping warm in the winter? |
Proposal 3 (US Hams)
U-Know-Who wrote: wrote in message ... On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 23:15:13 GMT, "U-Know-Who" wrote: Not if it keeps you off HF. but it doesn't tom you know that BTW, you never did say what you use the AL-80 for. Keeping warm in the winter? i don't own one you are showing that you can't or don't read the posts your coment very well |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:21 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com