Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #71   Report Post  
Old March 27th 08, 10:33 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.moderated
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jun 2006
Posts: 828
Default WPM to BPS calculation

Klystron wrote:
"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.


Respectfully I disagree. None of these methods compete with each other.
They are just different applications of technology, some simpler, some
more complex, and some quite strange (read feld-hell) Users can use
whatever mode they are interested in, and are on equal footing.



A method that sends those blocks
of text faster and with fewer errors is better. A slower, more error
prone method is inferior.


Here is some difficulty when we try to apply your description to HF. It
is difficult to get a high data rate via HF due to the relatively noisy
conditions.

An example is Digital SSTV vs analog SSTV. On the face of it, digital
SSTV has it all over the old fashioned variety. No image size
restrictions, digital accuracy, and the jpeg you send looks the same on
the recipient's end. The problem is under certain conditions that exist
fairly often, the analog SSTV picture is sent, looked at and stored,
while the digital version never arrives, because noisy condx causr the
receiving end to send a continual stream of "Retry please".

NOw to apply this to text modes, this would make PSK31 inferior to
PSK64, 128. and so on. But the psk31 text reads about the same speed,
and takes up less bandwidth.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -


  #72   Report Post  
Old March 27th 08, 11:41 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.moderated
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 877
Default WPM to BPS calculation

On Mar 27, 3:28 pm, Klystron wrote:
Ultimately, we need to treat these various modes as methods of
sending text - no more and no less.


I disagree! Morse Code is more than simply a method of sending text.

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.


I disagree again! Lots of differences, for example, a simple telegraph
key can be made in a few minutes with simple tools. Keyboards are a
bit more work.

A method that sends those blocks
of text faster and with fewer errors is better. A slower, more error
prone method is inferior.


If the only factors considered are speed and accuracy, that's true.
But there are other
factors when it comes to things like amateur radio - bandwidth,
required equipment,
etc.

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.


See above about what factors are considered.

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.


One can compare all sorts of things, and have the results come out
differently
depending on the factors considered. Is rollerblading "better" than
running because
the same person can go faster and farther for the same effort?

The real point of the Jay Leno clip was to show that the assumption of
"newer is faster/better" turned out to be exactly wrong. The audience
and the woman Leno talked to were *sure* the text-messager would win,
yet Morse Code was faster.

If all you want to do is send text from point A to point B, there are
lots of good modes.

But consider these factors:

1) Morse Code can be manually encoded and decoded by humans and
machines. RTTY, ASCII, etc., cannot, at least in practical terms.
(Yes, I once got to the point where I could usually recognize "RYRYRY"
and "W3ABT" in 45.45 baud Baudot FSK, but have you ever met anyone who
could have conversations that way?)

2) Morse Code can be done with audio or video - by watching a flashing
light, text on a screen, or simply listening to it. Audio reception is
a big advantage in situations where a visual display isn't practical.

3) Morse Code can be implemented with a bare minimum of simple
equipment, or with complex equipment, or anything in between.

There are lots more, that's just a sample.

None of this proves the idea that all radio amateurs must use Morse
Code, or must pass some sort of test on it, etc. That issue has been
decided (at least in the USA).

---

Should radio amateurs not *use* Morse Code any more?

73 de Jim, N2EY




  #74   Report Post  
Old March 28th 08, 11:21 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.moderated
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 158
Default WPM to BPS calculation


"

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.



Indeed, compare it with "text communication via radio" not with sending
Morse across a table. Try the same test, but sending a message to ZL or VK,
I am sure that the SMS message would win. The text message would have
arrived long before the band opened and you tuned up your antenna.

Jeff


  #75   Report Post  
Old March 28th 08, 11:22 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.moderated
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 464
Default WPM to BPS calculation

In article ,
Klystron wrote:

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.


I hope you'll pardon me when I ask "Which deity spoke to you and laid
down those particular points of Absolute Truth?". What's all this "We
need to" and "no more and no less" and "xxx is better" and "yyy is
inferior" and "... is also considered better"?

If you're willing to state those as _your_ personal opinions of the
basis on which two partially-competing methods of encoding and
communicating _should_ be compared (and that no other criteria need
apply), I have no objection at all.

I do, however, object in principle to the idea that these are the
highest (or only) criteria, or that they're somehow sacred.

And, I also object to the idea (which I think is implied by the tone
of your other messages - please correct me if I'm wrong) that the
choice of communication methods is somehow exclusive... that the fact
that a method which is superior (by your criteria, perhaps) means that
other methods that you find inferior should be wiped out or
abandoned... or that people who prefer to use the other methods are
somehow responsible for Holding Back The True Progress.

My own perspective is that people may have *many* criteria for chosing
a means of communication (by radio or otherwise). Bandwidth, or
bandwidth*reliability is not the sole criterion that people use, in
practice, nor do I think there's any reason that it should be. Life
is full of tradeoffs between different criteria - information
bandwidth per Hz of spectrum, robustness of encoding, suitability for
multi-point communication, resistance to different sorts of
interference, cost of equipment, availability of equipment, and so
forth. I communicate with my wife by voice, by email, by telephone,
by scribbling half-illegible notes on scraps of paper, and by bringing
home flowers... different methods, for different types of information-
passing under varying conditions.

In commercial communications and public-safety, bandwidth (or payload)
and reliability and cost all play a big factor. In military
communications, reliability and security seem big, bandwidth is
important, and cost (of equipment at least) tends to take a back seat.

Ham radio is a much more diverse motivation-space. Some people
optimize their operations as for public safety and commercial (the
EMCOM folks), others for "most distance per watt" or "per dollar spent
on the radio" (QRP folks, homebrewers, and other experimenters),
others for portability, others for plain ordinary fun (according to
their own definition of fun... for some folks, using single-frequency
crystal-oscillator transmitters is just what gets their rocks off :-)

There's plenty of room in ham radio for different modes of operation.
Saying that we all *have* to abandon Morse (or SSB, or voice, or AM,
or...) and strap computers to all of our rigs, in order to encourage
experimentation and use with newer modes, is really missing the
point... it's implicitly denying a large percentage of hams the right
to explore those aspects of ham radio that *they* find interesting and
worthwhile.

If we were all being paid to do all of this stuff, then the people
paying us would perhaps have the right to set our agendas. We aren't
(and by the rules of the game, cannot be... at least, not here in the
US) and so we get to set our own priorities, operating-mode and
otherwise.

[And, for the record - I operate CW only rarely, and have enjoyed
experimenting with packet and the newer digital modes quite a bit.]

--
Dave Platt AE6EO
Friends of Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!



  #76   Report Post  
Old March 28th 08, 11:59 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.moderated
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,521
Default WPM to BPS calculation

Dave Platt wrote:
There's plenty of room in ham radio for different modes of operation.


Not to mention other aspects not involving modes.
My favorite aspect of ham radio is pretty much mode
independent - experimenting with antennas.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

  #77   Report Post  
Old March 28th 08, 01:03 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.moderated
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Dec 2006
Posts: 169
Default WPM to BPS calculation

Jeff wrote:

Indeed, compare it with "text communication via radio" not with sending
Morse across a table. Try the same test, but sending a message to ZL or VK,
I am sure that the SMS message would win. The text message would have
arrived long before the band opened and you tuned up your antenna.


But where's the fun and the challenge?

If I want to do business with someone in Australia, I'll pick up the
telephone and avail myself of the investment of billions of dollars in
research money and construction cost for a worldwide communications
infrastructure. If my only objective in this case is to communicate
with a specific individual in Australia, right now, reliably, that's the
way to do it.

If I wait for a band opening and manage to snare some rare DX using only
my modest radio equipment and my wits, that's a completely different
goal. Comparing "communication" via ham radio and "communication" via
sending a text message is a lot like comparing traveling over the ocean
on a commercial airliner with doing it on your own sailboat. Yes, in
both cases you are transported from point A to point B. But goals and
priorities that determine "success" for these two endeavors are much
different.

I'm bemused by where this discussion of the Leno "Morse vs. Texting"
segment has gone. I have to give Leno's writers credit for coming up
with something entertaining and unique. It even gave ham radio a bit of
publicity. But a literal comparison of the two items misses the point
of ham radio as a hobby and avocation.

73, Steve KB9X

  #78   Report Post  
Old March 28th 08, 02:19 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.moderated
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 877
Default WPM to BPS calculation

On Mar 28, 7:21 am, "Jeff" wrote:

Indeed, compare it with "text communication via radio" not with sending
Morse across a table. Try the same test, but sending a message to ZL or VK

,
I am sure that the SMS message would win.


That's not guaranteed at all.

The text message would have
arrived long before the band opened and you tuned up your antenna.


You're assuming the band isn't open and the antenna needs tuning. That
changes the conditions of the test.

If the path from A to B is already set up and working, the Morse Code
speed advantage may be even greater than it was on the Jay Leno show,
because it only takes a fraction of a second for the direct radio
signal to reach the Antipodes, but the text message will be relayed
many times to go the same distance.

KB9X, in another post, makes a valid comparison between riding on a
jet airliner and piloting your own sailboat. Are sailboats "obsolete"
because they're slower?

73 de Jim, N2EY

  #79   Report Post  
Old March 28th 08, 06:04 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.moderated
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 158
Default WPM to BPS calculation



Indeed, compare it with "text communication via radio" not with sending
Morse across a table. Try the same test, but sending a message to ZL or VK

,
I am sure that the SMS message would win.


That's not guaranteed at all.

The text message would have
arrived long before the band opened and you tuned up your antenna.


You're assuming the band isn't open and the antenna needs tuning. That

changes the conditions of the test.

If the path from A to B is already set up and working, the Morse Code

speed advantage may be even greater than it was on the Jay Leno show,
because it only takes a fraction of a second for the direct radio
signal to reach the Antipodes, but the text message will be relayed
many times to go the same distance.

KB9X, in another post, makes a valid comparison between riding on a

jet airliner and piloting your own sailboat. Are sailboats "obsolete"
because they're slower?


The test made an interesting piece of tv, but nothing more than that. All it
proved is that mobile phones have a slower and clumsier way of inputting
text than a proficient cw operator.

Jeff


  #80   Report Post  
Old March 28th 08, 08:39 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.moderated
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jun 2006
Posts: 828
Default WPM to BPS calculation

Jeff wrote:


Indeed, compare it with "text communication via radio" not with sending
Morse across a table. Try the same test, but sending a message to ZL or VK,
I am sure that the SMS message would win. The text message would have
arrived long before the band opened and you tuned up your antenna.



Let's not forget that the texters have their own limitations, such as
being in range of an antenna, hopefully no power outages or disasters
that cut off the service.

But truly that wasn't the point of the demonstration anyhow. All other
things being equal, texting is slower because of the physical aspect
differences between the two.


Voice would have beaten either OOK Morse or texting. But who cares about
that really? It's all good.

side trip....

I've alway thought that there are some interesting parallels between
regular folks and Us Hams, with seemingly different impressions by the
public.

humor alert!

Using an HT isn't cool, but Using a cell phone is.

Using OOK texting isn't cool, but using cell phone texting is.

My Suzuki Vitara with it's legal height Bugcatcher antenna isn't cool,
but if I put a Penn State banner on it during football season I am
waaaay kewl!

Humor alert off


I really need to post some pictures of the Vitara all set up. That 13+
foot antenna so completely overwhelms the thing that it almost becomes
cool in it's own right. The only downside is that so many people want to
come over to talk to me about it that I sometimes don't get to operate
it as much. OTOH, I was talking to a Fish and Game officer who is going
for his license now

- 73 de Mike N3LI -



Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
hydrometer calculation mikea Homebrew 3 April 5th 11 07:06 PM
LC calculation exray[_4_] Homebrew 12 November 10th 08 08:58 PM
How to get -89.5 dBM in this IP3 calculation fl Homebrew 1 September 21st 07 07:26 AM
ring capacity calculation? lixiaoyao Antenna 0 August 1st 07 04:42 PM
IP3 calculation and estimation Jason Antenna 5 February 16th 05 07:53 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:11 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2021 RadioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Radio"

 

Copyright © 2017