WPM to BPS calculation
 

I am trying to convert "words per minute" into "bits per second."
Bits per second, in turn, is APPROXIMATELY equal to baud, a common
measure of modem (or other means of data transmission) speed. I need to
quantify one factor: How many letters are in a "word?" If we assume that
there are 5 (five) letters to a word, my calculations look like this:


WPM = 50
LPM = WPM * 5 # letters per minute
BPM = LPM * 8 # bits per minute
BPS = BPM / 60 # bits per second
BPS = 33.33


I have assumed 8 bits to the byte, which is quite generous
considering that Morse cannot encode an 8 bit character set or, for that
matter, the full ASCII character set, which is only 7 bit.
Can anyone see any obvious errors? Is 50 words per minute really
equal to about 33 baud?

--
Klystron

WPM to BPS calculation
 

Here is how Morse speed is usually calculated:

If the text is typical plain-language English, the test word "PARIS"
is used. WPM is the number of times PARIS can be sent in 1 minute,
using proper spacing between dits and dahs, letters, and words.

It turns out that the word PARIS and one word space equals exactly 50
"dit times", with a dit time being the length of time the key is
closed for a dit. (A dah is three dit times, the spaces between dits
and dahs inside a character are one dit time, the spaces between
letters are three dit times and the spaces between words are seven dit
times.)

So if the word PARIS is sent 50 times in 1 minute, that minute is
divided into 2500 dit times. Which is 41.66 bps.

The reason for the difference is that there are so many different
timing issues in Morse Code. The elements, characters and spaces are
all different lengths, with the most-common characters (like the
letter E) being the shortest.

73 de Jim, N2EY

WPM to BPS calculation
 

WPM to BPS calculation
 

On Mar 18, 3:30 pm, Bill Horne wrote:
wrote:
Here is how Morse speed is usually calculated:

It turns out that the word PARIS and one word space equals exactly 50
"dit times", with a dit time being the length of time the key is
closed for a dit.

So if the word PARIS is sent 50 times in 1 minute, that minute is
divided into 2500 dit times. Which is 41.66 bps.

I'm sure your explanation is correct, but it leaves me confused: I know
bps baud, but they're close, and the Model 15 Teletype I used to own
operated at 45 baud. It seems illogical that Morse would be so high in
the bps count.

The difference has to do with how the coding is done. The following is
all from memory:

60 wpm Morse works out to 3000 bits per minute or 50 bits per second
using the "PARIS" formula.

Your 45 baud Model 15 Teletype was in all probability what hams called
a "60 wpm 5-level Baudot" machine. We had similar machines at the
University. (In this post I use the term "Baudot" to mean the 5-level
TTY code US hams used for many years until FCC allowed us other codes
like ASCII in the early 1980s)

"Baudot" takes 7 bits to send a character: one start bit, five data
bits, one stop bit. A space between words is a character, so to send
the word "PARIS" would take six characters including the space
character. That's only 42 bits, rather than the 50 bits that Morse
requires. Thus the difference - the Baudot machine uses 16% less bits
to send the same message. The speed difference works out to about 10%
because the Baudot stop bit was longer than the others in the machines
US hams typically used.

So you don't get the full 16% advantage that you'd expect from the raw
numbers. But since only six of the 42 bits are stop bits, the
difference is small.

To make it even more of a sporting course, the above WPM advantage of
the Baudot machine is message-dependent, same as for Morse. In Morse,
the message-dependency comes from the different characters being of
different length; a five-letter word like "TENET" takes a lot less
time to send than one like "JUICY", while in Baudot they both take the
same time to send.

But in the Baudot code the numbers and some other characters are sent
by shifting from "LTRS" to "FIGS", (letters to figures), so sending
mixed groups could take a lot of extra characters that Morse does not
require.

For example, in Morse you could just send the group "6A8G7" as 5
characters, but to send it on a Baudot machine you had to send
"figs6ltrsAfigs8ltrsGfigs7", which is 10 characters.

So the WPM are really approximations, and the BPS/baud measures took
over.

73 de Jim, N2EY

WPM to BPS calculation
 

In article ,
Bill Horne wrote:
I'm sure your explanation is correct, but it leaves me confused: I know
bps baud, but they're close, and the Model 15 Teletype I used to own
operated at 45 baud. It seems illogical that Morse would be so high in
the bps count.


Your Model 15 Teletype at the nominal 60 wpm speed, which is actually
368 chars/minute and 45.45 baud works out like this. The character
length is 7.42 bits long (for ancient, interesting reasons I won't go
into right now) and the bit duration is 22 milliseconds. The character
duration is therefore 7.42 * 22 = 163.24 milliseconds, and that works out
to 6.12595 characters/sec = 367.55 characters/minute. To convert that
to words you have to figure 6 characters per word because the space
between words is also a character. So the speed is actually 61.26
words/minute.

Teletype speed is sometimes confusing because there are a couple of
other speeds out there. Western Union liked to use a 7.00 unit
character rather than 7.42. With 45.45 baud, or 22 ms pulses, this
gives 154 milliseconds/character, or 6.49 characters/second, 389.6
character/min and hence 65.9 words/minute. This is completely
compatible with 7.42 unit code because the baud rate is 45.45 for
both. But then there is European 50 baud Telex using a 7.5 unit
code. This is a 20 millisecond bit for a character length of 150
milliseconds, 6.67 characters/second, 402 chars/minute, 67 words
per minute. This is not compatible with the other two codes because
the baud rate is different; but if you say something like "66 wpm"
you could be talking about either scheme.

Now when you get to ASCII, the old Teletype machines transmitted 8
data bits per character and used an 11.0 unit code. This makes 100
wpm work out to 110 baud. Electronic terminals don't need 11 unit
code; they can do just fine with 10. Thus the words-per-minute is
numerically equal to the baud rate. 100 baud - 10 ms/bit -
100 ms/char - 10 chars/sec - 600 chars/min - 100 wpm.

Morse has already been explained. A Morse dot is actually two bits,
since there is the dot followed by the space that makes it distinguishable
from what comes next. A Morse dash is four bits, counting the space,
and the word space is three dot times or 6 bit times. Then the
word PARIS contains 50 bit times counting the space. So one word
per second is 50 bits per second and 60 wpm. As an aside, the
military sends a lot of encrypted 5-letter code groups, so instead
of PARIS the Signal Corps uses CODEZ as a test word more statistically
correct for their kind of traffic. And CODEZ contains 60 bits.

WPM to BPS calculation
 

wrote:

[...]
So if the word PARIS is sent 50 times in 1 minute, that minute is
divided into 2500 dit times. Which is 41.66 bps.
[...]


It still seems like an awfully slow data rate. I have seen people
throw 14400 baud modems in the garbage because they considered them to
be so slow as to be worthless. A data rate of 42 bps is about 3 orders
of magnitude slower than that. It just seems inconsistent with the way
that so many hams have fought tooth and nail to hold onto Morse and to
hinder the move toward digital modes.

--
Klystron

WPM to BPS calculation
 

On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 14:04:16 EDT, Klystron wrote:

It just seems inconsistent with the way
that so many hams have fought tooth and nail to hold onto Morse and to
hinder the move toward digital modes.

The joy of Morse is not the speed at which data is transferred but the
means of transferring. A good Morseist (mot me....) doesn't need a
computer or software to decode it.

And I know several Morseists who not only use "high speed data modes'
in addition to using Morse, but hold advanced degrees in development
of those modes.

Morse is for fun.
--

73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

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

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

WPM to BPS calculation
 

On Mar 22, 1:04�pm, Klystron wrote:
wrote:
So if the word PARIS is sent 50 times in 1 minute, that minute is
divided into 2500 dit times. Which is 41.66 bps.

� �It still seems like an awfully slow data rate.

Compared to what? And for what application, in what bandwidth?

If you have a pile of data to send, or a picture, etc., 41.66 bps is
quite slow.

But for a real-time conversation, 41.66 bps isn't all that slow. The
average person doesn't talk or type at a sustained speed much faster
than 100 wpm. 50 wpm isn't that much slower.

I have seen people
throw 14400 baud modems in the garbage because they
considered them to
be so slow as to be worthless.

11 years ago, when I first went online, it was with a 56k modem. I
gave up on dialup modems several years ago and went broadband. I don't
think anybody who has a choice is still using dialup.

But that's because the options exist, with no significant downsides. A
14400 modem uses the same phone line as a 56K modem. DSL can be run on
the same phone line and not tie it up for telephone calls.

Operating on the limited bandwidth amd high variability of the HF
amateur bands is a completely different thing.

A data rate of 42 bps is about 3 orders
of magnitude slower than that. It just seems inconsistent
with the way
that so many hams have fought tooth and nail to hold
onto Morse and to
hinder the move toward digital modes.

A lot of hams like Morse Code and use it on the air. It has a lot
of advantages. Why should they give it up?

And how has "the move toward digital modes" been hindered by hams?

73 de Jim, N2EY

WPM to BPS calculation
 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In Klystron writes:

wrote:

[...]
So if the word PARIS is sent 50 times in 1 minute, that minute is
divided into 2500 dit times. Which is 41.66 bps.
[...]


It still seems like an awfully slow data rate. I have seen people
throw 14400 Baud modems in the garbage because they considered them to
be so slow as to be worthless. A data rate of 42 bps is about 3 orders
of magnitude slower than that.

Many types of communications vary over many orders of magnitude of
information rate, yet are considered useful and up-to-date.

For example, the Casio WaveCeptor on my wrist:

http://www.eham.net/reviews/detail/2497

receives a ~ 1 Baud Pulse Position Modulated (PPM) signal from radio
station WWVB in Fort Collins, Colorado, which transmits on 60 kHz. It
takes about a minute to send the complete time code to synchronize my
watch. Slow? Yes. Useful? Yes, very much so, especially when
considering the coverage and reliability that can be obtained from such
a low-bandwidth, groundwave-propagated, Very Low Frequency (VLF) signal.
The watch only needs to receive the time code at most once per day,
which it does so automatically in the early hours of the morning sitting
on my desk or dresser. A faster data rate would require something other
than a VLF signal, and would not improve much on the quality or
usability of the communications. It would definitely increase the
price. Witness the much greater success in the marketplace of
WWVB-based watches versus more advanced, higher bandwidth, but much more
expensive, "Smart Personal Object Technology" (SPOT) watches:

http://www.spotstop.com

One of the most current and widely used communications technologies
among young people is cellular telephone text messaging:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Text_messaging

(sometimes also called "Short Messaging System" or SMS)

According to this recent demonstration on the Tonight Show with Jay
Leno:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhsSgcsTMd4

the realizable data rates are comparable in order of magnitude to that
of fast Morse code that can be sent and received by human operators.
Just try telling a teenager with an SMS-capable cellular telephone that
it should be thrown in the trash because it isn't fast enough, or isn't
of sufficiently novel technology, and see his or her reaction.

To give you an amateur radio example, the Automated Position Reporting
System (APRS):

http://www.aprs.org

uses 1200 Baud AFSK packet. Faster, but still an order of magnitude
slower than technologies you imply should be thrown out. Since APRS
reports important, but compact, telemetry at periodic intervals, the
technology meets the requirements of many users utilizing VHF radios and
Terminal Node Controllers (TNC's). Again, substituting much higher data
rates would really not improve the technology or better meet the
requirements of the users which it serves.

To even give you a Morse code example, consider the simplicity and
effectiveness of the NCDXF beacons running on the HF bands:

http://www.ncdxf.org/beacons.html

A relatively low data rate On-Off Keyed (OOK) Morse Code signal is able
to quickly convey to the listener the quality of the communications
link, and required link budget, to various points around the globe. All
that is needed to be transmitted is a station identification, and the
same symbol (in this case the letter "V") sent at 10 dB power steps from
100 Watts to 0.1 Watt. Complex modulation/demodulation equipment to
achieve "orders of magnitude" faster data rates would not only not fit
on the HF bands, they would not seem to offer much improvement in the
quality of the service.

I suppose one could implement a beacon network using something like
PSK31:

http://www.psk31.com/

which might even be able to demonstrate realizable communications link
budgets below 0.1 Watt. But even that advanced digital mode would only
have data rates comparable to Morse code. Though the NCDXF beacon
network is a Morse code service, note that Morse code knowledge is
really not necessary to utilize it effectively. A synchronized time
base and a chart of which station transmits at which time would enable
very fast determination of the link budget to the beacon locations. If
you can't remember what a "V" sounds like in Morse Code (". . . _" like
the intro to Beethoven's Fifth Symphony), I suppose you could put that
on the chart as well. After all, the use of similar charts are how
pilots usually decode the Morse code identifications of aeronautical
beacons.

There are even a number of excellent software packages linked from the
NCDXF site above that could automatically monitor the signals, decode
the Morse, and record the quality of the communications paths over time.
One such package is Faros:

http://www.dxatlas.com/Faros/

one of many advanced signal processing software packages for amateur
radio that exploits the ubiquitousness of of inexpensive personal
computers with sound cards in most home ham "shacks."

Focusing simply on information rate disregards other aspects of the
communications and the channel over which it is transmitted. These
important aspects include the bandwidth and propagation characteristics
of the available channel, the complexity of the required transmitting
and receiving equipment, the amount of data that needs to be
transmitted, and how quickly and often it needs to be conveyed.

Single-attribute measuring contests may be fun, even ego-boosting to
some, but are really not very useful or impressive to those who actually
design and use practical communications systems.

It just seems inconsistent with the way
that so many hams have fought tooth and nail to hold onto Morse and to
hinder the move toward digital modes.

I'm not sure that I understand your line of reasoning here. You are
implying cause-and-effect. In other words, use and advocacy of Morse
code somehow directly contributed to the obstruction of other
technologies. Can you give direct evidence of specific examples? If
you are implying that licensing requirements obstructed the development
of advanced digital modes, that really doesn't appear to be the case.
Witness the success of Tucson Amateur Packet Radio (TAPR):

http://www.tapr.org

and the Radio Amateur Satellite Corporation:

http://www.amsat.org

which have developed or championed many promising digital technologies,
developed by amateurs with widely varying degrees of Morse code
operating skills.

Furthermore, if the only technologies that you believe should be saved
from being thrown away are those at 14.4 kBaud and up, those
technologies are only practically realizable on amateur radio bands at
high VHF and up. Such bands have been open to licensees without need of
a Morse code test for going on 17 years now. Even before then, these
bands were accessible to Technician-class amateurs since at least
shortly after World War II, with a license that only required a minimal,
5 WPM (essentially individual character-recognition) Morse code test.

If you are saying that someone *else* should have developed these
technologies (other than you, of course), and that since they haven't,
then someone *must* be to blame, well, you can't really dictate how the
world should turn out without taking an active role to help make it that
way.

--
Klystron

- --
73, Paul W. Schleck, K3FU

http://www.novia.net/~pschleck/
Finger for PGP Public Key

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (SunOS)

iD8DBQFH5epg6Pj0az779o4RAvfbAJ4kewTvCX5mqHimGwfXkK tQCusKFwCgxKPZ
ovhE2D69Thi8oiiqsv5I9X8=
=4RMi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

WPM to BPS calculation
 

Phil Kane wrote:

Morse is for fun.

Indeed, this says it all.

73, Steve KB9X

WPM to BPS calculation
 

Paul W. Schleck " wrote:
Klystron writes:

It still seems like an awfully slow data rate. I have seen people
throw 14400 Baud modems in the garbage because they considered them to
be so slow as to be worthless. A data rate of 42 bps is about 3 orders
of magnitude slower than that.


Many types of communications vary over many orders of magnitude of
information rate, yet are considered useful and up-to-date.

For example, the Casio WaveCeptor on my wrist:

http://www.eham.net/reviews/detail/2497

receives a ~ 1 Baud Pulse Position Modulated (PPM) signal from radio
station WWVB in Fort Collins, Colorado, which transmits on 60 kHz. It
takes about a minute to send the complete time code to synchronize my
watch. Slow? Yes. Useful? Yes, very much so, especially when
considering the coverage and reliability that can be obtained from such
a low-bandwidth, groundwave-propagated, Very Low Frequency (VLF) signal.
[...]


In your model, only a single axis of data is transmitted - the time
of day. That seems like a great deal of infrastructure and energy
consumption to transmit a single data quantity. The equivalent
infrastructure for weather transmission (marine and air) is even more
elaborate and expensive. Can you see that is an outrageously inefficient
way to distribute a small quantity of information?


One of the most current and widely used communications technologies
among young people is cellular telephone text messaging:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Text_messaging

(sometimes also called "Short Messaging System" or SMS)

According to this recent demonstration on the Tonight Show with Jay
Leno:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhsSgcsTMd4

the realizable data rates are comparable in order of magnitude to that
of fast Morse code that can be sent and received by human operators.
Just try telling a teenager with an SMS-capable cellular telephone that
it should be thrown in the trash because it isn't fast enough, or isn't
of sufficiently novel technology, and see his or her reaction.


My understanding is that they use SMS for fairly trivial
communications, like what they will have for lunch or where they will
meet at the mall. A rough equivalence might be SMS users objecting to
the use of the SMS system by people who are sitting at full-size
computers or by people who have connected keyboards to their phone. If
they were to complain that "typing" pidgin English (like "HOW R U?")
with your thumbs on a tiny telephone keypad was the one true way to use
SMS, then I think I could agree that there was an equivalence.
You might ask those kids why they also use conventional e-mail,
despite having SMS availability.


To give you an amateur radio example, the Automated Position Reporting
System (APRS):

http://www.aprs.org

uses 1200 Baud AFSK packet. Faster, but still an order of magnitude
slower than technologies you imply should be thrown out.
[...]


Again, it is for the exchange of a single axis of data - geographic
location. Please stop tying to pass off these single purpose, dedicated
systems as examples of general purpose communications.


To even give you a Morse code example, consider the simplicity and
effectiveness of the NCDXF beacons running on the HF bands:

http://www.ncdxf.org/beacons.html


My understanding is that Morse-based beacon identifications are read
by computerized devices and are not "copied" by the pilots. I doubt that
you could find very many current pilots who could copy any Morse at all.


[...]
There are even a number of excellent software packages linked from the
NCDXF site above that could automatically monitor the signals, decode
the Morse, and record the quality of the communications paths over time.
One such package is Faros:

http://www.dxatlas.com/Faros/

one of many advanced signal processing software packages for amateur
radio that exploits the ubiquitousness of of inexpensive personal
computers with sound cards in most home ham "shacks."


There is nothing about that that is unique to Morse. Any type of RF
link would be usable in that way.


Focusing simply on information rate disregards other aspects of the
communications and the channel over which it is transmitted. These
important aspects include the bandwidth and propagation characteristics
of the available channel, the complexity of the required transmitting
and receiving equipment, the amount of data that needs to be
transmitted, and how quickly and often it needs to be conveyed.

Single-attribute measuring contests may be fun, even ego-boosting to
some, but are really not very useful or impressive to those who actually
design and use practical communications systems.

It just seems inconsistent with the way
that so many hams have fought tooth and nail to hold onto Morse and to
hinder the move toward digital modes.

I'm not sure that I understand your line of reasoning here. You are
implying cause-and-effect. In other words, use and advocacy of Morse
code somehow directly contributed to the obstruction of other
technologies. Can you give direct evidence of specific examples?


Hams used to deride digital communications as "pulse" and tell tales
about the way that it squandered bandwidth. They made it out to be
something along the lines of spark-gap. Look for articles about "pulse"
communications in old (1960's and 70's) issues of QST and Popular
Electronics. Considering the lead time needed to develop a new mode, I
think it is unreasonable not to go back at least that far. I believe
that the anti-digital curmudgeons delayed the implementation of digital
modes by a matter of decades. It is interesting to note that the most
widely used digital modes (for 2-way radio, not for broadcast) were
developed either in Japan (Icom/JARL DV) or under the auspices of a
police organization that has no ties to radio, except as consumers (APCO
25).


[...]
Furthermore, if the only technologies that you believe should be saved
from being thrown away are those at 14.4 kBaud and up,


Can you point to something in my post that makes such a claim? The
only technology that I have derided as being too slow as to have value
is Morse code that is sent by hand (less than 100 baud). The Navy shut
down its VLF network on the grounds that the data rate was inadequate.
Perhaps it is time for the amateur community to take a similar step.


those
technologies are only practically realizable on amateur radio bands at
high VHF and up. Such bands have been open to licensees without need of
a Morse code test for going on 17 years now. Even before then, these
bands were accessible to Technician-class amateurs since at least
shortly after World War II, with a license that only required a minimal,
5 WPM (essentially individual character-recognition) Morse code test.

If you are saying that someone *else* should have developed these
technologies (other than you, of course), and that since they haven't,
then someone *must* be to blame, well, you can't really dictate how the
world should turn out without taking an active role to help make it that
way.


That last paragraph is incoherent. Could you rephrase it?

--
Klystron

WPM to BPS calculation
 

On Mar 23, 2:33�pm, Klystron wrote:
�Paul W. Schleck " wrote:

For example, the Casio WaveCeptor on my wrist:

http://www.eham.net/reviews/detail/2497
receives a ~ 1 Baud Pulse Position Modulated (PPM)
signal from radio
station WWVB in Fort Collins, Colorado, which transmits
on 60 kHz. �It
takes about a minute to send the complete time code
to synchronize my
watch. �Slow? �Yes. �Useful? �Yes, very
much so,
especially when
considering the coverage and reliability that can be
obtained from such
a low-bandwidth, groundwave-propagated, Very Low
Frequency (VLF) signal.

In your model, only a single axis of data is transmitted - the time
of day. That seems like a great deal of infrastructure and energy
consumption to transmit a single data quantity.

Actually, it's a very small infrastructure, and very efficient. I've
been there, btw.

The time standard info is already present at the WWVB transmitter
site, so that's no cost. All that's necessary is a system to encode
it, and the WWVB transmitter and antenna. While an impressive
installation by amateur radio standards, the WWVB transmitter is
not overly large for the wavelength.

But WWVB's 60 kHz signal serves large numbers of clocks of many types
all over North America - by radio. It keeps them all synchronized via
radio, without any user intervention.

What alternative technology would do the same job with less
infrastructure and energy consumption?

The equivalent
infrastructure for weather transmission (marine and air) is
even more elaborate and expensive.

Of course. But it's also very important from a safety standpoint.

Can you see that is an outrageously inefficient
way to distribute a small quantity of information?

What alternative technology would do the same job with greater
efficiency?

One of the most current and widely used
communications technologies
among young people

Not just "young people". A lot us find text messaging very useful.

is cellular telephone text messaging:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Text_messaging

(sometimes also called "Short Messaging System" or SMS)

According to this recent demonstration on the
Tonight Show with Jay Leno:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhsSgcsTMd4

the realizable data rates are comparable in order of magnitude to th
at
of fast Morse code that can be sent and received by human
operators.

The facts are even more telling.

In that Leno clip, the text messager is the Guinness-book
world-record-holder. The Morse Code ops are a couple of
hams who were going less than 30 wpm - which is less than
40% of the world-record Morse Code speed.

The text messager was allowed to use common text-message
abbreviations, while the Morse Code ops just sent the straight
text with no abbreviations at all.

The Morse Code ops also produced a hard-copy in real time.

IMHO, what was most telling was that the audience was sure
the text messager would win. But a much older technology
proved to be faster.

Just try telling a teenager with an SMS-capable cellular
telephone that
it should be thrown in the trash because it isn't fast
enough, or isn't
of sufficiently novel technology, and see his or her reaction.

The answer will be that it's fast enough for what it's used for.

Isn't that the ultimate test of any technology - that it's good
enough for what it's used for?

My understanding is that they use SMS for fairly trivial
communications, like what they will have for lunch or
where they will meet at the mall.

I can say for a fact that's not true. While a lot of text - and cell
phone - communications is trivial, much is not. For example,
something as simple as a meeting place or time can be
critical information.

A rough equivalence might be SMS users objecting to
the use of the SMS system by people who are sitting at full-size
computers or by people who have connected keyboards to their
phone.

Actually the system can be used that way, in that a message generated
by a cell can be delivered as an email, and the
reverse.

The point is that speed isn't the only criterion.

To give you an amateur radio example, the Automated Position Reporti
ng
System (APRS):

http://www.aprs.org

uses 1200 Baud AFSK packet. �Faster, but still an order of magni
tude
slower than technologies you imply should be thrown out.

� �Again, it is for the exchange of a single axis of data
-
geographic
location. Please stop tying to pass off these single purpose,
dedicated
systems as examples of general purpose communications.

No one is trying to do that. The point being made is that speed
is not the only criterion.

What is meant by "general purpose communications"? My computer
allows internet access, email and some other things, but I still have
POTS and a cell phone. TV and radio come to my house over the air.

I'm not sure that I understand your line of reasoning here.
�You are
implying cause-and-effect. �In other words, use and
advocacy of Morse
code somehow directly contributed to the obstruction of other
technologies. �Can you give direct evidence of specific
examples?

Hams used to deride digital communications as "pulse"
and tell tales
about the way that it squandered bandwidth.

I don't know any hams who used the term "pulse" to refer to
digital communications. Nor have I heard tales about squandered
bandwidth.

However, note that not all digital signals are designed with
bandwidth efficiency as the primary consideration. For
example, classic 850 Hz shift 45.45 baud RTTY uses almost
a kHz of band to transmit about the same info (actually
less) as PSK31 which uses maybe 50 Hz.

They made it out to be
something along the lines of spark-gap.

If you mean spark, I have not seen that comparison anywhere.
Could you provide a specific reference?

Look for articles about "pulse"
communications in old (1960's and 70's) issues of QST and
Popular Electronics.

I have all the QSTs back to the mid-1920s, and have read all
of them. I do not recall any comparison of digital modes to
"pulse" in any of them. Could you provide a specific reference?

I do recall some QST articles back in the 1950s *advocating* pulse
modes for use at microwave frequencies. The idea was that
rather than trying to adapt lower frequency narrow band techniques to
the microwave bands, broadband/radar techniques would be used for
communications.

Considering the lead time needed to develop a new mode, I
think it is unreasonable not to go back at least that far.

PSK31 was developed in a few years by G3PLX and a small group of hams
around the world. Lots of other examples.

I believe
that the anti-digital curmudgeons delayed the implementation of
digital
modes by a matter of decades.

How was this done?

The main impediments to the implementation of digital modes by
amateurs (at least in the USA) were two:

1) Restrictive regulations, brought about mostly by the FCC's need
to be able to monitor amateur transmissions. However, note that
digital transmissions other than digital voice are not allowed in the
US HF 'phone subbands - which comprise the majority of the
bandwidth on those bands. Those rules force the digital
data modes to share only with Morse Code users.

2) The high cost of hardware. Only a decade ago, a PC
was a significant investment compared to a ham rig.

It is interesting to note that the most
widely used digital modes (for 2-way radio, not for broadcast)
were
developed either in Japan (Icom/JARL DV) or under the auspices
of a
police organization that has no ties to radio, except as consumers (APCO
25).

They were developed for specific applications, though. Not for general
purpose use.

Furthermore, if the only technologies that you believe
should be saved
from being thrown away are those at 14.4 kBaud and up,

Can you point to something in my post that makes such a claim?

The statement about throwing 14400 modems in the garbage.

The
only technology that I have derided as being too slow as to have
value
is Morse code that is sent by hand (less than 100 baud).

PSK31 and most HF RTTY are also less than 100 baud. Are they
too slow to have value?

The Navy shut
down its VLF network on the grounds that the data rate
was inadequate.

But amateur radio isn't the US Navy. IIRC, the purpose of that
network was/is to communicate one-way to submerged missile
submarines.

Perhaps it is time for the amateur community to take a similar
step.

What form would that step take? Should amateurs simply not
*use* Morse Code any more?

The *test* for the mode was an issue of great contention among
radio amateurs. But until July 2003 the ITU-R treaty prevented
complete elimination of the *test*.

However, as far back as 1990 it was possible to get any US
amateur radio license with just a basic 5 wpm Morse Code
test and a doctor's note. Since April 2000, no doctor's note
has been needed, and since Feb 2007 no Morse Code test
at all.

How any of this has impeded the development or implementation
of digital modes is unclear to me.

those
technologies are only practically realizable on amateur radio
bands at
high VHF and up. �Such bands have been open to licensees
without need of
a Morse code test for going on 17 years now. �Even before
then, these
bands were accessible to Technician-class amateurs since
at least
shortly after World War II, with a license that only required
a minimal,
5 WPM (essentially individual character-recognition)
Morse code test.

The Technician class license was created in 1951. Its Morse Code
test was always 5 wpm, until it was dropped completely in 1991.

IOW, as has been pointed out, practically all of the US amateur bands
above 30 MHz have been available for the development and
implementation of digital modes by amateurs, with no need for any
Morse Code test. Lots of bandwidth, too - all those bands except
222-225 are wider than all the HF/MF amateur bands combined.


73 de Jim, N2EY

WPM to BPS calculation
 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In Klystron writes:

Paul W. Schleck " wrote:
Klystron writes:

It still seems like an awfully slow data rate. I have seen people
throw 14400 Baud modems in the garbage because they considered them to
be so slow as to be worthless. A data rate of 42 bps is about 3 orders
of magnitude slower than that.


Many types of communications vary over many orders of magnitude of
information rate, yet are considered useful and up-to-date.

For example, the Casio WaveCeptor on my wrist:

http://www.eham.net/reviews/detail/2497

receives a ~ 1 Baud Pulse Position Modulated (PPM) signal from radio
station WWVB in Fort Collins, Colorado, which transmits on 60 kHz. It
takes about a minute to send the complete time code to synchronize my
watch. Slow? Yes. Useful? Yes, very much so, especially when
considering the coverage and reliability that can be obtained from such
a low-bandwidth, groundwave-propagated, Very Low Frequency (VLF) signal.
[...]


In your model, only a single axis of data is transmitted - the time
of day. That seems like a great deal of infrastructure and energy
consumption to transmit a single data quantity. The equivalent
infrastructure for weather transmission (marine and air) is even more
elaborate and expensive. Can you see that is an outrageously inefficient
way to distribute a small quantity of information?

Transmitting 50 kilowatts from a single site capable of covering most of
North America, using groundwave propagation, independent of solar
activity, is an "outrageously inefficient way to distribute a small
quantity of information?" Well, I do hope that you are hurrying to
write your Congressman to demand that the National Institute of
Standards and Technology put an immediate end to this grave outrage, and
profound waste of taxpayer's money that has been going on for decades.
After all, what does the NIST know about technology, or useful
communications? Perhaps as little as the engineers and marketers in the
economically successful and useful product field of WWVB watches and
clocks, in your estimation.


One of the most current and widely used communications technologies
among young people is cellular telephone text messaging:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Text_messaging

(sometimes also called "Short Messaging System" or SMS)

According to this recent demonstration on the Tonight Show with Jay
Leno:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhsSgcsTMd4

the realizable data rates are comparable in order of magnitude to that
of fast Morse code that can be sent and received by human operators.
Just try telling a teenager with an SMS-capable cellular telephone that
it should be thrown in the trash because it isn't fast enough, or isn't
of sufficiently novel technology, and see his or her reaction.


My understanding is that they use SMS for fairly trivial
communications, like what they will have for lunch or where they will
meet at the mall. A rough equivalence might be SMS users objecting to
the use of the SMS system by people who are sitting at full-size
computers or by people who have connected keyboards to their phone. If
they were to complain that "typing" pidgin English (like "HOW R U?")
with your thumbs on a tiny telephone keypad was the one true way to use
SMS, then I think I could agree that there was an equivalence.
You might ask those kids why they also use conventional e-mail,
despite having SMS availability.

I think you are underestimating the power of SMS. As for the comparison
to E-mail, I don't have to ask, as journalists have already done so,
including this recent article from Slate:

http://www.slate.com/id/2177969/pagenum/all/

Simply put, young people find appeal in the immediacy of small, but
low-latency messages sent in relatively large numbers over a long period
of time, and the information transmitted is far more rich and meaningful
that what you imply above. In many respects, this type of communication
is not stilted or limited, but almost provides the immediacy of a
conversation, without having to run up your voice minute charges or
leave your other callers unable to reach you due to the long-term busy
signal.

Young people do still use E-mail, but in circumstances for which it is
the better choice. They are not seeking some overall best "general
purpose communications" to get their messages across to each other.


To give you an amateur radio example, the Automated Position Reporting
System (APRS):

http://www.aprs.org

uses 1200 Baud AFSK packet. Faster, but still an order of magnitude
slower than technologies you imply should be thrown out.
[...]


Again, it is for the exchange of a single axis of data - geographic
location. Please stop tying to pass off these single purpose, dedicated
systems as examples of general purpose communications.

I didn't realize that only "general purpose communications" were
considered worthwhile. Your previous reply argued that it was
undesirable to use such a low-speed technology as Morse code given that
there were many higher-speed alternatives (faster by "orders of
magnitude" you said). I replied to you that fastest is not always best.
Other issues (previously enumerated by me) might actually dictate the
choice of lower-speed communications as the best choice.

I also don't see "general purpose communications" mentioned in Part 97.
Many "single purpose, dedicated systems" are used by amateurs, and
help fulfill amateur radio's Basis and Purpose. In many cases, a
"single purpose" technology is far more useful than a misfit,
one-size-fits-all, "general purpose" one.

Before we make too many assumptions about an undefined term, perhaps you
can describe what types of "general purpose communications" you would
consider to be worthy goals for the Amateur Radio Service, and which
"single purpose" technologies you would like to see eliminated?

Would you also kindly define what is a "single axis of data," in terms
familiar to those involved in communications engineering and technology?
What, then, would be "multiple axes of data?"

To even give you a Morse code example, consider the simplicity and
effectiveness of the NCDXF beacons running on the HF bands:

http://www.ncdxf.org/beacons.html


My understanding is that Morse-based beacon identifications are read
by computerized devices and are not "copied" by the pilots. I doubt that
you could find very many current pilots who could copy any Morse at all.

So, in other words, you are actually agreeing with my previous reply to
you that there are many useful Morse code based communications
technologies that do not actually require memorized, in-head, copy of
Morse code. I'm glad that we agree on something.

[...]
There are even a number of excellent software packages linked from the
NCDXF site above that could automatically monitor the signals, decode
the Morse, and record the quality of the communications paths over time.
One such package is Faros:

http://www.dxatlas.com/Faros/

one of many advanced signal processing software packages for amateur
radio that exploits the ubiquitousness of of inexpensive personal
computers with sound cards in most home ham "shacks."


There is nothing about that that is unique to Morse. Any type of RF
link would be usable in that way.

Yes. That is somehow a point of disagreement between us? In what way?

I did acknowledge that you could re-engineer the NCDXF beacon system
with one that uses, say, PSK31, but the bandwidth and data rate limits
would still remain. A PC with a soundcard would still be usable for
that system, as you note. I'm sure that the author of Faros could also
quickly adapt, and make a PSK31 version of his NCDXF beacon recording
software package.

Focusing simply on information rate disregards other aspects of the
communications and the channel over which it is transmitted. These
important aspects include the bandwidth and propagation characteristics
of the available channel, the complexity of the required transmitting
and receiving equipment, the amount of data that needs to be
transmitted, and how quickly and often it needs to be conveyed.

Single-attribute measuring contests may be fun, even ego-boosting to
some, but are really not very useful or impressive to those who actually
design and use practical communications systems.

It just seems inconsistent with the way
that so many hams have fought tooth and nail to hold onto Morse and to
hinder the move toward digital modes.

I'm not sure that I understand your line of reasoning here. You are
implying cause-and-effect. In other words, use and advocacy of Morse
code somehow directly contributed to the obstruction of other
technologies. Can you give direct evidence of specific examples?


Hams used to deride digital communications as "pulse" and tell tales
about the way that it squandered bandwidth. They made it out to be
something along the lines of spark-gap. Look for articles about "pulse"
communications in old (1960's and 70's) issues of QST and Popular
Electronics. Considering the lead time needed to develop a new mode, I
think it is unreasonable not to go back at least that far. I believe
that the anti-digital curmudgeons delayed the implementation of digital
modes by a matter of decades. It is interesting to note that the most
widely used digital modes (for 2-way radio, not for broadcast) were
developed either in Japan (Icom/JARL DV) or under the auspices of a
police organization that has no ties to radio, except as consumers (APCO
25).

Wow, these curmudgeons must have been very powerful and effective in
their obstructionism if they undermined entire areas of communications
technology development in this country over the last 30-40 years. I
didn't realize that our national technology infrastructure was so
inflexible and lethargic that it could not recover from these
influences, even after so many decades.

[...]
Furthermore, if the only technologies that you believe should be saved
from being thrown away are those at 14.4 kBaud and up,


Can you point to something in my post that makes such a claim?

Just the introduction to your previous article, where you directly
compare the Baud rate of Morse code with that of "obsolete" telephone
modems. You stated that their data rates differed by "orders of
magnitude," implying that communications technologies that were "orders
of magnitude" slower than telephone modems could be dismissed as
obsolete. Following the natural extension of that argument, then the
only technologies that could be favorably compared to such telephone
modems, and meet your argued standard of non-obsolete, could only be
realized on high VHF and up. As I argued previously, use and advocacy
of Morse code has no bearing on the current deployment of such
technologies, as no Morse code test has been required to access them for
at least 17 years. The Technician-class license has existed for far
longer, and has only a minimal Morse code examination.

The
only technology that I have derided as being too slow as to have value
is Morse code that is sent by hand (less than 100 baud).

So, to summarize:

slow-speed (less than 100 baud) PSK31 : "Good"

similar order-of-magnitude speed Morse code: "Bad"

So, it's not the speed you object to, it's the use of Morse code?
Couldn't you have just stated that, and not gone to the trouble of
bringing in other arguments like speed and bandwidth, or whether a
communications technology is sufficiently "general purpose" or not,
regardless of whether something "general purpose" would be the best
choice in a given circumstance? Just say that you don't like Morse
code. Others would at least give you credit for honesty.

The Navy shut
down its VLF network on the grounds that the data rate was inadequate.
Perhaps it is time for the amateur community to take a similar step.

References please? A Google search returns no evidence that Navy
stations like NAA in Cutler, Maine have gone off-line. Are you possibly
thinking of their ELF experiments that were recently ended? Even if so,
what competing technology is the Navy contemplating that will reliably
contact our submarine fleet that has "gone deep" under many fathoms of
RF-attenuating sea water?

I also didn't realize that amateur radio had similar "networks" that
would need to be shut down.

those
technologies are only practically realizable on amateur radio bands at
high VHF and up. Such bands have been open to licensees without need of
a Morse code test for going on 17 years now. Even before then, these
bands were accessible to Technician-class amateurs since at least
shortly after World War II, with a license that only required a minimal,
5 WPM (essentially individual character-recognition) Morse code test.

If you are saying that someone *else* should have developed these
technologies (other than you, of course), and that since they haven't,
then someone *must* be to blame, well, you can't really dictate how the
world should turn out without taking an active role to help make it that
way.


That last paragraph is incoherent. Could you rephrase it?

Looked pretty coherent to me, but for your benefit, I'll dissect it in
detail:

"If you are saying that someone *else* should have developed these
technologies ..."

In other words, amateur radio has failed to meet some standard of
technology development. Other people were somehow "wasting" their time
doing other things.

"... (other than you, of course) ..."

What have you done to make amateur radio a better place? Have you
written your Congressman? Petitioned the FCC? Worked in the
communications engineering and technology field? Developed amateur radio
software and hardware solutions? You seem to be knowledgeable on many
technical subjects, including the history of that technology over many
decades. Did you try to change things, or are you asserting that you
did not have the skills or abilities to help do so, even working with
others over many decades?

"... and since they haven't, then someone *must* be blamed, ..."

I was implying that you were seeking scapegoats, as it is easier to
blame others than look in the mirror.

"... well, you can't really dictate how the world should turn out
without taking an active role to help make it that way."

In other words, Lead, Follow, or Get Out of the Way. "Sidewalk
Superintendents" have very little influence on society. What is your
choice?

Also, some people seem to confuse actual solutions to problems (whether
in amateur radio, or on the newsgroups) with a contest over who can
become the most "outraged." To quote Jim Kelley, AC6XG:

"Outrage, and a buck-fifty, will get us exactly what?"

--
Klystron

- --
73, Paul W. Schleck, K3FU

http://www.novia.net/~pschleck/
Finger for PGP Public Key

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (SunOS)

iD8DBQFH5r/66Pj0az779o4RAnicAJ9csNsCmha8ssxAArkza8p3pxwIhACfZ v4O
BXSruHeICy8G0AOT+mCOhPo=
=tMJk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

WPM to BPS calculation
 

On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 17:23:43 EDT, wrote:

I have all the QSTs back to the mid-1920s, and have read all
of them. I do not recall any comparison of digital modes to
"pulse" in any of them. Could you provide a specific reference?

The only "pulse" reference that comes to mind is the pre-1979 emission
designator for what we now call "digital modulation" in the
International Radio Regulations. Nobody that I know, amateur or
professional (and most of the amateurs were professional communication
engineers) ever put it down.
--

73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

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

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

WPM to BPS calculation
 

Paul W. Schleck " wrote:

Transmitting 50 kilowatts from a single site capable of covering most of
North America, using groundwave propagation, independent of solar
activity, is an "outrageously inefficient way to distribute a small
quantity of information?" Well, I do hope that you are hurrying to
write your Congressman to demand that the National Institute of
Standards and Technology put an immediate end to this grave outrage, and
profound waste of taxpayer's money that has been going on for decades.
After all, what does the NIST know about technology, or useful
communications? Perhaps as little as the engineers and marketers in the
economically successful and useful product field of WWVB watches and
clocks, in your estimation.


Wouldn't it make more sense to include WWV and WWVH along with WWVB?
Are you familiar with the Internet-based ntp system? Then, there is the
matter of GPS, which has a time capability that is incidental to its
navigation function.


[...]
I think you are underestimating the power of SMS. As for the comparison
to E-mail, I don't have to ask, as journalists have already done so,
including this recent article from Slate:

http://www.slate.com/id/2177969/pagenum/all/

Simply put, young people find appeal in the immediacy of small, but
low-latency messages sent in relatively large numbers over a long period
of time, and the information transmitted is far more rich and meaningful
that what you imply above. In many respects, this type of communication
is not stilted or limited, but almost provides the immediacy of a
conversation, without having to run up your voice minute charges or
leave your other callers unable to reach you due to the long-term busy
signal.

Young people do still use E-mail, but in circumstances for which it is
the better choice. They are not seeking some overall best "general
purpose communications" to get their messages across to each other.


I don't see anything in that that contradicts my statement that SMS
is mainly used for messages of little importance. It is also called CMS,
for casual messaging service.


I didn't realize that only "general purpose communications" were
considered worthwhile.


A multi-purpose system that can match a single-purpose system on the
performance of the objectives of the single-purpose system is generally,
if not universally, considered superior.


Your previous reply argued that it was
undesirable to use such a low-speed technology as Morse code given that
there were many higher-speed alternatives (faster by "orders of
magnitude" you said). I replied to you that fastest is not always best.
Other issues (previously enumerated by me) might actually dictate the
choice of lower-speed communications as the best choice.

I also don't see "general purpose communications" mentioned in Part 97.
Many "single purpose, dedicated systems" are used by amateurs, and
help fulfill amateur radio's Basis and Purpose. In many cases, a
"single purpose" technology is far more useful than a misfit,
one-size-fits-all, "general purpose" one.

Before we make too many assumptions about an undefined term, perhaps you
can describe what types of "general purpose communications" you would
consider to be worthy goals for the Amateur Radio Service, and which
"single purpose" technologies you would like to see eliminated?


Why do you want me to reinvent the wheel? Lets go to the source
(condensed from Part 97.1):

* emergency communications
* contribute to the advancement of the radio art
* advancing skills in both the communication and technical phases of
the art
* expansion of the existing reservoir within the amateur radio service
of trained operators, technicians, and electronics experts
* continuation and extension of the amateurs unique ability to enhance
international goodwill


Would you also kindly define what is a "single axis of data," in terms
familiar to those involved in communications engineering and technology?


A single quantity, like time or location


What, then, would be "multiple axes of data?"


Two or more simultaneous quantities, like time AND location or course
AND speed.


So, in other words, you are actually agreeing with my previous reply to
you that there are many useful Morse code based communications
technologies that do not actually require memorized, in-head, copy of
Morse code. I'm glad that we agree on something.


There is probably no purpose for which Morse can be used as a machine
language where there isn't a choice of other, better suited languages
available. This includes aeronautical beacons. You are grasping at
straws, now.


Wow, these curmudgeons must have been very powerful and effective in
their obstructionism if they undermined entire areas of communications
technology development in this country over the last 30-40 years. I
didn't realize that our national technology infrastructure was so
inflexible and lethargic that it could not recover from these
influences, even after so many decades.


When you look at the development of the Internet, Linux and other
free software, you have to wonder about the infrastructure behind it.
How did it come about? There was no regulatory body. There were no
licenses. There were no "Elmers." Until recently, there wasn't even any
formal schooling available, except on the sort of machinery that existed
only within the Fortune 500. Early Internet users and developers had to
read O'Reilly books and figure it out on their own.
That showed great initiative. It demonstrated the sort of determined,
driven advancement of technology that was once seen in amateur radio.
But that sort of thing has passed ham radio by. It has been a long time
since ham radio was a source of innovation. I blame the Morse cultists
who hijacked amateur radio for use as their personal playground.


Just the introduction to your previous article, where you directly
compare the Baud rate of Morse code with that of "obsolete" telephone
modems. You stated that their data rates differed by "orders of
magnitude," implying that communications technologies that were "orders
of magnitude" slower than telephone modems could be dismissed as
obsolete.


An amusing interpretation. It follows that trains and ships should be
discarded because they are much slower than airplanes.


Following the natural extension of that argument, then the
only technologies that could be favorably compared to such telephone
modems, and meet your argued standard of non-obsolete, could only be
realized on high VHF and up. As I argued previously, use and advocacy
of Morse code has no bearing on the current deployment of such
technologies, as no Morse code test has been required to access them for
at least 17 years. The Technician-class license has existed for far
longer, and has only a minimal Morse code examination.


You left out the faster mode of communication known as "voice." It is
widely used on HF. Further, I once looked at a band plan that showed how
DV could be used on HF. They described a system of HF DV that took up
just slightly more bandwidth than SSB and substantially less than AM.


So, to summarize:

slow-speed (less than 100 baud) PSK31 : "Good"

similar order-of-magnitude speed Morse code: "Bad"

So, it's not the speed you object to, it's the use of Morse code?
Couldn't you have just stated that, and not gone to the trouble of
bringing in other arguments like speed and bandwidth, or whether a
communications technology is sufficiently "general purpose" or not,
regardless of whether something "general purpose" would be the best
choice in a given circumstance? Just say that you don't like Morse
code. Others would at least give you credit for honesty.


Who are these "others" and when did they appoint you as their
spokesman?


References please? A Google search returns no evidence that Navy
stations like NAA in Cutler, Maine have gone off-line. Are you possibly
thinking of their ELF experiments that were recently ended? Even if so,
what competing technology is the Navy contemplating that will reliably
contact our submarine fleet that has "gone deep" under many fathoms of
RF-attenuating sea water?


I am thinking of the site in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan and the
increased reliance on TACAMO aircraft (at the time of the shutdown).


I also didn't realize that amateur radio had similar "networks" that
would need to be shut down.


The infrastructure that is being wasted on Morse includes band
segments that have, until recently, been reserved for its exclusive use.
I am very glad to see that almost all CW segments now allow data modes
(50-50.1 and 144-144.1 being the only exceptions). There is also the
inclusion of keyer provisions in HF radios. It will be interesting to
see what the marketplace does to code tapes and code keys. I don't think
they will last long.
While Morse supporters often point to treaties, the fact is that the
US was one of the last countries to abandon the Morse requirement for an
HF license. Other countries began dropping that requirement many years
earlier, while still claiming to be in compliance with their treaty
obligations. How do you explain that? To me, it sounds like the FCC used
the treaties as a pretext to keep the code requirement in order to
placate the ARRL and the Morse zealots.


Looked pretty coherent to me, but for your benefit, I'll dissect it in
detail:

"If you are saying that someone *else* should have developed these
technologies ..."

In other words, amateur radio has failed to meet some standard of
technology development. Other people were somehow "wasting" their time
doing other things.

"... (other than you, of course) ..."

What have you done to make amateur radio a better place? Have you
written your Congressman? Petitioned the FCC? Worked in the
communications engineering and technology field? Developed amateur radio
software and hardware solutions? You seem to be knowledgeable on many
technical subjects, including the history of that technology over many
decades. Did you try to change things, or are you asserting that you
did not have the skills or abilities to help do so, even working with
others over many decades?


I have worked in the electronics industry. I have made my views clear
to any and all who had an interest in the subject. I made those views as
clear then as I have done in this newsgroup.


"... and since they haven't, then someone *must* be blamed, ..."

I was implying that you were seeking scapegoats, as it is easier to
blame others than look in the mirror.

"... well, you can't really dictate how the world should turn out
without taking an active role to help make it that way."

In other words, Lead, Follow, or Get Out of the Way. "Sidewalk
Superintendents" have very little influence on society. What is your
choice?

Also, some people seem to confuse actual solutions to problems (whether
in amateur radio, or on the newsgroups) with a contest over who can
become the most "outraged." To quote Jim Kelley, AC6XG:

"Outrage, and a buck-fifty, will get us exactly what?"

--
Klystron

WPM to BPS calculation
 

Paul W. Schleck posted on Sun, 23 Mar 2008 12:03:58 EDT:

Many types of communications vary over many orders of magnitude of
information rate, yet are considered useful and up-to-date.

For example, the Casio WaveCeptor on my wrist:

http://www.eham.net/reviews/detail/2497

receives a ~ 1 Baud Pulse Position Modulated (PPM) signal from radio
station WWVB in Fort Collins, Colorado, which transmits on 60 kHz. It
takes about a minute to send the complete time code to synchronize my
watch. Slow? Yes. Useful? Yes, very much so, especially when
considering the coverage and reliability that can be obtained from such
a low-bandwidth, groundwave-propagated, Very Low Frequency (VLF) signal.
The watch only needs to receive the time code at most once per day,
which it does so automatically in the early hours of the morning sitting
on my desk or dresser. A faster data rate would require something other
than a VLF signal, and would not improve much on the quality or
usability of the communications. It would definitely increase the
price. Witness the much greater success in the marketplace of
WWVB-based watches versus more advanced, higher bandwidth, but much more
expensive, "Smart Personal Object Technology" (SPOT) watches:

Good mention, Paul. Ummm...the data rate is rather exactly one bit per
second and takes exactly 60 seconds to send one frame of time and date
data. :-)

ALL the details are given at www.nist.gov under the 'Time Frequency'
page, including propagation charts at various times of the day and
for various seasons. This southern California region can regularly
receive enough signal to set radio clocks even if at an approximate
distance of about 900 miles to Fort Collins. In 2005 my wife and I
drove to southern Wisconsin and my La Crosse radio wris****ch never
failed to set itself properly even though some of our overnight stays
were in hotels having steel structures or in among other buildings.
We have two radio wall clocks in our residence and those are exact
enough to compare on-the-second with HF time ticks from WWV and WWVH.

[I won't quibble about the PPM mode descriptor since the full details
of modulation are given at NIST website... :-) ]


According to this recent demonstration on the Tonight Show with Jay
Leno:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhsSgcsTMd4

Ahem...quibble mode on...that little bit on the Tonight Show was
a 'setup' gig that employed two young local male actors as the
(described) "text messaging experts" but the two hams (one of which
would very soon become marketing director for Heil Sound) were
real. That is the input I got directly from a reliable staffer on
the Tonight Show. Took a few phone calls to get that information
but it is an advantage of living inside the entertainment capital of
the USA (aka Los Angeles, CA)...and the NBC western Hq is only
about 5 miles south of my place, down Hollywood Way to Alameda and
then east about a mile. That whole bit was really a send-up on the
popular fad of text messaging done by teeners and young adults.

That bit is about as 'real documentary' as Leno's send-ups on the
'street interviews' with ordinary (apparently clueless) younger
folk on various kinds of knowledge. In short, ONLY for gag purposes.


To even give you a Morse code example, consider the simplicity and
effectiveness of the NCDXF beacons running on the HF bands:

http://www.ncdxf.org/beacons.html

HF beacons are neat for their purposes of checking on HF propagation
paths, but they aren't 'communications' in the regular sense. Those
were also designed for simplicity at the various receiving sites but
require rather precise time-of-day at each receiver in order to get
the start of each cycle.

While I had not intended to restart some morse-vs-others kind of
argument, I have to note where I began HF communications with the
US military some 55 years ago. Not a single communications circuit
used any form of morse coding to achieve a throughput of nearly a
quarter of a million messages per month (average in 1955). The
majority was teleprinter of the 5-level 'Baudot' format running at
60 WPM equivalent rates. 24/7 of course with TTY distributors to
to automatically start another p-tape reader when the other reader
was done. FSK 'spread' was then 850 cycles, not the narrower 170
Hz of today. Radio circuits (where I was assigned) spanned the
northern Pacific from Saigon, Seoul, and Manila to Anchorage,
Seattle, San Francisco, and Hawaii.

In 1955 the Army tried an experiment on a few select radio circuits
to push the Teletype Corporation's machines to 75 WPM equivalent.
End result of that was a failure rate more than double that of the
standard 60 WPM equivalent machines. Teletype seems to have achieved
an optimized design for 60 WPM equivalent; their 100 WPM equivalent
next-generation machines used a different electromechanical system,
were quite reliable at that rate.


very fast determination of the link budget to the beacon locations. If
you can't remember what a "V" sounds like in Morse Code (". . . _" like
the intro to Beethoven's Fifth Symphony), I suppose you could put that
on the chart as well. After all, the use of similar charts are how
pilots usually decode the Morse code identifications of aeronautical
beacons.

Quibble mode on again. The LF aeronautical beacoms are what you are
writing about but they are NOT used much at all for aircraft radio-
navigation now, nor were they a half century ago. Present-day (and in
1962) radionavigation over land is done mainly by VOR (Very high
frequency Omnidirectional Radio range) using a unique 30 Hz antenna
pattern rotation with a reference phase of 30 Hz sent on a 9.96 KHz
subcarrier. Aircraft VOR receivers have used very simple (even for
tube circuits) to determine their bearing to a ground station. These
were simple enough (and low cost enough) for small private general
aviation craft and the US VOR system was adopted internationally in
1955. For distance to a ground station the civil method emplyed a
low L-band interrogator sending a (jittered) double pulse and
measuring the return delay (plus 50 uSec) from the ground station
responder. This DME (Distance Measuring Equipment) was compatible
with military TACAN (TACtical Area Navigation) signal format and the
FAA combined VOR-DME-TACAN equipments on the ground and those are
identified by the contraction VORTAC. On aeronautical charts (from
the government, usually reprinted by private companies) there is
usually a magnetic bearing compass circle (VOR and civil-use-TACAN
reference magnetic reference, not actual north reference)...the
VHF frequencies (DME and TACAN frequencies have been paired with
VOR), ICAO 3-letter ID, and the dot-dash pattern of that 3-letter ID.

The elegant simplicity of VOR is that it will permit AM Voice IN the
ground station transmitter without disturbing the antenna pattern
modulation or the reference phase subcarrier. In congested urban
areas where a lot of general aviation aircraft abound, FAA stations
routinely use VOR voice transmissions to aid civil pilots, easing
the pilots' workload by providing extra information such as WX,
special conditions at an airport. My local airport (BUR) now known
as Bob Hope Airport, the FAA used to send a repeating voice
announcement of local WX conditions, airport info, etc., all
identified by a letter, beginning with A or Alpha at midnight. The
tag on the voice tape loop was "please tell the tower you have
received 'information Foxtrot or whatever letter'" when requesting
landing at that airport. Yes, some VORs transmit the ICAO 3-letter
ID as a low-modulation on-off tone in slow morse but I have yet to
find any civil pilot, beginner to experienced, who USES that code
for radionavigation.

Focusing simply on information rate disregards other aspects of the
communications and the channel over which it is transmitted. These
important aspects include the bandwidth and propagation characteristics
of the available channel, the complexity of the required transmitting
and receiving equipment, the amount of data that needs to be
transmitted, and how quickly and often it needs to be conveyed.

Martinez' PSK31 was rather precisely designed for low (500 Hz)
bandwidth coincident with non-typists typing rate of about 30 WPM
equivalent, all in congested Data slices of amateur radio band
'bandplans' on HF. With relatively simple electronic terminal
equipment with microprocessor-aided operation, I/O memory space
and programming is a minor addition to handle faster typists'
input, even burst typing on a keyboard to 100 WPM or so equivalent.

The OLD FSK bandwidths on HF (of a half century ago) took up about
a whole KHz while using an 850 cycle shift. On the 3 KHz of an old
commercial-format SSB channel (one of four), as many as 8 separate
TTY circuits could be frequency-multiplexed. A more reasonable
shift (to 170 Hz) occurred later with improvements in terminal
equipment technology, is the norm now, even for 100 WPM equivalent
teleprinter rates of those still using electromechanical terminals.

BANDWIDTH occupancy seems to be the primary driver for modulation
rates on HF. YMMV.

There are more complex methods of modulation-demodulation that
have been available for some time. DRM (Digital Radio Mondial) is
one such as has been verified on HF for 'SW BC' (Broadcasting).
That DRM has not spread well among broadcasters has little to do
with technical details of modulation-demodulation, but rather in
the poor propagation conditions of this sunspot cycle limiting
broadcasters' range. If a signal can't get through at all, NO
modulation method is going to help. Besides, with the availability
of satellite radio broadcasting, 'SW BC' has gradually shifted
over to that method rather than using HF directly.


I'm not sure that I understand your line of reasoning here. You are
implying cause-and-effect. In other words, use and advocacy of Morse
code somehow directly contributed to the obstruction of other
technologies. Can you give direct evidence of specific examples? If
you are implying that licensing requirements obstructed the development
of advanced digital modes, that really doesn't appear to be the case.
Witness the success of Tucson Amateur Packet Radio (TAPR):

It is disingenuous to 'force' an argument by introduction of
something not overtly stated by the originator.

TAPR and its membership have done some excellent technical
development and spread of such technology. Note also that its
membership is made up of radio amateurs who've been licensed for
a while and are NOT technical beginners in radio or electronics.

In the view of the ENTIRE world of radio, not just amateur radio, the
use of morse code modes to communicate has steadily decreased for
over a half century. It has decreased so much so that some non-
amateur radio services either stopped using that mode or never
considered it for a new radio service introduced in the last half
century. As a prime example, the changeover to GMDSS and replacement
of the old 500 KHz international distress and safety frequency which
used morse code exclusively. Even the USCG stopped monitoring that
old 500 KHz frequency. GMDSS was designed and approved by the
Maritime Community, not by amateurs.

The decline, or perhaps more accurately, the failure to keep up
with overall population increase (of USA) amateur licensees is (in
my opinion) NOT due exclusively to 'USE' of morse code. US amateur
radio license totals peaked 5 years ago. In general, by informal
polling, newcomers are NOT embracing morse code modes...nor are
they flocking to HF amateur bands. PART of that MAY be due to the
insistence of the 'amateur radio community' to hang onto the morse
code TEST forever. Part of that is due to the slow acceptance of
international amateur radio to change the international amateur
Radio Regulations away from old standards. WRC-03 of nearly 5 years
ago allowed individual administrations to drop the morse code test
for an amateur radio license. The USA did not follow through on
that until more than 3 years later. [precisely, the end of July
2003 to 23 February 2007]

[in response to 'Klystron']

If you are saying that someone *else* should have developed these
technologies (other than you, of course), and that since they haven't,
then someone *must* be to blame, well, you can't really dictate how the
world should turn out without taking an active role to help make it that
way.

That's rather strong wording from a leading person of this
newsgroup, isn't it?

For a very long while, ever since I first began as a pro in HF
radio communications, PART of the 'amateur radio community' had
been very busy 'dictating' how the amateur radio world should be
by the continuation of the morse code test for an amateur radio
license. OTHERS, including those of us (like myself) who were NOT
licensed in amateur radio have actively campaigned to remove that
test from US amateur radio...even though other countries had
already preceded the USA in abolishing that code test. I won't say
that I've 'been responsible' for any USA changes but I was certainly
'active' in trying to do so. The FCC apparently agreed with some
of my views as well as so many others supporting that test
elimination. It came to pass. But, that coming might have been too
late to change others' interests in US amateur radio.

In my electronics work that began (professionally) in 1952, I've
been involved in a lot of different electronics and modes and
modulations of RF that were never allocated for US amateur radio
use. Some of those just wouldn't apply to two-way communications but
others would apply. There are still some US regulations that need
altering but a very vocal PART of the 'amateur radio community'
seems very adamant about NOT upsetting the status quo. The future
of US amateur radio does NOT depend solely on them.

73, Len AF6AY
First licensed in US amateur radio in March 2007
First licensed in US commercial radio in March 1956
First QSY of a 1 KW HF transmitter in February 1953

WPM to BPS calculation
 

On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 22:53:54 EDT, Klystron wrote:

Wouldn't it make more sense to include WWV and WWVH along with WWVB?
Are you familiar with the Internet-based ntp system? Then, there is the
matter of GPS, which has a time capability that is incidental to its
navigation function.

Want some fun? Compare the time ticks received from WWVB, WWV,
NIST-on-line, and GPS. What, they are not all simultaneous? Welcome
to the real world. GPS time does not correlate with UTC by any means
(several seconds difference).

In one of the first digital military command and control system that I
was involved in during the early 1960s, we used rubidium standards at
our switching centers to get accurate time synchronization, and even
then it was rather crude because the line delays varied so much. HF
propagation (WWV/WWVH) is even worse in that regard.
--

73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

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

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

WPM to BPS calculation
 

On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 22:54:34 EDT, AF6AY wrote:

As a prime example, the changeover to GMDSS and replacement
of the old 500 KHz international distress and safety frequency which
used morse code exclusively. Even the USCG stopped monitoring that
old 500 KHz frequency. GMDSS was designed and approved by the
Maritime Community, not by amateurs.

As those of us who had our ears to the hull, so to speak, know very
well, the main reason was to get rid of "Sparks the Radio Operator"
who was a very large expense for the traffic that was being handled by
non-Morse methods. Some could be retrained as service technicians,
many could not and took retirement.

Be aware, though, that there are still several Public Coast Stations
in the US that are capable and do handle Morse traffic, and twice a
year the USCG fires up its Morse stations. It's not all dead.
--

73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

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

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

WPM to BPS calculation
 

On Mar 23, 8:29�pm, Phil Kane wrote:
On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 22:53:54 EDT, Klystron wrote:
� Wouldn't it make more sense to include WWV and WWVH along with
WWVB?
Are you familiar with the Internet-based ntp system? Then, there is the
matter of GPS, which has a time capability that is incidental to its
navigation function.

Want some fun? �Compare the time ticks received from �WWVB
, WWV,
NIST-on-line, and GPS. �What, they are not all simultaneous? ï
¿½Welcome
to the real world. �GPS time does not correlate with UTC by any me
ans
(several seconds difference).

In one of the first digital military command and control system that I
was involved in during the early 1960s, we used rubidium standards at
our switching centers to get accurate time synchronization, and even
then it was rather crude because the line delays varied so much. �
HF
propagation (WWV/WWVH) is even worse in that regard.

I've compared each of our three radio-set clocks at this residence (in
Los Angeles) and find excellent correlation between their one-second
changes and both WWV and WWVH. Don't have any GPS receiver
to try the same.

In 1960, while working in the Standards Lab of Ramo-Wooldridge Corp.
in Canoga Park, CA, I got to pull some OT on Saturdays to measure
the difference between east coast transmissions of WWV and the
local General Radio frequency standard. Just a plain old quartz
crystal standard oscillator driving divider chains to the built-in
clock.
I would record the microseconds of difference between local clock
ticks and WWV ticks from the east coast. Not much variation in a
week's time, don't remember just how much (it was 48 years ago).

Yes, propagation on HF does vary but it is sometimes exaggerated.
Before R-W went into a business tailspin, the Standards Lab was
ready to get a low-frequency HP receiver for 20 KHz to improve on
establishing a local, secondary frequency standard. No joy on that
corporation which was eventually sold off. All I ever got to see was
the 'diurnal shift' of 20 KHz phase recordings at sunrise and sunset.
:-)

73, Len AF6AY

WPM to BPS calculation
 

Jim Haynes posted on Tue, 18 Mar 2008 19:47:44 EDT:

Bill Horne wrote:

I'm sure your explanation is correct, but it leaves me confused: I know
bps baud, but they're close, and the Model 15 Teletype I used to own
operated at 45 baud. It seems illogical that Morse would be so high in
the bps count.

Your Model 15 Teletype at the nominal 60 wpm speed, which is actually
368 chars/minute and 45.45 baud works out like this. The character
length is 7.42 bits long (for ancient, interesting reasons I won't go
into right now) and the bit duration is 22 milliseconds. The character
duration is therefore 7.42 * 22 = 163.24 milliseconds, and that works out
to 6.12595 characters/sec = 367.55 characters/minute. To convert that
to words you have to figure 6 characters per word because the space
between words is also a character. So the speed is actually 61.26
words/minute.

For what it is worth, my paper reference on TTYs is NAVSHIPS
0967-255-0010 "Principles of Telegraphy (Teletypewriter)" from
Department of the Navy Electronic Systems Command. I bought it
from the US Government Printing Office back in the early 1970s as
a reference. [I am an Army veteran, not Navy] The first chapter of
Part A in that TM has a nice historical record of 'telegraphy'
(which includes teletypewriting). It says only "60 WPM" but mentions
other Baud rates.

As far as we in Army communications of the mid-1950s were concerned,
all the teletypewriters that the Army used were called "60 WPM" and
only the teletypewriter maintenance people (and a few carrier systems
types) cared about many numbers. We did have Distortion meters used
to determine irregularities in a circuit.

BTW, the Army and the rest of the military used Teletype Corporation
Model 15s through 19s, variation being only the paper tape punch
and transmitting distributor (P-tape reader).


Now when you get to ASCII, the old Teletype machines transmitted 8
data bits per character and used an 11.0 unit code. This makes 100
wpm work out to 110 baud. Electronic terminals don't need 11 unit
code; they can do just fine with 10. Thus the words-per-minute is
numerically equal to the baud rate. 100 baud - 10 ms/bit -
100 ms/char - 10 chars/sec - 600 chars/min - 100 wpm.

OK on that. Teletype Corporation Model 28s (explained in intimate
detail in the NAVSHIPS TM I referenced) would easily do 100 WPM
equivalent 24/7 as long as supplied with paper, ribbon, and oil. :-)


...word PARIS contains 50 bit times counting the space. So one word
per second is 50 bits per second and 60 wpm. As an aside, the
military sends a lot of encrypted 5-letter code groups, so instead
of PARIS the Signal Corps uses CODEZ as a test word more statistically
correct for their kind of traffic. And CODEZ contains 60 bits.

I never encountered any test word 'CODEZ' 1953 to 1956, nor
elsewhere in the Signal Corps or in DoD contracts after that. In
the mid-50s we simply used a continuous 'R-Y' generator (from
Teletype Corporation) for circuit checks with the old 60 WPM
equivalent machines. Teletype Corp. also made a 'fox test'
generator consisting of a half dozen cams operating as many
switches to generate "The quick brown fox jumped..." sentence
(with Tx station ID at the end) for radio circuit checks.

Electromechanical teletypewriters are now rather passe' in the
military and government (I use a French word to replace Obsolete
which so many have trouble with). It is all electronic and, for
permanent installations, over the DSN (Digital Switched Network)
anywhere...including interfaces with the regular civilian telephone
infrastructure. The DSN allows encryption on-line as per protocol.
For field radios, the electronic data protocols are compatible
with hard-wired ones and also allow encryption on-line. It was so
in the first Gulf War (1990-1991) which 'battle tested' the whole
military communications network DX to no-DX via TDRS (Tracking
and Data Relay Satellites) and other military commsats from/to
Florida to/from the Middle East.

Not having any access to the DSN or intimate details of military
cryptographic equipment now, I have no exact knowledge of what is
used for a test word, sentence, or whatever. For the OLD electro-
mechanical teleprinters, I'd say the specifications for a
specific TTY Distortion Meter would tell the exact story on
timing for both polar and non-polar TTY circuits and equipment.

73, Len AF6AY

WPM to BPS calculation
 

Phil Kane wrote:
On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 22:53:54 EDT, Klystron wrote:

Wouldn't it make more sense to include WWV and WWVH along with WWVB?
Are you familiar with the Internet-based ntp system? Then, there is the
matter of GPS, which has a time capability that is incidental to its
navigation function.

Want some fun? Compare the time ticks received from WWVB, WWV,
NIST-on-line, and GPS. What, they are not all simultaneous? Welcome
to the real world. GPS time does not correlate with UTC by any means
(several seconds difference).

Each GPS sattelite has it's own on board atomic clock and the system can
easily provide UTC with accuracy on the few microseconds level with an
ultimate limit of +/- 340 nanoseconds using an appropriate receiver and
hardware.

GPS is the basis for most of the current NTP time servers.

http://www.ntp-time-server.com/gps-t...ime-server.htm


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

WPM to BPS calculation
 

On Mar 18, 7:44�am, Klystron wrote:
� �I am trying to convert "words per minute" into "bits pe
r second."
Bits per second, in turn, is APPROXIMATELY equal to baud, a common
measure of modem (or other means of data transmission) speed. I need to
quantify one factor: How many letters are in a "word?" If we assume that
there are 5 (five) letters to a word, my calculations look like this:

It has been common convention in wireline telegraphy to count "one
word"
as having 5 characters followed by a space. The origin of that seems
to be
that it was most advantageous for humans to use/remember while using
the Commercial Codes, a form of encipherment both to protect
information and to reduce the number of words in a telegram.
Bentley's
Commercial Code seems to have been the most used with 17 editions,
publishing Code Books for any business or government.

As a result of those Commercial Codes, actual cryptographic codes
also used 5 characters followed by a space, hence the term '5-letter
groups' in referring to a "word." By the time of WWII starting, the
cryptographic systems were more advanced and it was not possible
to tell one 'word' from another but it was common practice to send
encrypted text as 5-letter (or character) groups; the actual space in
clear text was determined by the null or space substitute in poly-
alphabetic rolling-key encryption codes. (reference: M-209 Code
Converter used in the field in Europe by US forces)

73, Len AF6AY

WPM to BPS calculation
 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In Klystron writes:

Paul W. Schleck " wrote:

[...]

Before we make too many assumptions about an undefined term, perhaps you
can describe what types of "general purpose communications" you would
consider to be worthy goals for the Amateur Radio Service, and which
"single purpose" technologies you would like to see eliminated?


Why do you want me to reinvent the wheel? Lets go to the source
(condensed from Part 97.1):

* emergency communications
* contribute to the advancement of the radio art
* advancing skills in both the communication and technical phases of
the art
* expansion of the existing reservoir within the amateur radio service
of trained operators, technicians, and electronics experts
* continuation and extension of the amateurs unique ability to enhance
international goodwill

Perhaps I should clarify. When I asked the above question, I meant
specific technologies and examples of communications systems, not a
restatement of the general strategies of the Amateur Radio Service that
are enshrined in its Basis and Purpose. The Basis and Purpose
enumerates high-level goals, but does not specify the implementation
details, including the specific technologies.

I'm sure that we are all familiar with FCC Part 97.1, and restating it
really wasn't the answer that I was looking for. Could you please be
more specific?

- --
73, Paul W. Schleck, K3FU

http://www.novia.net/~pschleck/
Finger for PGP Public Key

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (SunOS)

iD8DBQFH5zR26Pj0az779o4RAiqtAJ4003CD5KS18L4Ybt5bL//NfZKBFwCfV9Qg
9eRBs7HEqZzaMPPaM3IC4QY=
=UFaB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

WPM to BPS calculation
 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In AF6AY writes:

According to this recent demonstration on the Tonight Show with Jay
Leno:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhsSgcsTMd4

Ahem...quibble mode on...that little bit on the Tonight Show was
a 'setup' gig that employed two young local male actors as the
(described) "text messaging experts" but the two hams (one of which
would very soon become marketing director for Heil Sound) were
real. That is the input I got directly from a reliable staffer on
the Tonight Show. Took a few phone calls to get that information
but it is an advantage of living inside the entertainment capital of
the USA (aka Los Angeles, CA)...and the NBC western Hq is only
about 5 miles south of my place, down Hollywood Way to Alameda and
then east about a mile. That whole bit was really a send-up on the
popular fad of text messaging done by teeners and young adults.

That bit is about as 'real documentary' as Leno's send-ups on the
'street interviews' with ordinary (apparently clueless) younger
folk on various kinds of knowledge. In short, ONLY for gag purposes.

[...]

Sorry, but I've got to call baloney on this one. The individual who
appeared on the Tonight Show who sent the text message was actually Ben
Cook, and not an actor. Ben held the world's record for fastest text
messaging:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Cook

The two Morse code operators, Chip Margelli, K7JA, and Ken Miller,
K6CTW, have attested to this being an actual contest with an actual,
previously unknown, message to send, which was sent both by Morse code,
and by text messaging. And there's no disputing that fast Morse code
would always beat an SMS text message of the same length. See:

http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/05/16/3/?nc=1

Two named witnesses would appear to trump one anonymous source.

Therefore, your anonymous "reliable staffer" seems anything but.

- --
73, Paul W. Schleck, K3FU

http://www.novia.net/~pschleck/
Finger for PGP Public Key

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (SunOS)

iD8DBQFH5zJI6Pj0az779o4RAn+5AJ9ffyD9Wq/klqCmx9PlvGnKFKjYLwCeKjlV
Q9BjLTsT7hM/Hb6FRO7X4D4=
=ChL0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

WPM to BPS calculation
 

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?

WWV and WWVB transmitters are at the same site in Fort Collins, CO. I
was there.

Are you familiar with the Internet-based ntp system?

Such a system requires connectivity to the internet. WWVB does
not; just requires a receiver.

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.

The WWV system still has its uses. I suspect its cost is trivial
compared to other systems, too.

Would you also kindly define what is a "single axis of data,"
in terms
familiar to those involved in communications engineering and technology?


� �A single quantity, like time or location

What, then, would be "multiple axes of data?"

� �Two or more simultaneous quantities, like time AND loca
tion or
course
AND speed.

The WWV system isn't just about time. The transmitters are also
frequency standards. That's two axes of data. For those of us who
use HF, they are also propagation beacons - that's three axes.
There are also voice geomagnetic announcements - that's four axes.

There is probably no purpose for which Morse
can be used as a machine
language where there isn't a choice of other,
better suited languages
available.

Yes, there is: Any application where the sender or listener
may be a human rather than a machine, and where an
interface like a keyboard/screen isn't practical.

When you look at the development of the Internet, Linux and other
free software, you have to wonder about the infrastructure
behind it.
How did it come about? There was no regulatory body.

Actually there was and is. "The internet" as we know it could
not exist without certain legislation that made it possible, and
a huge commercial investment of communications infrastructure
to support it.

What we call "the internet" developed from ARPANET, which was
a DoD thing, just like GPS. Swords into plowshares and all that.

There were no
licenses. There were no "Elmers."

Actually, there were, just not in the same form as in radio. The
licenses were regulations; the Elmers were people who developed
easier-to-use systems.

Until recently, there wasn't even any
formal schooling available, except on the sort of machinery that
existed
only within the Fortune 500. Early Internet users and developers had to
read O'Reilly books and figure it out on their own.

How do you define "recently"? I got started online in 1997, and
"the internet" had only been publicly available for a few years at
that point.

That showed great initiative. It demonstrated the sort
of determined,
driven advancement of technology that was once seen in
amateur radio.

The internet was and is a commercial enterprise. Amateur radio
was never such an enterprise, by its very nature.

But that sort of thing has passed ham radio by.
It has been a long time
since ham radio was a source of innovation.

When did it exist, and when did it end?

I blame the Morse cultists
who hijacked amateur radio for use as their personal playground.

When and how did that happen, exactly? I see a lot of claims but
no specifics or history.

�The infrastructure that is being wasted on Morse includes band
segments that have, until recently, been reserved for its exclusive
use.

What band segments are those, specifically? In the USA,
there have been no Morse-code-exclusive-use band segments (except on 6
and 2 meters) for many years.

My 1962 ARRL License Manual has the FCC rules for the Amateur
Radio Service, and at that time - 46 years ago - there were no
Morse-code-exclusive-use band segments on the HF bands, or
any VHF/UHF band above 2 meters. And the rules weren't new then.

OTOH, even today, data modes are prohibited from using the
voice subbands in the USA.

Do you consider a rules change that happened more than 46 years
ago to be "recently"?

I am very glad to see that almost all CW segments now allow data modes
(50-50.1 and 144-144.1 being the only exceptions).

"Now" includes at least the past 46 years.

There is also the
inclusion of keyer provisions in HF radios.

Which costs practically nothing.

It will be interesting to
see what the marketplace does to code tapes and code keys.

There are more keys on the market now than when I became a ham 40
years ago.

I don't think they will last long.

I think they will.

While Morse supporters often point to treaties, the fact is that the
US was one of the last countries to abandon the Morse
requirement for an
HF license.

Yes - because of the slowness of the FCC to change Part 97
after the treaty changed in 2003.

Other countries began dropping that requirement many years
earlier, while still claiming to be in compliance with their treaty
obligations.

Which countries? Please be specific.

How do you explain that?

I only know for certain of one country that had a no-code-test
HF amateur radio license before 2003. There may be others,
but not many.

Japan has long had a nocodetest HF amateur license called the
4th class. But that license was and is limited to low power levels
(10 watts) and to parts of the amateur bands which are worldwide
exclusively allocated to amateurs.

Japan's claim was that the treaty exists to prevent interference
between users of different radio services and between users o the same
radio service in different countries.

By limiting 4th class JA hams to only worldwide amateurs-only bands,
interference to other services was prevented. By limiting 4th class
amateurs to very low power, and since Japan is an island nation,
interference to amateurs of other countries was prevented.

Nobody challenged Japan on it, either.

But Japan still requires a Morse Code test for at least some of its
higher-class amateur licenses. The USA does not.

To me, it sounds like the FCC used
the treaties as a pretext to keep the code requirement in order to
placate the ARRL and the Morse zealots.

But why? In 1990, FCC created medical waivers for the 13 and 20 wpm
Morse Code tests, but not 5 wpm. FCC said they would have waivered all
the tests except for the treaty. Same for the reduction of all license
classes to 5 wpm in 2000. Opposition to these changes did not stop
FCC.

Would you have preferred that FCC violate the treaty? Or create a
license class similar to Japan's 4th class?

73 de Jim, N2EY

WPM to BPS calculation
 

Some additional info about US subbands-by-mode, in reply to Klystron's
mention of exclusive Morse-code-only band segments.

In the following discussion, "modes" means "modes authorized for use
by amateurs on the specific amateur bands in question".

The current US regulation of the HF amateur bands permits Morse Code
everywhere, voice and image modes on specific subbands, and data modes
wherever voice is not permitted. Morse Code has no exclusive subbands
at all,
and is rarely used in the 'phone subbands. (I've been an active ham
40+ years and never used Morse Code in an HF voice subband). These
regulations are descendants of those going back many decades, to times
when amateur operation on HF consisted of Morse Code, voice and
nothing else. (For example, HF RTTY operation by US hams was first
authorized in the late 1940s, but only 45.45 baud 5 level Baudot code
was allowed.)

A few years ago, ARRL proposed "Regulation By Bandwidth", which would
have separated the various modes by
the bandwidth of the signal rather than whether it was voice, data,
image, etc. For example, under the proposal,
any mode less than 500 Hz wide would be allowed in the 500 Hz and
wider subbands, regardless of whether it carried
voice, data, image, Morse Code or other information. There were also
proposed changes to where automatic and semi-automatic data-mode
stations could operate.

The proposal got an RM number and a comment period. The comments from
those interested were overwhelmingly against the proposal. It was
revised but to no avail; ARRL finally withdrew the proposal.

IMHO, the most common reasons for opposition that I saw reading the
comments were these (in no particular order):

1) 'Phone operators did not want any data modes in the 'phone
subbands.
2) "Robot" (unattended) digital stations should be confined to small
subbands.
3) Concern that amateurs would have to be able to measure the actual
occupied bandwidth of their transmitted signals or be subject to
violation notices and complaints. Older equipment and hams who could
not afford spectrum analyzers would be forced off the air seemed to be
a common fear.
4) AM voice would be limited to 9 kHz bandwidth and was essentially
"grandfathered", but other modes could not
exceed 3.5 kHz on most bands
5) The existing rules did not need changing.

The FCC did act on an earlier "refarming" proposal by ARRL, and
widened the 'phone/image subbands on some of the HF bands at the end
of 2006. However, FCC went far beyond the ARRL recommendations in the
amount of change. This effectively reduced the spectrum space
available for data modes on those bands, since they could not be used
where 'phone is allowed. The most radical change was on the 80/75
meter bands.

About the same time as the "Regulation by Bandwidth" proposal, a group
of less than a dozen amateurs
calling itself the "Communications Think Tank" (CTT) proposed the even
more radical change of eliminating subbands-by-mode completely, and
simply specifying a maximum signal bandwidth for each band.

This proposal also got an RM number and a comment period, but the
comments were even more solidly against it than against "Regulation by
Bandwidth". The opposition was so overwhelming that CTT also withdrew
its proposal.

The point of all this is that ARRL and others have made proposals to
fundamentally change Part 97 in ways that would
favor the use of data modes, and the US amateur community has
repeatedly and strongly opposed those proposals.

73 de Jim, N2EY

WPM to BPS calculation
 

wrote:
The current US regulation of the HF amateur bands permits Morse Code
everywhere, ...

My ARRL Band chart says "USB phone only" for 60m.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

WPM to BPS calculation
 

On Mar 24, 1:41 pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote:
The current US regulation of the HF amateur bands permits Morse Code
everywhere, ...

My ARRL Band chart says "USB phone only" for 60m.

Hello Cecil!

You are correct, sir! Thanks!

While it could be argued that the five channels known as "60 meters"
are not be an "HF amateur band" in the sense that, say, 20 meters is,
they are HF and only upper-sideband voice is permitted to US amateurs
there.

So amend the above to read:

"The current US regulation of the HF/MF amateur bands permits Morse
Code on all frequencies except the five USB-voice-only channels known
as '60 meters', ..."


73 es TNX de Jim, N2EY

WPM to BPS calculation
 

Phil Kane wrote:
Klystron wrote:

Wouldn't it make more sense to include WWV and WWVH along with WWVB?
Are you familiar with the Internet-based ntp system? Then, there is the
matter of GPS, which has a time capability that is incidental to its
navigation function.


Want some fun? Compare the time ticks received from WWVB, WWV,
NIST-on-line, and GPS. What, they are not all simultaneous? Welcome
to the real world. GPS time does not correlate with UTC by any means
(several seconds difference).

In one of the first digital military command and control system that I
was involved in during the early 1960s, we used rubidium standards at
our switching centers to get accurate time synchronization, and even
then it was rather crude because the line delays varied so much. HF
propagation (WWV/WWVH) is even worse in that regard.


My understanding is that ntpd can handle that problem quite well. An
OPTIMAL setup would involve 1 computer per radio, each acting as a radio
controller (also called a strata 0 server). You could have a radio for
WWVB or WWVH, a second radio that is set to scan the WWV frequencies and
a third "radio" for GPS. Those 3 computers would connect to a fourth
computer that would act as a strata 1 server. The result would be a time
server that is as accurate as if it were connected to other ntp servers
via the Internet. Such an arrangement is sometimes used by firms that
need metrology-grade time service on a secured, internal LAN.
By the way, do not be put off by the expense of the four (or more)
computers described above. According the ntp documentation that I have
read, they need to have at least 100 MHz processor speeds for optimum
accuracy, but there is no benefit in going much above 100 MHz. Thus, a
pile of old, junkyard computers will do the job quite well and at an
aggregate cost of $20 to $100 in total.

--
Klystron

WPM to BPS calculation
 

wrote:
Klystron wrote:

Are you familiar with the Internet-based ntp system?


Such a system requires connectivity to the internet. WWVB does
not; just requires a receiver.


See my response to Phil Kane. A computer running ntpd can get
metrology-grade time service from radio signals. ntpd can use radio
only, Internet only or both.


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.


In or near the continental US, that is not an issue.


The WWV system isn't just about time. The transmitters are also
frequency standards. That's two axes of data. For those of us who
use HF, they are also propagation beacons - that's three axes.


No, it's an incidental benefit. It does not require the transmission
of additional information.


There are also voice geomagnetic announcements - that's four axes.


There is probably no purpose for which Morse can be used as a
machine language where there isn't a choice of other,
better suited languages available.


Yes, there is: Any application where the sender or listener
may be a human rather than a machine, and where an
interface like a keyboard/screen isn't practical.


I take it that you don't know what "machine language" is. Humans are
not supposed to be involved. If they are, it's not machine to machine
communications.


When you look at the development of the Internet, Linux and other
free software, you have to wonder about the infrastructure
behind it.
How did it come about? There was no regulatory body.


Actually there was and is. "The internet" as we know it could
not exist without certain legislation that made it possible, and
a huge commercial investment of communications infrastructure
to support it.

What we call "the internet" developed from ARPANET, which was
a DoD thing, just like GPS. Swords into plowshares and all that.


Utter hogwash. It started out as a network of Universities and a few
defense contractors' laboratories. Much of the funding came from the
individual Universities. The contribution of the government (via the
defense contractors) was not absolutely necessary. Besides, after the
Tappan worm incident, the networks were split into ARPAnet and DARPAnet
(with a "D," as in defense). The public Internet is descended from the
small slice of that pie.


There were no licenses. There were no "Elmers."


Actually, there were, just not in the same form as in radio. The
licenses were regulations; the Elmers were people who developed
easier-to-use systems.


Again, that is preposterous nonsense.


Until recently, there wasn't even any formal schooling available,
except on the sort of machinery that existed only within the
Fortune 500. Early Internet users and developers had to
read O'Reilly books and figure it out on their own.


How do you define "recently"? I got started online in 1997, and
"the internet" had only been publicly available for a few years at
that point.


The Internet opened to the general public in 1993 and 1994. At that
time, there were essentially no courses at accredited Universities that
covered UNIX, TCP/IP, the Internet or related topics. You had to learn
it on your own. The Universities mainly taught MVS and 360/370
architecture.


That showed great initiative. It demonstrated the sort of
determined, driven advancement of technology that was once
seen in amateur radio.


The internet was and is a commercial enterprise. Amateur radio
was never such an enterprise, by its very nature.


The Internet was not commercial in origin. When I first gained
access, I had to sign an agreement not to use it for commercial
purposes. Sending out for pizza via e-mail would have been a violation
and would have resulted in account cancellation. But than, that was long
ago. Spam hadn't been invented yet.


[...]
The infrastructure that is being wasted on Morse includes band
segments that have, until recently, been reserved for its exclusive
use.


What band segments are those, specifically? In the USA,
there have been no Morse-code-exclusive-use band segments (except on 6
and 2 meters) for many years.


The CW bands were those band segments that excluded voice. Until
fairly recently, there was no such thing as "data." There was some RTTY,
but it was never a major issue. For many decades, the traffic in the HF
ham bands was SSB voice or CW. A pie chart would show a very small slice
labeled "other."


[...]
It will be interesting to
see what the marketplace does to code tapes and code keys.


There are more keys on the market now than when I became a ham 40
years ago.


What about code tapes? How much longer will they last? My guess is
that those keys are sold only to replace other keys. I doubt that there
are very many first time key buyers today.


[...]
I only know for certain of one country that had a no-code-test
HF amateur radio license before 2003. There may be others,
but not many.

Japan has long had a nocodetest HF amateur license called the
4th class. But that license was and is limited to low power levels
(10 watts) and to parts of the amateur bands which are worldwide
exclusively allocated to amateurs.

Japan's claim was that the treaty exists to prevent interference
between users of different radio services and between users o the same
radio service in different countries.


So you admit that different countries interpreted their treaty
obligations in different ways?


[...]
To me, it sounds like the FCC used
the treaties as a pretext to keep the code requirement in order to
placate the ARRL and the Morse zealots.

[...]

Would you have preferred that FCC violate the treaty? Or create a
license class similar to Japan's 4th class?


I'm not going to spend a lot of time doing your research for you, but
there was more then one treaty and those treaties expired or were
modified over a period of years. No-code HF licenses came about over
time in a number of countries. The US was either one of the last to drop
code or was dead last to do so.

--
Klystron

WPM to BPS calculation
 

Paul Schleck posted on 24 Mar 08:

AF6AY writes:

According to this recent demonstration on the Tonight Show with Jay
Leno:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhsSgcsTMd4
Ahem...quibble mode on...that little bit on the Tonight Show was
a 'setup' gig that employed two young local male actors as the
(described) "text messaging experts" but the two hams (one of which
would very soon become marketing director for Heil Sound) were
real. That is the input I got directly from a reliable staffer on
the Tonight Show. Took a few phone calls to get that information
but it is an advantage of living inside the entertainment capital of
the USA (aka Los Angeles, CA)...and the NBC western Hq is only
about 5 miles south of my place, down Hollywood Way to Alameda and
then east about a mile. That whole bit was really a send-up on the
popular fad of text messaging done by teeners and young adults.
That bit is about as 'real documentary' as Leno's send-ups on the
'street interviews' with ordinary (apparently clueless) younger
folk on various kinds of knowledge. In short, ONLY for gag purposes.

Sorry, but I've got to call baloney on this one. The individual who
appeared on the Tonight Show who sent the text message was actually Ben
Cook, and not an actor. Ben held the world's record for fastest text
messaging:

If you say so, then it is so. All I've got are some acquaintences IN
the entertainment industry who work behind the camera...plus five
professional actors (who don't count in this particular discussion).
That 'recent demonstration' was over a year ago, was it not?

"The Tonight Show with Jay Leno" is an entertainment vehicle. It is
not a documentary source of absolute facts. All such 'talk' shows
are convenience outlets for Public Relations in this capital of
motion picture and television production of the USA. MOST of the
movie and TV production in this city lives or dies by PR.

If I had become persuasive in my inquiry I MIGHT have gotten at
least a Call Sheet for the 'Leno show' in question. Usually those
are (by common agreement) Non-Disclosure documents. I could have
then digitized that Call Sheet and sent it privately as 'evidence.'
I did not think that such was necessary in this case.

The two Morse code operators, Chip Margelli, K7JA, and Ken Miller,
K6CTW, have attested to this being an actual contest with an actual,
previously unknown, message to send, which was sent both by Morse code,
and by text messaging. And there's no disputing that fast Morse code
would always beat an SMS text message of the same length.

I have corresponded with Mr. Margelli in his new position as
Director of Marketing for Heil Sound...about Heil products, not
about this alleged 'test' or 'contest' on the 'Leno show.' I have
NO complaints about Mr. Margelli's nor Mr. Miller's capabilities
with manual morse code communications. I only have complaints
about this entertainment gig being used as 'factual demonstration'
of any comparison of manual morse code versus any other mode.

I haven't used a Teletype Model 28 machine in many years...but I
could challenge ANY manual morse code operator pair to send either
clear text or enciphered (5-character groups) textual data as to
which method is 'faster' (TTY v. manual morse). I would not need
a recipient on-stage since another TTY terminal would repeat all
input sent by the transmitting terminal. The only problem there
is that it ALSO is a 'set-up' kind of 'test' (any touch-typist on
a TTY would 'win') and has very little entertainment value. The
latter item would cause its non-appearance on 'the Leno show.'
I am a touch typist who learned that in middle school on manual
typewriters with no legends on key tops. I am age 75 and still
retain the ability to continuously 'send' keyboard input at about
50 WPM with burst-input rates approximately 100 WPM.

Two named witnesses would appear to trump one anonymous source.

Therefore, your anonymous "reliable staffer" seems anything but.

I cannot argue your statements or 'baloney' comments in this
venue. My original source is now working for another show.
No more access to Tonight show records is possible. If you or
any other morse code mode champion say it was a 'real test,'
then it must be a real test.

As to the efficacy claim that manual morse code communications
beats cellular telephone textual-only (by keypad) communications,
I do not know of a single communications service or provider
that uses 'text' (via cellphone) for two-way communications. Of
what point was this entertainment venue 'test' actually proving?

AF6AY

WPM to BPS calculation
 

On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 00:09:24 EDT, AF6AY wrote:

In 1960, while working in the Standards Lab of Ramo-Wooldridge Corp.
in Canoga Park, CA,

Errrr, Len, the Ramo-Wooldridge Corporation went out of existence in
1958 when it merged with Thompson Products to become Thompson Ramo
Wooldridge, Inc. Remember that I started with the "original" R-W in
1957 and was employed by them at the time of the merger at the former
El Segundo Boulevard facilities (I never did get to work at the Arbor
Vitae Street facilities which were the headquarters of the Air Force
Ballistic Missile Division). They didn't move to Canoga Park until
the late fall of 1959, and I was laid off (for the second time) in
June of 1960. Thompson Ramo Wooldridge, Inc - later TRW, Inc. - went
on an acquisitions binge and itself went out of existence in 2002 when
the electronics and aerospace parts were acquired by Grumman (now
Northrop Grumman) and the automotive parts mostly by Goodyear.

In context - RW was always friendly to ham radio, and the pre-merger
RW Corp. actually let us scrounge both new and recycled parts for ham
rigs and audio projects which became our property as long as we signed
a register/release stating what we were building.

I got to pull some OT on Saturdays to measure
the difference between east coast transmissions of WWV and the
local General Radio frequency standard. Just a plain old quartz
crystal standard oscillator driving divider chains to the built-in
clock.

While at the El Segundo Blvd. facility we had a project of measuring
distance to a transmitter using the time delay of HF transmissions
received at different sites with a calibrated link between them
(azimuth was easy using standard DF techniques) and we used the GR
frequency standard referenced above. Using WWV was too error-prone.

I would record the microseconds of difference between local clock
ticks and WWV ticks from the east coast. Not much variation in a
week's time, don't remember just how much (it was 48 years ago).

My references about time differences, BTW, was to the time of day, i.e
the time of the tick, not the interval between the ticks. GPS has a
very noticeable offset compared to NIST.

I guess that it's only nuts like me that care about that. My early
training as a broadcast studio engineer while I was in engineering
school required timing of program starts and endings to the second.
"Dead air" was not permitted. Three o'clock did not mean three
o'clock plus 1 second - the Western Union clock reset pulse on the
hour was broadcast as a "beep".

From my other hobby, "railroad accuracy" of watches (which are
compared with a master clock at the start of a shift) requires one
second per day, 30 seconds per month. Easy to do with quartz watches
nowadays. There even used to be a SP Railroad dial-up number (now
long gone) where the "time man" would announce the time "Southern
Pacific Standard Time is ...." as contrasted to Ma Bell's "time lady"
who would announce "Pacific Standard Time is ..."
--

73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

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

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

WPM to BPS calculation
 

On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 00:10:13 EDT, wrote:

Each GPS sattelite has it's own on board atomic clock and the system can
easily provide UTC with accuracy on the few microseconds level with an
ultimate limit of +/- 340 nanoseconds using an appropriate receiver and
hardware.

Something must have changed (or been fixed) then - we made
measurements about three years ago and there was about six seconds
offset - an eternity for accurate time measurements. 340 nanoseconds
we can tolerate. Six seconds we can't.
--

73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

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

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

WPM to BPS calculation
 

On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 13:41:25 EDT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

My ARRL Band chart says "USB phone only" for 60m.

60m is a special case - it is not a worldwide amateur band despite
efforts to make it so. It's channelized by regulation, emission and
power restricted by regulation, and I know when I am near one of the
channels by the presence on adjacent humongous (tm) US Navy
wide-spaced encrypted synchronous RTTY signal.....
--

73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

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

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

WPM to BPS calculation
 

On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 18:06:34 EDT, Klystron wrote:

Thus, a
pile of old, junkyard computers will do the job quite well and at an
aggregate cost of $20 to $100 in total.

Four such computers in a single box would be ideal for the way I run
my ham data-modes (packet/PACTOR/APRS/BPSK31 setup - 24/7 each). Too
bad we can't get that in a box the size of a toaster at a price that
is less than $100.
--

73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

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

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

WPM to BPS calculation
 

On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 18:10:15 EDT, Klystron wrote:

I take it that you don't know what "machine language" is. Humans are
not supposed to be involved. If they are, it's not machine to machine
communications.

Ham radio is supposed to be human-to-human communications, not
machine-to-machine communications.
--

73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

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

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

WPM to BPS calculation
 

On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 18:13:01 EDT, AF6AY wrote:

The only problem there
is that it ALSO is a 'set-up' kind of 'test' (any touch-typist on
a TTY would 'win') and has very little entertainment value.

My secretary at March AFB (early 1960s) could and did type faster than
the Model 28 could cut tape. It frustrated her no end.
--

73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

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

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

WPM to BPS calculation
 

On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 07:48:10 EDT, wrote:

Actually, there were, just not in the same form as in radio. The
licenses were regulations; the Elmers were people who developed
easier-to-use systems.

Yes, there were "licenses" to users but it was a one-way deal. My
former FCC Bureau Chief went to the Reagan White House as the
Assistant Chief of Staff for Administrative Services, which included
overseeing the White House Communications Agency (staffed by the
military, not the Secret Service which has its own comm net). He was
given an ARPANET connection at home and WHCA mobile phone in his car.
When Reagan left office and George Bush I put his own Chief of Staff -
John Sununu - in place, my guy was replaced because of a personality
conflict and his ARPANET connection and mobile phone were physically
removed from his house and car with less than two hours notice.
--

73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

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

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

WPM to BPS calculation
 

Phil Kane wrote:

Something must have changed (or been fixed) then - we made
measurements about three years ago and there was about six seconds
offset - an eternity for accurate time measurements. 340 nanoseconds
we can tolerate. Six seconds we can't.



Could "selective availability" have anything to do with that?

--
Klystron

WPM to BPS calculation
 

Klystron wrote:
Phil Kane wrote:
Klystron wrote:

Wouldn't it make more sense to include WWV and WWVH along with WWVB?
Are you familiar with the Internet-based ntp system? Then, there is the
matter of GPS, which has a time capability that is incidental to its
navigation function.


Want some fun? Compare the time ticks received from WWVB, WWV,
NIST-on-line, and GPS. What, they are not all simultaneous? Welcome
to the real world. GPS time does not correlate with UTC by any means
(several seconds difference).

In one of the first digital military command and control system that I
was involved in during the early 1960s, we used rubidium standards at
our switching centers to get accurate time synchronization, and even
then it was rather crude because the line delays varied so much. HF
propagation (WWV/WWVH) is even worse in that regard.


My understanding is that ntpd can handle that problem quite well. An
OPTIMAL setup would involve 1 computer per radio, each acting as a radio
controller (also called a strata 0 server). You could have a radio for
WWVB or WWVH, a second radio that is set to scan the WWV frequencies and
a third "radio" for GPS. Those 3 computers would connect to a fourth
computer that would act as a strata 1 server. The result would be a time
server that is as accurate as if it were connected to other ntp servers
via the Internet. Such an arrangement is sometimes used by firms that
need metrology-grade time service on a secured, internal LAN.
By the way, do not be put off by the expense of the four (or more)
computers described above. According the ntp documentation that I have
read, they need to have at least 100 MHz processor speeds for optimum
accuracy, but there is no benefit in going much above 100 MHz. Thus, a
pile of old, junkyard computers will do the job quite well and at an
aggregate cost of $20 to $100 in total.

Just about any piece of cheap junk from the last decade could handle
all three sources at once, though it would be pointless since the
ntp software would always choose the GPS source (unless it became
unavailable for some reason).

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.