On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 16:28:23 EDT, wrote:

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.

Although I have received text messages on that 'phone, I have yet had
no need to send one. Compared to the JHS and HS crowd, I am certainly
"deprived".
--

73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon

e-mail: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net

"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

"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

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 -

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

On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 19:41:24 EDT, wrote:

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.

As I said in both a print interview and a TV interview during the
December storms here while passing gobs of hospital traffic using PTT
UHF FM ham radios when the electrical power, cellphones, internet
circuits , landlines, and even the sat-phone connections were all
down to the hospitals on the Oregon coast, we showed that 1950s
technology can get through when 1990s technology fails.
--

73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon

e-mail: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net

"

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

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

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

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