|
WPM to BPS calculation
"Klystron" wrote in message
[snip] : Wouldn't it make more sense to include WWV and WWVH : along with WWVB? Or even MSF... 73 Ivor G6URP |
WPM to BPS calculation
|
WPM to BPS calculation
On Mar 25, 3:15 pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote: The world-record-holder (in text messaging) could not beat a couple of amateurs going at a fraction of the Morse Code record speed. What serious CW operator cannot send Morse faster than he/she can text-message? I don't know of anyone including me. But give me a full sized keyboard and the situation changes. Of course! But what cell phone has a full sized keyboard? And if the Morse operators are allowed full sized Morse keyboards, the situation changes yet again. With a decent 10 speed bicycle I could win the Boston Marathon (as long as everybody else has to run). Not only is the bit entertaining, it proves the point of newer not always being faster. Given no previous experience and one hour of training for each mode, which would win? :-) Bwaahaahaa! ;-) Good one! 73 de Jim, N2EY |
WPM to BPS calculation
Ivor Jones wrote:
wrote in message : wrote: : On Mar 23, 9:53???pm, Klystron wrote: : ???Paul W. Schleck " wrote: : ??? ???Wouldn't it make more sense to include : WWV and WWVH along with WWVB? : : snip : : Such a system requires connectivity to the internet. : WWVB does not; just requires a receiver. : : As does a GPS based time sytem. : : Both WWVB and GPS require decoding of the time : information by something. : : Then, there is the : matter of GPS, which has a time capability that is : incidental to its navigation function. : : GPS can only be used where the satellites can be "seen" : by the receiver. : : Which is the entire planet. Those bits of it with an uninterrupted view of the sky, anyway. Doesn't work too well in my basement office. Or under the canopy of trees on the road outside my house. Neither do any of the traditional time and frequency stations without a working antenna. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
WPM to BPS calculation
wrote in message
[snip] : : GPS can only be used where the satellites can be : : "seen" by the receiver. : : : : Which is the entire planet. : : Those bits of it with an uninterrupted view of the sky, : anyway. Doesn't work too well in my basement office. Or : under the canopy of trees on the road outside my house. : : Neither do any of the traditional time and frequency : stations without a working antenna. True, but my internet-connected computers don't need a working antenna, they get their info from the ntp server :-) 73 Ivor G6URP |
WPM to BPS calculation
Ivor Jones wrote:
wrote in message [snip] : : GPS can only be used where the satellites can be : : "seen" by the receiver. : : : : Which is the entire planet. : : Those bits of it with an uninterrupted view of the sky, : anyway. Doesn't work too well in my basement office. Or : under the canopy of trees on the road outside my house. : : Neither do any of the traditional time and frequency : stations without a working antenna. True, but my internet-connected computers don't need a working antenna, they get their info from the ntp server :-) Where do you think most ntp servers get their time these days? -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
WPM to BPS calculation
|
WPM to BPS calculation
"Of course! But what cell phone has a full sized keyboard? IIRC I can generate and send text-messages using the Motorola Phone Tools computer software connected to my Motorola cellphone via a USB port, thereby using a full-size screen and keyboard to do so. I use that setup to edit my "call list" in the 'phone. So given a typist of comparable proficiency to the Morse operators ( meaning probably in the region of 80 - 100 wpm) it is most likely that the text message would win the race; depending on system delays, which again is not a fair comparison to face to face Morse. You could wait for hours, or days, or even years for the bands to open to a particular location!! It all goes to show that you must compare like with like. I am sure that the Morse operators would have also lost if they were forced to send extraneous letters as they cycled through to find the correct one, as the text'er had to. 73 Jeff |
WPM to BPS calculation
"Jeff" wrote:
So given a typist of comparable proficiency to the Morse operators ( meaning probably in the region of 80 - 100 wpm) it is most likely that the text message would win the race; depending on system delays, which again is not a fair comparison to face to face Morse. You could wait for hours, or days, or even years for the bands to open to a particular location!! It all goes to show that you must compare like with like. I am sure that the Morse operators would have also lost if they were forced to send extraneous letters as they cycled through to find the correct one, as the text'er had to. Ultimately, we need to treat these various modes as methods of sending text - no more and no less. Two methods that send the same text are competing modes, regardless of whether keyboards, a telephone keypad or a telegraph key is used to send it. A method that sends those blocks of text faster and with fewer errors is better. A slower, more error prone method is inferior. Not all encoding schemes are equal. Some, like ASCII, encode the entire alphabet, including upper and lower case. Others, like ISO-Latin-1, can encode even more characters. In general, the more inclusive encoding method is better. An encoding scheme that is easily adapted to error correction (parity, automatic re-send, etc.) is also considered better. So claiming that phones, data modes and Morse can't be compared because they are somehow "different" ignores the ultimate reason for their existence - text communication via radio. -- Klystron |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:38 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com