wrote in message
ups.com...

Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
Dee Flint wrote:
"Chris" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 20:14:03 -0400, Dee Flint

wrote:

... Only the finest operators can send code well enough with a
hand
key
that a computer can copy it anyway. Only exceptionally good
operators
can
send well enough with a bug that a computer can copy it. Only very
good
operators can send well enough with paddles that computers can copy
it.
Basically a computer is good at copying computer generated code.

That may have been true in the 80's, back when people were just
getting started on the problem of copying CW with a personal
computer,
but the algorithms have improved greatly since then, and they are
now
quite good at copying manually generated Morse code. Even the area
where humans excelled - copying CW in the presence of QRM and QRN -
is
now handled quite well by most modern algorithms. Currently, the
most
popular program seems to be CwGet - a Windows program which Breakin
Magazine rates very highly. With gigahertz microprocessors and
built-in A/D converters, the modern PC is more than up to the task
of
dealing with computations that were once only practical on
mainframes.

I've tried CWGet and it doesn't copy the signals that I want to copy.
It
still is subject to problems with QRN, QRM, QSB, and less than perfect
fists. It can't copy any of the signals distorted by aurora. So
while
it
is the best of the available programs, it still falls far short of a
good
human operator. And I'm speaking from experience with the program.
It's
not up to the task that I want it to do.

You can sit and struggle with trying to train yourself to receive 20
wpm Morse, or you can download and install CwGet and start copying
the
high speed CW nets immediately. There's no longer any real need for
a
human to be in the decoding loop, a sure sign of just how
anachronistic human-decoded CW really is. Samuel Morse originally
designed his code to be copied by machine, so in reality we're only
catching up with what he intended to do way back in the 1800's.

Already tried it.

And dismissed it.

Based on actually trying it. I did not form an opinion on it until I gave
it a thorough workout. And if the conditions are good enough and they are
going too fast for me, I'll use it to help out. But there's a lot of times
it simply doesn't do the job.


As I said while it is the best that is available, it
is
still far below the capabilities of a human operator.

Correction. ...a few human operators.

Correction: almost any operator who works code on a semi-regular basis. My
code skills are very modest. Typically I am comfortable at 13wpm to 15wpm.
Higher than that is a real strain. Still I often copy better than the
computer despite that.


I've tried it
under a
wide range of conditions and CWGet still needs a pretty good signal to
function.

Dee, N8UZE

Morse Myth #119: All CW signals are good signals (Its the corollary of
Morse Myth #1: CW always gets through).


Unrelated to my comments.

You would like to think that, but without efforts from folks like Carl,
Bill, Len, hans, myself and others, you would still be repeating such
myths, and would never make statements such as "Not all CW signals are
good."


No I would not be repeating that myth because I never, ever said that all CW
signals are good and never subscribed to that philosophy. If they were the
machines would always work and they don't. The other half of the coin is
that some of the anti-code types persist in the myth that "Code can always
be copied by computer". Neither myth is true.

I've always maintained that every mode has its advantages and disadvantages.
A good ham attempts to be conversant with those abilities. However the
extremists on both sides don't want to hear that.

You can thank us, but that's probably not very likely.


Nope because you are ascribing things to me that are not true. Nobody has
changed my opinions as stated in the above paragraphs. You make the mistake
of lumping everyone who favors code into one group. That is no more
accurate than lumping the anti-code people all in one group.

No one has said all CW signals are good.

And they aren't.

If they were always good, CWGet
would always work, which it doesn't. The ones who tout the software
solution are those who wish that it would always work.

And those who dismiss the software solution think all amateur operators
are superb morsemen.


I do not dismiss the software but am realistic to know that it is not the
panacea that some would like to believe. Sometimes it works and sometimes
it fails.

In addition, I have repeatedly stated that each and every mode has its
advantages and disadvantages.

If you were to compare and contrast all existing modes, it think it is
likely that you would claim that CW is the best mode.


Depends on the conditions. One can construct scenarios where whatever mode
they favor is the "best". Any one striving to be a knowledgeable ham should
be converstant with those scenarios. If you need an image, SST or fax are
far better modes than CW. The "best" mode depends on the purpose of the
communication and the conditions under which that communication must be
sent.

The extremists on each side don't want to
hear that.

Dee, N8UZE

Because of the efforts made to dismiss countless Morse Myths over the
years, you were just now able to state that not all CW signals are good
without 1x2 PCTAs pooh poohing such talk.


You are exaggerating. None have stated all CW signals are good. What they
have contended is that it is possible to copy a poor CW signal under
conditions where you could not copy other types of signals.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

From: "Dee Flint" on Fri, Oct 27 2006 8:16pm

wrote in message
Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
Dee Flint wrote:
"Chris" wrote in message


In addition, I have repeatedly stated that each and every mode has its
advantages and disadvantages.

If you were to compare and contrast all existing modes, it think it is
likely that you would claim that CW is the best mode.

Depends on the conditions. One can construct scenarios where whatever mode
they favor is the "best".

"CW always gets through..." :-)

Any one striving to be a knowledgeable ham should
be converstant with those scenarios.

...especially in the Newington, CT, area. :-)

If you need an image, SST or fax are
far better modes than CW. The "best" mode depends on the purpose of the
communication and the conditions under which that communication must be
sent.

There is NO separate pass-fail TEST for "image, SST [sic]
or fax" nor for data or voice required by the FCC for an
amateur license. ["SSTV"]

The ONLY separate pass-fail TEST is for manual telegraphy.


Because of the efforts made to dismiss countless Morse Myths over the
years, you were just now able to state that not all CW signals are good
without 1x2 PCTAs pooh poohing such talk.

You are exaggerating.

Hardly. ALL of the pro-code 1x2s in here, plus some 1x3s,
have stated the hoary old Maxim "CW always gets through."

Except N2EY who never admits to doing anything wrong...:-)

None have stated all CW signals are good. What they
have contended is that it is possible to copy a poor CW signal under
conditions where you could not copy other types of signals.

"CW always gets through..." :-)

If morse code radiotelegraphy were so "good," why hasn't
NASA picked up on it for the Deep Space Net? For the
quarter-million-mile 'DX' path to our moon? Why have
the maritime folks GIVEN UP on morse code for Safety Of
Life At Sea? [GMDSS uses a form of data, automated]

PSK will allow 100 WPM data to get through when all the
morsepersons have to use their imaginations to fill in
the garbled morse characters.

Still, the argument over the separate pass-fail "CW"
TEST is there with all the morsepersons wanting it be
kept forever and ever in FCC regulations...WHY?

Rhetorical question. The separate pass-fail "CW" TEST
is there because: (1) The ARRL wants it (they "know
what is best for ham radio"); (2) The already-licensed
had to take a morse test and everyone else had better
take one, too!

wrote:
From: "Dee Flint" on Fri, Oct 27 2006 8:16pm
wrote in message
Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
Dee Flint wrote:
"Chris" wrote in message

How refreshing to find that not one attribute has been forged.

In addition, I have repeatedly stated that each and every mode has its
advantages and disadvantages.

If you were to compare and contrast all existing modes, it think it is
likely that you would claim that CW is the best mode.

Depends on the conditions. One can construct scenarios where whatever mode
they favor is the "best".

"CW always gets through..." :-)

"CW always gets through" in only one scenario, and that is a fictitious
K3LT scenario.

Any one striving to be a knowledgeable ham should
be converstant with those scenarios.

...especially in the Newington, CT, area. :-)

Is somebody running for an ARRL office?

If you need an image, SST or fax are
far better modes than CW. The "best" mode depends on the purpose of the
communication and the conditions under which that communication must be
sent.

There is NO separate pass-fail TEST for "image, SST [sic]
or fax" nor for data or voice required by the FCC for an
amateur license. ["SSTV"]

The ONLY separate pass-fail TEST is for manual telegraphy.

Wow! I guess CW is more valued than ALL OF THE OTHER MODES COMBINED!

Because of the efforts made to dismiss countless Morse Myths over the
years, you were just now able to state that not all CW signals are good
without 1x2 PCTAs pooh poohing such talk.

You are exaggerating.

Hardly. ALL of the pro-code 1x2s in here, plus some 1x3s,
have stated the hoary old Maxim "CW always gets through."

Except N2EY who never admits to doing anything wrong...:-)

Yet he avoids my question about the aliases he's posted under on RRAP.

None have stated all CW signals are good. What they
have contended is that it is possible to copy a poor CW signal under
conditions where you could not copy other types of signals.

"CW always gets through..." :-)

Nope.

If morse code radiotelegraphy were so "good," why hasn't
NASA picked up on it for the Deep Space Net? For the
quarter-million-mile 'DX' path to our moon? Why have
the maritime folks GIVEN UP on morse code for Safety Of
Life At Sea? [GMDSS uses a form of data, automated]

500KHz.

PSK will allow 100 WPM data to get through when all the
morsepersons have to use their imaginations to fill in
the garbled morse characters.

Oh SHUT UP! That doesn't help the Morse argument one little bit!

Still, the argument over the separate pass-fail "CW"
TEST is there with all the morsepersons wanting it be
kept forever and ever in FCC regulations...WHY?

Because Morse is used in ham radio contests.

Rhetorical question.

Darnit! I should have read ahead!!!

The separate pass-fail "CW" TEST
is there because: (1) The ARRL wants it (they "know
what is best for ham radio"); (2) The already-licensed
had to take a morse test and everyone else had better
take one, too!



EXactly.

wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
From: "Dee Flint" on Fri, Oct 27 2006 8:16pm
wrote in message
Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
Dee Flint wrote:
"Chris" wrote in message

How refreshing to find that not one attribute has been forged.

In addition, I have repeatedly stated that each and every mode has
its
advantages and disadvantages.

If you were to compare and contrast all existing modes, it think it is
likely that you would claim that CW is the best mode.

Depends on the conditions. One can construct scenarios where whatever
mode
they favor is the "best".

"CW always gets through..." :-)

"CW always gets through" in only one scenario, and that is a fictitious
K3LT scenario.

Any one striving to be a knowledgeable ham should
be converstant with those scenarios.

...especially in the Newington, CT, area. :-)

Is somebody running for an ARRL office?

If you need an image, SST or fax are
far better modes than CW. The "best" mode depends on the purpose of the
communication and the conditions under which that communication must be
sent.

There is NO separate pass-fail TEST for "image, SST [sic]
or fax" nor for data or voice required by the FCC for an
amateur license. ["SSTV"]

The ONLY separate pass-fail TEST is for manual telegraphy.

Wow! I guess CW is more valued than ALL OF THE OTHER MODES COMBINED!


Not so. However, all the digital and image modes are merely a matter of
connecting the radio to the computer and running the appropriate software.
Once I decided to try the digital thing, I made the interface and was up and
running in an hour. After a couple of months, it became rather boring. On
the other hand, code needs to be learned before it can be tried. Many
people will give up learning before they've had a chance to try it if there
is not a test for it.

PSK will allow 100 WPM data to get through when all the
morsepersons have to use their imaginations to fill in
the garbled morse characters.

Yet PSK fails utterly and completely when there is an aurora. And the
ionospheric problems associated with an aurora cause problems far south of
the actual aurora zone so it is not just a northern issue. The computer may
be sending PSK at 100wpm per minute but the data won't be copyable on the
other end. Even a beginner sending and receiving at 5wpm will have better
throughput. When the aurora is relatively mild, even voice will be more
successful than PSK.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:

The ONLY separate pass-fail TEST is for manual telegraphy.

Wow! I guess CW is more valued than ALL OF THE OTHER MODES COMBINED!

Not so. However, all the digital and image modes are merely a matter of
connecting the radio to the computer and running the appropriate software.

Then why do the military service have technical schools to do somehting
so very simple?

Why aren't the communications billets merely a direct duty assignment
after basic training?

Once I decided to try the digital thing, I made the interface and was up and
running in an hour. After a couple of months, it became rather boring.

Do you suppose that there are licensed amateurs that find CW boring?

On
the other hand, code needs to be learned before it can be tried. Many
people will give up learning before they've had a chance to try it if there
is not a test for it.

Whole government agencies gave up on code. Commercial businesses gave
up on code.

wrote in message
oups.com...

Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:

The ONLY separate pass-fail TEST is for manual telegraphy.

Wow! I guess CW is more valued than ALL OF THE OTHER MODES COMBINED!

Not so. However, all the digital and image modes are merely a matter of
connecting the radio to the computer and running the appropriate
software.

Then why do the military service have technical schools to do somehting
so very simple?

Why aren't the communications billets merely a direct duty assignment
after basic training?


Beats me. But you know what they say. There's the right way, the wrong way
and the Army way. I would not presume to pass judgement on their training.
However it may be that some of the recruits have not yet learned to read a
schematic and have never operated a soldering iron. I'm quite sure that is
not part of basic training.

Once I decided to try the digital thing, I made the interface and was up
and
running in an hour. After a couple of months, it became rather boring.

Do you suppose that there are licensed amateurs that find CW boring?


So what if it is boring. That is no reason not to learn it. I suspected
that digital would end up being boring but since I believe that a person
should be striving to increase their knowledge and skills, I decided it was
time to become familiar with this area. Afterall, I might find myself in
the position of being asked to Elmer someone in this area.

On
the other hand, code needs to be learned before it can be tried. Many
people will give up learning before they've had a chance to try it if
there
is not a test for it.

Whole government agencies gave up on code. Commercial businesses gave
up on code.


They have different goals and objectives than amateur radio. Government
agencies and commercial business do not have the goal of individual self
training and experimentation. Comparing amateur radio to
government/commercial applications is like comparing apples to pomegranates.
They're both red fruits but there the similarity ends.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:

The ONLY separate pass-fail TEST is for manual telegraphy.

Wow! I guess CW is more valued than ALL OF THE OTHER MODES COMBINED!

Not so. However, all the digital and image modes are merely a matter of
connecting the radio to the computer and running the appropriate
software.

Then why do the military service have technical schools to do somehting
so very simple?

Why aren't the communications billets merely a direct duty assignment
after basic training?

Beats me. But you know what they say. There's the right way, the wrong way
and the Army way. I would not presume to pass judgement on their training.
However it may be that some of the recruits have not yet learned to read a
schematic and have never operated a soldering iron. I'm quite sure that is
not part of basic training.

What's to know? Follow the little lines, right? And a soldering
pencil is just another appliance.

Once I decided to try the digital thing, I made the interface and was up
and
running in an hour. After a couple of months, it became rather boring.

Do you suppose that there are licensed amateurs that find CW boring?

So what if it is boring. That is no reason not to learn it. I suspected
that digital would end up being boring but since I believe that a person
should be striving to increase their knowledge and skills, I decided it was
time to become familiar with this area. Afterall, I might find myself in
the position of being asked to Elmer someone in this area.

On
the other hand, code needs to be learned before it can be tried. Many
people will give up learning before they've had a chance to try it if
there
is not a test for it.

Whole government agencies gave up on code. Commercial businesses gave
up on code.

They have different goals and objectives than amateur radio.

Saving lives and property. Highly disimilar from amateur radio.

Government
agencies and commercial business do not have the goal of individual self
training and experimentation. Comparing amateur radio to
government/commercial applications is like comparing apples to pomegranates.
They're both red fruits but there the similarity ends.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

That must be why the GROL exam was lifted from the Amateur Advanced
Exam (minus the amateur rules and CW req't).

wrote:
Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
wrote:

The ONLY separate pass-fail TEST is for manual telegraphy.
Wow! I guess CW is more valued than ALL OF THE OTHER MODES COMBINED!
Not so. However, all the digital and image modes are merely a matter of
connecting the radio to the computer and running the appropriate software.

Then why do the military service have technical schools to do somehting
so very simple?

I guess it is because of the raw material they have to work with.

Why aren't the communications billets merely a direct duty assignment
after basic training?

They can be. That's how I did it. I never set foot in an Air Force
technical school. Of course I'd already been a radio amateur for seven
years when I joined the military. I was awarded my 3-level right out of
basic training. I went directed duty to Barksdale AFB after ten days of
leave after Amarillo.

Whole government agencies gave up on code. Commercial businesses gave
up on code.

Oracle uses a lot of code.

Dave K8MN

Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
wrote:

The ONLY separate pass-fail TEST is for manual telegraphy.
Wow! I guess CW is more valued than ALL OF THE OTHER MODES COMBINED!
Not so. However, all the digital and image modes are merely a matter of
connecting the radio to the computer and running the appropriate software.

Then why do the military service have technical schools to do somehting
so very simple?

I guess it is because of the raw material they have to work with.

Always a kind word for our armed forced...

Why aren't the communications billets merely a direct duty assignment
after basic training?

They can be. That's how I did it. I never set foot in an Air Force
technical school. Of course I'd already been a radio amateur for seven
years when I joined the military. I was awarded my 3-level right out of
basic training. I went directed duty to Barksdale AFB after ten days of
leave after Amarillo.

Lackland. San Antonio.

Did you catch what Robesin's got?

Whole government agencies gave up on code. Commercial businesses gave
up on code.

Oracle uses a lot of code.

Dave K8MN

Is Oracle an Extra? What's his call?

From: on Sun, Oct 29 2006 6:32am

Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
wrote:

The ONLY separate pass-fail TEST is for manual telegraphy.

Wow! I guess CW is more valued than ALL OF THE OTHER MODES COMBINED!

Not so. However, all the digital and image modes are merely a matter of
connecting the radio to the computer and running the appropriate software.

Then why do the military service have technical schools to do somehting
so very simple?

Why aren't the communications billets merely a direct duty assignment
after basic training?

Heh heh heh...I can't wait to see Dee's answer on that! :-)

Once I decided to try the digital thing, I made the interface and was up and
running in an hour. After a couple of months, it became rather boring.

Do you suppose that there are licensed amateurs that find CW boring?

Gosh, from what I've seen, DATA on ham bands is a lot like
the old computer-modem comms by wireline! Sort of like the
Internet and USENET access now. Maybe Dee just get 'bored'
easily?

Maybe Dee actually "works" USENET by morse code and her ISP
'translates' that into text? :-)

On
the other hand, code needs to be learned before it can be tried. Many
people will give up learning before they've had a chance to try it if there
is not a test for it.

Whole government agencies gave up on code. Commercial businesses gave
up on code.

Sunnuvagun! :-)

Maybe the whole rest of the radio world KNOWS something that the
morsepersons don't?