NIST Makes Astounding Discovery
 

NIST scientists have figured out that Morse code may get through poor
transmission conditions when voice does not.

"...first responders may be able to receive and see simple patterns—like
Morse code—from a survivor repeatedly turning a radio or phone on and off,
in cases where the signal was too weak to receive audible voice messages."

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/r...ion_dcconv.htm

73 de Jim, N2EY

On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 13:38:44 +0000, N2EY wrote:

NIST scientists have figured out that Morse code may get through poor
transmission conditions when voice does not.

[snip]

....and guess what? It probably cost the American taxpayer hundreds of
thousands of dollars to arrive at a conclusion that most good radio
operators knew about decades ago!!! Doh!....

Larry VE7EA

In Bill Turner
wrote:

On 01 Jan 2005 13:38:44 GMT, PAMNO (N2EY) wrote:

"...first responders may be able to receive and see simple patterns—like
Morse code—from a survivor repeatedly turning a radio or phone on and
off, in cases where the signal was too weak to receive audible voice
messages."
__________________________________________________ _________

May I suggest the correct conclusion to be drawn?

Get better equipment so voice will get through. ...

What's "better" mean? How much better is "good enough"? How much more will
the "better" stuff cost?

--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN

On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 10:13:02 -0800, Larry Gagnon
wrote:

On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 13:38:44 +0000, N2EY wrote:

NIST scientists have figured out that Morse code may get through poor
transmission conditions when voice does not.

[snip]

...and guess what? It probably cost the American taxpayer hundreds of
thousands of dollars to arrive at a conclusion that most good radio
operators knew about decades ago!!! Doh!....

Larry VE7EA

I'm with you there.

The logical thing would be to develop a digital system (after all
morse is digital) that would appear as text (so non-operators could
grok it), and with variable transmission rates to get the message
through - auto repeat? (and/or lots of abbreviations).

Then test it on some blown up buildings.

But if I were the NIST "scientist" would my primary goal be to solve
the problem or make money studying it?

On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 16:50:28 -0500, default wrote:

On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 10:13:02 -0800, Larry Gagnon
wrote:

On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 13:38:44 +0000, N2EY wrote:

NIST scientists have figured out that Morse code may get through poor
transmission conditions when voice does not.

[snip]

...and guess what? It probably cost the American taxpayer hundreds of
thousands of dollars to arrive at a conclusion that most good radio
operators knew about decades ago!!! Doh!....

Larry VE7EA

I'm with you there.

The logical thing would be to develop a digital system (after all
morse is digital) that would appear as text (so non-operators could
grok it), and with variable transmission rates to get the message
through - auto repeat? (and/or lots of abbreviations).

When Morse failed to get through, the locally-based branch of a mutlinational
oil produced resorts to ...

FAX. Write the message with a broad-tipped felt pen and send radiofax.
Worked for them. Usually their last Morse transmission as conditons
deteriorated was "send fax ... send fax ..."

Then test it on some blown up buildings.

But if I were the NIST "scientist" would my primary goal be to solve
the problem or make money studying it?

If I were him, right now I'd be keeping a very low profile after such an
astonishing announcement of the very obvious.

She was the telegraphist's daughter, and she
only did it 'cos her dada did it ;-)

"Bill Turner" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 11:41:56 -0000, "Airy R. Bean"
wrote:
Morse is digital if it results from on-off keying using the fingers.
Hard to argue with that. :-)

john graesser wrote:

"Bill Turner" wrote in message
...
On 01 Jan 2005 19:25:09 GMT, Bert Hyman wrote:

What's "better" mean?

Check your dictionary.


How much better is "good enough"?

Good enough for 100% reliability.


How much more will
the "better" stuff cost?

Doesn't matter when lives are at stake. Get it.

One of the local hams here is also a pilot instructor, while flying one day
the mic on his aircraft radio broke. Being a long time brass pounder he took
the mic apart and made a key out of it.

Luckily one of the people in the tower that day knew morse and was able to
understand Mike's messages to the tower.

Lucky for them that aircraft band was still am so Mike had a carrier to turn
on and off.

Nothing is 100% reliable. You never know when you will be faced with using
broken or impaired equipment so you have to be prepared to improvise.
thanks, John.
KC5DWD

Sounds like a good story, except:

Why would he need to take the mic apart when he could just use the push
to talk switch?

If the "radio broke", how was he able to transmit at all?

If what really broke was the mic or the modulation section of the only
comm radio on board, transmitting a long carrier on a regular basis
would get the attention of ATC personnel and resulted in a call to the
aircraft.

If he was an instructor, or a pilot at all, he should know the
procedures for communications failure as described in FARs 91.126, 91.127,
and 91.129, none of which call for using morse code.

FAR 91.185 wouldn't apply since he couldn't be flying IFR with just one
radio.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove -spam-sux to reply.

john graesser wrote:

Nothing is 100% reliable. You never know when you will be faced with using
broken or impaired equipment so you have to be prepared to improvise.
thanks, John.
KC5DWD

Good point. But nowadays, why not call the tower's published telephone
number on your cell phone? In the early '70s an acquaintance used 2M
autopatch to get landing clearance for the USAF C-130 Herculese he was
flying when its radios died - thought the Barksdale AFB tower folks were
mighty surprised to get that call long before the days of cell phones...

Jim Horn, WB9SYN/6

On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 11:41:56 -0000, "Airy R. Bean"
wrote:

(after all morse is digital)
Morse is binary (having two states), but it is not digital, since the
states do not represent numbers.

Morse is digital if it results from on-off keying using the fingers.

chuckle Good one!

Tony

Misleading posting-order corrected.....

"Tony VE6MVP" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 11:41:56 -0000, "Airy R. Bean"
wrote:

Morse is digital if it results from on-off keying using the fingers.

(after all morse is digital)
Morse is binary (having two states), but it is not digital, since the
states do not represent numbers.
chuckle Good one!