Dee Flint wrote:
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.

Of course!

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.

Isn't that kind of cheating? W0EX would inject some non-standard
spacing if he knew you were pulling a stunt like that.

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.

Dee, you know that's not true. There are countless present hams,
former hams, and people who were denied amateur licenses based upon the
Morse Code exam who actually studied Morse Code and who never got to
the point where they could use morse code on a practical level.

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.

Didn't say you did. I'm saying that if you had said something as
atrocious as that 10 years ago, W0EX and K3LT would have kicked you
over to the NCI Camp.

If they were the
machines would always work and they don't.

EXpecially if W0EX suspected that you were using a machine.

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.

So you're willing to concede that sometimes ham radio won't get
through?

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.

You merely misunderstand.

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.

So Jim is wrong?

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.

And sometimes CW doesn't get through even with skilled operators. And
sometimes you use CWGet to help you along when you find that your
skills are lacking.

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.

Larry Roll had one scenarion, and in that scenario, CW was the only
mode that would get through, and it would always get through.

If you need an image, SST or fax are
far better modes than CW.

I used to hand plot RADAR image reports that I received over TTY, but
those were the olden days. We've moved far beyond that now.

Satellite remote sensing is digital. A seven layer image could be sent
by CW, but it would take a long time.

The "best" mode depends on the purpose of the
communication and the conditions under which that communication must be
sent.

Glad to hear you say that. Why were you so silent on that subject when
K3LT and W0EX were saying otherwise?

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

What they wouldn't claim is possible is that there are conditions where
even CW wouldn't get through.

wrote in message
ups.com...

Dee Flint wrote:

[snip]

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.

Of course!

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.

Isn't that kind of cheating? W0EX would inject some non-standard
spacing if he knew you were pulling a stunt like that.


So what? I'd simply ask him to QRS 13 so I could copy his deliberately
badly sent code. I'd also chew him out for being a lid.

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.

Dee, you know that's not true. There are countless present hams,
former hams, and people who were denied amateur licenses based upon the
Morse Code exam who actually studied Morse Code and who never got to
the point where they could use morse code on a practical level.


You know I've queried people here who said they had problems and "couldn't"
learn code. In every case the problem came down to bad training methods or
bad study habits or insufficient study time or unrealistic expectations
(i.e. in the time or effort required) or a combination of any or all of
them.

[snip]
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.

Didn't say you did. I'm saying that if you had said something as
atrocious as that 10 years ago, W0EX and K3LT would have kicked you
over to the NCI Camp.


Wouldn't matter to me. I have no reason to bow to any one's pressure, yours
or theirs.

If they were the
machines would always work and they don't.

EXpecially if W0EX suspected that you were using a machine.


Irrelevant.

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.

So you're willing to concede that sometimes ham radio won't get
through?


Any ham who has sufficient operating experience on HF has experienced total
radio blackouts due to solar storms. HF gets wiped out except for very
local communications due to ground wave or line of sight. Any ham that
denies that is a fool, inexperienced, or a liar.

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.

You merely misunderstand.

No you made it pretty plain that you think you are responsible for my
opinions and it just isn't 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.

So Jim is wrong?


Jim has never lumped all the anti-code people into one group. There are
several of them whom he respects.

No one has said all CW signals are good.

And they aren't.

[snip]

And sometimes CW doesn't get through even with skilled operators. And
sometimes you use CWGet to help you along when you find that your
skills are lacking.


So what? I've never claimed to be highly skilled. I've always said that my
skills are quite modest. However, when conditions are poor, even I can beat
CWGet. I'll sometimes use it when I'm too tired to focus and the signal is
fast and strong. Otherwise it just doesn't do it. The rest of the time, I
depend on my own skills.

If CW doesn't get through with skilled operators, then it's due to bad
conditions. In general, CW is a robust mode that will typically be the last
mode to fail as conditions worsen.

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.

Larry Roll had one scenarion, and in that scenario, CW was the only
mode that would get through, and it would always get through.


I'm sure he was experienced enough to know better but simply like to pull
people's chains and/or was tired of being poked by the anit-code people.

If you need an image, SST or fax are
far better modes than CW.

I used to hand plot RADAR image reports that I received over TTY, but
those were the olden days. We've moved far beyond that now.

Satellite remote sensing is digital. A seven layer image could be sent
by CW, but it would take a long time.


Did I not say that CW is not good for images?

The "best" mode depends on the purpose of the
communication and the conditions under which that communication must be
sent.

Glad to hear you say that. Why were you so silent on that subject when
K3LT and W0EX were saying otherwise?


Mostly I don't bother with people making outrageous statements. In
addition, if I remember correctly, they were either no longer posting or
dropping off in their posting when I started reading the newsgroups.
Basically I've only heard about what they posted rather than reading the
posts myself.

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

What they wouldn't claim is possible is that there are conditions where
even CW wouldn't get through.


Defensive knee-jerk reaction and exaggeration in response to the equally
idiotic posters who claim that there is no need or use for CW in modern
radio.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE