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

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.

In article , Bill Turner
writes:

First of all, this anecdote has the ring of untruth.

Roughly about 12 bells all ringing out some jolly tune. :-)

First of all, Air Regulations are in place, have been in place
for decades, to handle aircraft without working radio
equipment. Those are lights in hand-held spotlights.

While it is an Air Regulation that aircraft operating into, over, and
out of air traffic controlled airports must have radios for normal
traffic guidance, there are also safety regulations which anticipate
that someone at some time might have equipment problems.
Flight instructors would surely know that.

In a real-life happening about two decades ago in Los Angeles,
a helicopter instructor's microphone somehow got stuck on
transmit on the normal tower frequency. Having had an aircraft
receiver on in my workshop one Saturday (house is about a mile
and a half from Bob Hope Airport - formerly the Burbank-Glendale-
Pasadena Airport in the east end of San Fernando Valley), I heard
the happening. All listeners could hear the the instructor advise
his student about helicopter hover flying. Somehow the mike
was connected to both the helo intercom and the aircraft radio.

Being AM, the stuck helo transmissions would block all weaker
signals on the BUR tower frequency. BUR tower could overpower
the helo's radio because it was higher power and had elevated
antennas of good size. However, all other traffic was blocked out
for the BUR tower and they had to get a temporary recording
going on other frequencies (approach, departure, radar vectoring)
plus advising VNY (Van Nuys, center of Valley) and LAX of the
problem. The radio blockage continued for about a half hour and
disrupted normal afternoon flying at BUR. How the helo was
informed isn't known but one circulating story has it that an FAA
van drove out to the end of the airport where the hovering took
place and signalled to the helo somehow, perhaps by lights.
The helicopter instructor apologized (apparently when signalled)
over the radio and the frustrated tower operators (at least two
voices) told him, also over the radio, to "report to the tower." :-)

But even if true, this is a perfect example of the wrong way to solve a
problem. Instead of relying on Morse for a backup, how about having a
second radio, perhaps an HT, in the plane?

That's quite common in this area for general aviation aircraft who
don't already have two comm radios installed. The Greater Los
Angeles section has an extraordinary amount of aircraft traffic.
IFR applies to some localized areas. Generally, the FAA can
transmit voice over the VOR and/or Localizer in the adjacent
radionavigation band (108 - 118 MHz, also AM). The major HT
manufacturers all produce a civil aviation model for private aircraft
use. Lacking that, the towers have fairly biright aimable spotlights
which they can use to signal an aircraft; seldom used, they are
there for emergencies. Lacking recognition by a "silent" aircraft,
the FAA is prepared to handle it as best as other traffic allows.
The FAA air controller's school does not have morse code
cognition in its curriculum.



Posted on 17 Jan 05