RadioBanter - One way to promote learning of code ...

RadioBanter (https://www.radiobanter.com/)

- Policy (https://www.radiobanter.com/policy/)

- - One way to promote learning of code ... (https://www.radiobanter.com/policy/113125-one-way-promote-learning-code.html)

One way to promote learning of code ...

From: John Smith I - on Tues, Jan 9 2007 8:20 pm

AaronJ wrote:
...
they are using a computer. I've even read posts here of hams that said if they
suspect someone is copying CW by computer they switch to excessive weight and
poor sending just to mess up the copy. Seems kind of snobbish to me.

...

...Those guys with the brass taps on, doing a tap dance here) truly
show their ignorance if that is their claim. They get away with that
chit because few have professional programming experience here, indeed,
2nd or 3rd year software engineering students would even be able to
"pull their covers."

If the ear can tell the difference between a di and a dah, the computer
sure as heck will not be fooled!

This would only require that polymorphic coding be used in the software
(self-adapting to such changes which can be deduced and "programmed
for") and adaptive timing (comparing lengths of key-ons (di to dah) and
constantly adapting for changes--only caring for the fact that a di is
consistently shorter than a dah.)

While this might be an interesting enough project for a 2nd to 3rd year
college student, most upper division students would be required to have
skills capable of solving much more complex problems involving
algorithms with magnitudes of greater complexity!

Any software engineer who possesses a bachelors degree will support
this, even if they know NOTHING about amateur radio and ONLY that there
will ALWAYS be a difference in length between a di and a dah and these
length differences are (or may be) of a constantly variable nature.

John, some years ago IN HERE I described what a Pro
Programmer did as an "intellectual exercise" for
himself. Perhaps 15 years ago or more; I let this
acquaintence borrow my then-new Icom R-70 receiver for
an "on-air test" using a simple audio filter and
detector and TTL interface (which I tossed together
at home) for a then-very-speedy 40 MHz clock PC. :-)

This acquaintence was intrigued by the problem of
deciphering variable-length anything and was vaguely
related to his day job in setting up human interfaces
for computers. It DID use "adaptive timing" although
I don't recall those exact buzzwords. It DID adapt to
both word rate, character spacing, and changes in
ratio of dits v. dahs. It DID work, even on the ham
bands (even then the primary source of morse code).

It was programmed in C, not the C++ common to today.
Assembler subroutines were short and the "housekeeping"
sort used in other programming tasks with an 80x86
processor. [the later derivatives culminating in the
now-common 'Pentium' instruction set) weren't around
yet] I am "not at home" with C and am stuck on Fortran
(77 variety as used in MS FORTRN 5.1 which MS dropped
some years ago...and will no longer work in Windows
XP at the DOS level). I don't pretend to be a whiz at
programming but am fairly proficient with Fortran as a
high-level language. [hey, I'm after number-crunching,
not "art" in programming...results quickly obtained
without going into arguments over how to do it with
whatever is the source code a la mode...:-)]

As far as I know, he never tried to market the
program, not even add the ruffles and flourishes
of some fancy interface screen, just a common
(DOS Level) instruction menu, nothing fancy. It
worked and he satisfied himself. I saw the source
code and wanted a copy (never got one) so that I
could experiment with it, write it in Fortran or
even convert it to the Apple ][+ that was used
once in a while. There just isn't any market (one
that makes lots of money) for it now, hardly one
back then.

If you doubt me, call up a college and ask to speak to a instructor in
software engineering ... don't take my word for it.

They will NOT do that, John. Trust me. Their
'arguments' center around some cheapie box from MFJ
or whatever, the kind using old, classic, FREE
routines adapted to a particular microprocessor.
I have yet to see ONE argument that bothers to take
on the GUTS of such a reader...the dynamic adaptation
to dit v. dah ratios, word rate, and (sure has hell)
what to do about transient impulses that make their
way into the incoming storage register.

But, take this bunch of ancient key tappers as any type of
software/algorithm experts? YOU HAVE TO BE KIDDING ME!!!

Tsk, John, the Morsemen will be mighty put-out by such
words. Their ability in morse and subsequent "extra"
status (as amateurs) make them Masters of Radio! They
cannot be argued with, only admired for the Mighty
Achievements (including much paper with certificates
suitable for framing).

Ned Lud would be proud of them and their fight on the
side of deus ex machina. :-)

LA

One way to promote learning of code ...

From: on Wed, Jan 10 2007 7:24 pm

AaronJ wrote:
John Smith I wrote:

Minor, inconsequential and random errors are easily programmed into the
computer generated model, but will give the morse that "unique
signature" of the "imitated keyers style."

IMO the perfect fist sounds like computer generated CW. And it's the easiest to
copy. All those so called 'unique fists' can be copied but it's like trying to
understand someone from Brooklyn (or Texas)... ;)

Well, there was some debate about this a few years back. It centered
around a couple of things; 1) being a lack of an actual definition of
Morse Code in Title 47, and 2) the desire of several of the Pro-Code
Test folks to claim that a method of TEACHING Morse Code should be used
as a Morse Code Exam, i.e., the Farnsworth Code.

"Bang on" as the Brits say, Brian.

BTW, it took the FCC years to finally update Part 97 from its
previously OBSOLETE CCITT document reference to the 'proper'
ITU-T document. Even then the proper document, like the old
CCITT one, describes a COMMERCIAL telegram protocol, not an
amateur one.

Morse Code had previously been defined with specific dot, dash, and
space interval ratios. Exams were then defined as Morse Code sent at
rates of 20, 13, and 5 WPM. Today, they use the Teaching Method of
Farnsworth Code, where the dot, dash, and interval can be anything
desired, and character speeds of 13 to 15 WPM for a 5 WPM exam. That's
fine for learning the code as Part 97 doesn't address any particular
method, nor does it advocate any particular vendor such as W5YI or
ARRL.

Yet Part 97 still, even to this day, requires a Morse Code Exam
(Farnsworth isn't mentioned) at a Morse Code Rate of 5 WPM.
Lengthening the space interval isn't addressed as a way to get 13 to 15
WPM character speeds down to 5 WPM word rate. But hey, Part 97 is only
a suggestion, right?

A DEFINITON of WORD RATE is NOT DIRECTLY STATED in Part 97!
Perhaps two sentences could have been included to SET or FIX
the word rate...but the FCC never included that. When that
was 'discussed' in here by the morse mavens, they all pointed
to Paris with an "everybody 'knows' that" kind of attitude.

And none of that matters now, anyway.

THANK GOD! Miracles can happen. :-)

Anyhow, the Pro-Code Exam folks were all over the notion that code was
an individual thing and that each person's code sounded like "speech"
to them because of all of the little and big imperfections, and
sometimes the big imperfections were deliberate. I was chided for
suggesting that manually sent code should be formed as precisely as one
could make it, which sparked another debate. Apparently, humans trying
to send perfect code shouldn't be a goal in amateur radio, even if
unachievable. Which took us full circle to the humans emulating modems
of the original invention of Sammy Morse, the code paper tape with
dashes and longer dashes scribed on them.

Sam's original "code" was all NUMBERS. That's what was used
in the first US telegram company (Washington DC to Baltimore
MD, 1844). Five-number code groups representing "common"
phrases of the 1800s. And, it was done with paper tape with
an ink pen driven by an electromagnet.

Sam's financial angel, Al Vail, came up with the first true
telegraphic code to represent letters and punctuation as well
as just numbers. Sam was running out of numbers in his "code
dictionary" and didn't have enough (or maybe patience) and the
original morse code was NOT speedy...although it really, really
outpaced the common rider-horse courier system for "overnight
delivery" of that time. :-)

Oh, well, it was a nice walk in the park. The PCTA folks arguments
were as imperfect as the code they send.

Tsk, tsk, Brian. By their own admission, *all* PCTA send
Perfect Code! Much, much faster than 'we' can realize. :-)

But, in retrospect, all the PCTA had for "reasons" of
retention of the code test amounted to mental conditioning
(brainwashing) over years and years of League emphasis on
that mode. They were subconsciously parroting all of it.

PCTA will NEVER, ever admit to ANY mental conditioning.
To them amateur radio was all about radiotelegraphy.
Before the turn of the new millennium, every other radio
service had DROPPED OOK CW or never considered it when
that radio service was created. Morsemanship is alive
(and on life support) ONLY in amateur radio today. I say
"only" because a few olde-tymers in other radio services
MIGHT be still using morsemanship but that is NOT what is
the MAJOR MODE of communications.

Miccolis will jump in here and say I am "wrong" or
"mistaken" (as is his usual ranting) but it is TRUE.
Except for the die-hard (Bruce Willis wannabes?)
morsemen in ham radio, morse code is DYING if not
dead. THEY are the zombies, the "walking dead" who
strut around pretending to be "champion ops in radio."
Yes, "champion" in the time-frame of the 1930s. This
is 2007, not 70 years ago.

One way to promote learning of code ...

From: "Carl R. Stevenson" on Tues, Jan 9 2007 9:58 am

"Dave Heil" wrote in message
in a rerun, wrote:
From: "Carl R. Stevenson" on Sun, Jan 7 2007 10:14 am
[snip to the part I didn't see since Len's rantings go into my killfile]

[in case you've forgotten...possibly since the NCI web
site didn't appear to know it until after a week had
passed after the FCC announcement...just a deduction]

You often make poor deductions, Leonard.

Yes ... he does.

I made an OBSERVATION, Carl. Looking at www.nocode.org every
day for a week after the 15 Dec 06 FCC announcement.

It wasn't a week after the Public Notice, but a couple of
days, before it was posted to the NCI website (and a link to the Report and
Order was posted within 24 hours of its release).

Then why didn't it appear that soon on the "NCI website?"
One that us earthpeople could read? The ARRL was posting
about it the same day!

Let's face it. www.nocode.org has been QUIET on everything
concerning the no-code-test NPRM. All that's been there for
months has been a couple of notices about "officials" of NCI.
Whoop-de-do. [it was like walking through a research library
with nobody in it...]

Suddenly, comes "word" from the "Chief" of NCI on "important
news!" Allegedly "immediately" (more or less) "reported."

I was on Maui for 10 days on a combination of business and vacation, but
modern technology (my EVDO card) alllowed me to access the internet
wirelessly from my notebook :-)

Wow! High-tech! insert a Robesin hyena-guffaw here

You should have remarked about a fancy hotel with Internet
connections in every room or something. You don't have a
direct satellite telephone? [Iridium is up and working,
ain't it?]

By golly, Carl, looks like you "joined the 'other side.'"
What with the extra callsign and running (well, trying to)
for office, and all the IEEE Standards committee work, you
appear to be Greater than us ordinary earthpeople.

It's rather obvious to most readers that Heil has had a
deep personality conflict with me in here, by all
indications a deep, antagonistic attitude wherein he
keeps on finding "fault" with everything I say...and has
been doing so for years. Now you are doing the same thing.

Is that what Managers' Charm School taught you?

Well, what I've been saying for years has come to pass.
Give someone rank-status-privilege and they become
"better" than ordinary folk.

Gosh, maybe I should mention we were in Cabo for a shoot.
[film, that is] Shoot, forgot all about it...:-)

LA

One way to promote learning of code ...

Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
Cecil Moore wrote:
John Smith I wrote:
No, the new generation of hams will make it obsolete and history!

Like AM?
--

The invention of the motorcycle did not make the bicycle obsolete. The
invention of the car did not make walking obsolete. Power boats did not
make all sailboats obsolete, although many sailboats were replaced by
power boats.

People still *run* marathons, even though they'd go a lot faster with a
lot less effort if roller skates were used.

AM did not become obsolete when SSB was invented. Morse Code did not
become obsolete when voice and RTTY were invented.

There will still be people who CHOOSE to use Morse if it's presented to
them
as fun and they're allowed to make the choice without intimidation (and
without berating them)

And if there's available spectrum and other Morse Code operators.

And if there isn't it will be because not enough people are interested in
using that mode.
(I'm not trying to encourage its demise, just stating the evolutionary
reality.)

That's simply a restating of what I meant by "other Morse Code
operators".

But that's not the only thing needed. Regulations can be written that
make it harder to
use some well-established modes.

For example, look what happened to plain old AM 'phone. Before the
1983-84 power rules change, hams could run up to 1000 watts input on
AM. With a plate- or collector-modulated Class C legal-limit final,
that meant up to 750 watts or so of carrier output. With advanced
modes, even higher outputs could be obtained at 1000 watts input.

But then the rules changed from 1000W DC input to 1500W peak output.
Which effectively lowered the AM power limit by 50% or more. AM'ers
asked that there be the option of using either system - 1000 W DC input
*or* 1500 W peak output - but FCC said no.

Except for a few people who learned Morse Code elsewhere, most would-be
hams don't have any prior Morse Code skill.

True ...

The code test acts as a sort of Great Equalizer,

Absurd ...

Not at all.

ALL that a code test does is indicate that you can copy Morse at
some specified speed. Nothing more, nothing less.

IMHO, that's a rather shortsighted view. Consider this statement:

ALL that a written test does is indicate that you can pick out
at least the minimum required number of correct multiple-choice
answers in a test where all of
the questions and answers are freely available beforehand.
Nothing more, nothing less.

The focus on the nature of the test (multiple choice) and memorization
is specious and contrived to depricate the test.

You're missing the point.

The statement you made about the code test and the statement I made
about the written tests are essentially identical. That's the point I
was making.

The US amateur written exams have been exclusively multiple-choice for
over 40 years. That's not going to change.

I'm beginning study
for a private pilot's license ... and the written test for that is multiple
choice, too.

Does the FAA publish all of the questions and answers that can appear
on the tests, complete with the correct answers pointed out? Can you
take practice exams online for free? What score is needed to pass?

Do you see experienced aviation folks saying the pilot's license exams
are too technical, and need to be simplified?

In the aviation field there doesn't seem to be a group
of old-timers who bemoan the nature of the current test and denigrate
newbies - in fact, I see AOPA and everyone I've encountered doing
their best to encourage newcomers because they recognize that the
future of general aviation depends on it.

There is a big difference between pointing out deficiencies in license
tests and methods
and denigrating newcomers. I do the former, not the latter.

Aviation is quite a bit different from amateur radio in many ways. For
one thing, it's a lot
more expensive, and potentially dangerous. A lot more judgement is
needed for aviation,
and what appears to be a minor error can turn into a disaster very
easily. (Just look what
happened to JFK Jr. because of an error in judgement).

"There are old pilots, and there are bold pilots, but there are no old,
bold pilots"

In addition, as long as you don't cheat, FCC does not care how you
get the right answers, nor which questions you get right or wrong.
They don't care if you memorized, or if you guessed, or if you
really understand the material. They also don't care if you have a Ph.D
in EE, etc. - you get the same test.

Yea ... what else did you expect.

The point is that passing the written exams does not mean the person
understands
the material.

Minimum entry requirements are just
that. Doesn't matter where you start from. As long as you can pass
the minimum requirements you get in. Hopefully you continue to learn
and grow.

Agreed - but what should those minimum requirements be? Does the
current 35 question Technician written *really* test what a ham should
know in order to operate 1500 watt output transmitters at (to use your
excellent phrase) "meat cooking frequencies"?

[snip to related material]

The point I was making is that *passing the written tests* is/was a
very
different thing from passing the Morse Code tests, particularly if
someone
had some background in electricity or electronics. Which is much more
likely today than someone having background in Morse Code.

So???

That only goes to support the fact that Morse is essentially
unimportant in today's real world. (not to say you can't still find it
fun or that you shouldn't use it)

Isn't amateur radio part of "today's real world"? Morse Code is part of
amateur radio -
a big part.

I was talking night before last with Ed Hare - remember the 3 page study
guide that he had for his novice test and compare that, as he does, to
the
200+ pages of "Now You're Talking" - there has been NO "dumbing down"
for
entry into ham radio. How anyone could assert with honesty and a
straight
face that 200+ pages of material is "dumbed down" compared to 3 pages is
something that simply is unfathomable.

I have debunked W1RFI's "200 page" myth several times - including in
person. I wish you'd been there for that one, Carl.

Despite your assertions, I don't believe that Ed's assertions can be
legitimately debunked.

They can if someone has an open mind to look at the facts.

[more snip for brevity]

The "equalizer" idea is simply to point out that almost all hams who
try to learn it
start at the same place. That's not true of the written exams.

Again - SO???

So some people don't like the idea of learning skills. And some people
don't like the idea of learning something for amateur radio alone.

Testing for licensure is not about "making folks work for it" or the liberal
Democrat idea of "equalizing outcomes" (as opposed to equal OPPORTUNITY).

There has always been equal opportunity to get a ham license. Show up,
pass the tests,
get the license.

The equal opportunity is the opportunity to take the prescribed test - no
matter WHERE
you started from - and, if you pass the test, get a license.

Testing should not be some sort of "social enginneering" exercise, but
should ONLY
involve the required demonstration of meeting the established minimum
requirements
for licensure.

Any test is composed of at leasst two components: the material and the
method.
How well a test indicates the qualifications of the person tested
depends on both.

IMHO, the material of today's tests is roughly equivalent to that of
the old tests,
updated for changes in the rules and commonly-used technologies. But
the
*methods* used today are not comparable to the old methods.

Which do you think is a better test of how well a person knows
technical material:

Method A: The general areas of the test are announced by means of
typical
problems, shown in a manner different from the actual test format.

or

Method B: The exact questions and answers that may appear on the test
are shown in a manner identical to the actual test format.

73 de Jim, N2EY

One way to promote learning of code ...

"John Smith I" wrote in message
...
Stefan Wolfe wrote:
...
Interesting logical leap. If one chooses not to use a certain technology
(i.e. ignores computer CW), can he then be accused of radio prejudice for
...

First you would have to convince me you are psychic; as, that is the ONLY
way you can differentiate between computer-generated CW and
non-computer-generated ...

Minor, inconsequential and random errors are easily programmed into the
computer generated model, but will give the morse that "unique signature"
of the "imitated keyers style."

When I say "ignore" computer CW, I mean that I ignore my own use of
technology, not that I refuse to communicate with someone else who uses the
technology. But why would someone use computer CW? What if everybody used
computer CW instead of more suitable digital modes that the same computer
can generate? What then would the world think of us :-)

One way to promote learning of code ...

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
. net...
AaronJ wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
That's the point I was trying to make.

My apologies, I thought you were serious.

Seriousness on r.r.a.p???? Shirley you jest. :-)

Roger Roger, and stop calling me Shirley :-)

One way to promote learning of code ...

wrote in message
oups.com...
From: on Wed, Jan 10 2007 7:24 pm

AaronJ wrote:
John Smith I wrote:

Personally, I like Farnsworth better than Morse. I use Farnsworth all the
time and it seems that people who only use Morse have no problem copying my
Farnsworth.

One way to promote learning of code ...

"AaronJ" wrote in message
...
John Smith I wrote:

I don't use commercial ware.

I once wrote a homebrew CW receive program in Atari Basic that actually
did
pretty well on my old 800XL (if the conditions and sending fist were
pretty
good).

I have used and incorporated into C/C++ programs I have created myself.

Wouldn't it be easier and more convenient if you simply "learned" how to
copy it be ear?