|
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? |
One way to promote learning of code ...
Stefan Wolfe 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. Farnsworth violates the Morse code specifications! It is an abomination designed to destroy real Morse code. It has just about succeeded. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
One way to promote learning of code ...
"Stefan Wolfe" wrote:
why would someone use computer CW? I play with computer CW because it is fun to mess with. I enjoy computers and I enjoy CW so putting them together was just another way for me to enjoy the hobby. I've written programs for keyboarding, computer iambic keying using a mouse for a key, receiving, auto-logging, canned messages, QSO storage ect. These are all Basic programs (most in QBasic, some in VB1) and likely not up to the level of the professional programmers here but still they were fun to write, test, modify and use. Then I've built interfaces or in some cases with my old boxes (like my Atari or my 386) modified the computer to key my homebrew tube CW transmitters directly. What if everybody used computer CW If everybody used a computer for CW that would put an end to lousy fists... ;) What then would the world think of us :-) What would most of the world think of hams who use computer CW? Well most of the world can't copy CW so no problem there. But of course most of the world can copy hams on 75M and RRAP. So what do you think they think?? |
One way to promote learning of code ...
From: on Fri, Jan 12 2007 4:52 am
wrote: 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 [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! Sounds like more than an OBSERVATION, Len. Hello, Carl. It's strange to see your reply under a pseudonym. Are you having an identity crisis? Are you ticked off that somebody posted it to RRAP before you did? No, Carl. I don't pretend to be a journalist. Why do you? One of the fundamental purposes/commitments of NCI was to be a single-purpose organization that would disappear when the Morse Code test went away. Job's done in the USA, it seems. Carl, that's what you've been saying on NCI for a long time. Suddenly, comes "word" from the "Chief" of NCI on "important news!" Allegedly "immediately" (more or less) "reported." The thread subject is "One way to promote learning of code ..." No snit, Carl? Really? I thought it was all about little "red-hatted monkeys" hopping about with tin cups looking for more federal welfare emotional supplements for their beloved morse code. Tsk, I must be mistaken...my bad... 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?] Are you jealous, Len? Of Iridium? No, Carl. I have no need for any wireless computer connection right now. Carl, if I ever NEEDED a wireless computer connection I would buy the components and connect it up. Plenty of that equipment available at Fry's Electronics supermarket in Burbank just 10 minutes drive away. They have good lap-tops for $500...we are thinking of getting one again... In the past few years, Carl upgraded from Tech Plus to Extra (aced the test, too.). Traded his old 2x3 6-land call for a spiffy 2x1 3-land call. Did a lot of good anti-BPL work, too. Worked some good DX on HF with SSB, too. Now he's made a contribution to promoting the learning and use of Morse Code. (not the *test*!). Anything wrong with any of that? Yes, Carl...why are you talking about yourself in third person? It's really okay to say "I" when talking about yourself. 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. Not everything you say, Len. Just some things. Carl, don't be irritating. Your Manager's Charm School certificate may fall off the wall... I guess you'd prefer that nobody except you should mention what they've done? Carl, you're still suffering that personal identity thing? Tsk, this is getting serious... Gosh, maybe I should mention we were in Cabo for a shoot. [film, that is] Shoot, forgot all about it...:-) I was on a "film shoot" last night, Len. Except no film was actually used - chemical photography is so 20th century. All digital. Thank you for that information, Carl. Should I spread word to the entertainment industry in Los Angeles? Although I think they already KNOW all of that here. [just a hunch] Oh, yes, in case you've not heard, a "shoot" has many meanings among the pros doing TV and film work around here...and in Vancouver, BC. Lots of quaint old terms still persist in the entertainment industry...but you KNOW them all, don't you? Of course you do...you will remind us by telling us all what they mean...after all, you are a code-tested amateur extra and KNOW everything. BTW, the "Cabo" I mentioned was "Cabo Tan Lucas" on Victory Blvd in Burbank, CA (half a block from Hollywood Way a north-south major street). A tanning salon, now under a different business name. :-) Oh, and Carl, there's roughly 2 to 3 production companies shooting on location somewhere in the Los Angeles area every workday (and many Saturdays). Ah, but you KNEW that, didn't you, Carl? Of course you did, you are a code-tested amateur extra and KNOW those things. Nice talking to you, Carl... LA |
One way to promote learning of code ...
wrote in message ... On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 22:27:31 -0500, "Stefan Wolfe" wrote: "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. Does your program only receive CW or does it transmit as well? |
One way to promote learning of code ...
"Stefan Wolfe" wrote:
"AaronJ" wrote in message I once wrote a homebrew CW receive program... Does your program only receive CW or does it transmit as well? My programs both send and receive CW. But I don't use computer CW all that often anymore. These days my favorite way to work CW has become laying back in my big recliner relaxing with my eyes closed. A computer would just be in the way. I've found that In CW as in life position can greatly improve the endeavor... ;) |
One way to promote learning of code ...
wrote:
From: on Fri, Jan 12 2007 4:52 am wrote: 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 [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! Sounds like more than an OBSERVATION, Len. Hello, Carl. It's strange to see your reply under a pseudonym. Are you having an identity crisis? I get it. You've forgotten that you weren't involved in an e-mail exchange with Carl and that you posted in a public forum. As you've often pointed out, anyone may respond to any post here. Are you ticked off that somebody posted it to RRAP before you did? No, Carl. I don't pretend to be a journalist. No, you pretend that you're a PROFESSIONAL writer. Why do you? I saw no place where Jim said that he was a journalist. One of the fundamental purposes/commitments of NCI was to be a single-purpose organization that would disappear when the Morse Code test went away. Job's done in the USA, it seems. Carl, that's what you've been saying on NCI for a long time. A number of NCI members wrote something similar. Maybe you missed those posts, OT. Suddenly, comes "word" from the "Chief" of NCI on "important news!" Allegedly "immediately" (more or less) "reported." The thread subject is "One way to promote learning of code ..." No snit, Carl? Really? It really is, Len. I thought it was all about little "red-hatted monkeys" hopping about with tin cups looking for more federal welfare emotional supplements for their beloved morse code. Tsk, I must be mistaken...my bad... You're often mistaken, Len. 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?] Are you jealous, Len? Of Iridium? No, Carl. I have no need for any wireless computer connection right now. Keep it in mind should you have a need, Len. You may find it a bit pricey though. Carl, if I ever NEEDED a wireless computer connection I would buy the components and connect it up. You could buy some sats and connect up your very own version of Iridium. Plenty of that equipment available at Fry's Electronics supermarket in Burbank just 10 minutes drive away. Irrelevant. They have good lap-tops for $500...we are thinking of getting one again... Deja vu in the Anderson household, huh? In the past few years, Carl upgraded from Tech Plus to Extra (aced the test, too.). Traded his old 2x3 6-land call for a spiffy 2x1 3-land call. Did a lot of good anti-BPL work, too. Worked some good DX on HF with SSB, too. Now he's made a contribution to promoting the learning and use of Morse Code. (not the *test*!). Anything wrong with any of that? Yes, Carl...why are you talking about yourself in third person? It's really okay to say "I" when talking about yourself. You've often gone on at length about yourself, Len. You use "I" quite often. 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. Not everything you say, Len. Just some things. Carl, don't be irritating. Your Manager's Charm School certificate may fall off the wall... Why are you writing of yourself in the third person, Len? *snicker* I guess you'd prefer that nobody except you should mention what they've done? Carl, you're still suffering that personal identity thing? Tsk, this is getting serious... Is it? Tsk, tsk and a poor baby thrown in for good luck. Gosh, maybe I should mention we were in Cabo for a shoot. [film, that is] Shoot, forgot all about it...:-) I was on a "film shoot" last night, Len. Except no film was actually used - chemical photography is so 20th century. All digital. Thank you for that information, Carl. Should I spread word to the entertainment industry in Los Angeles? Although I think they already KNOW all of that here. [just a hunch] Then why do you think they'd need you to call and inform them? Do you haunt the movie industry and play sidewalk superintendent as you do in amateur radio? Oh, yes, in case you've not heard, a "shoot" has many meanings among the pros doing TV and film work around here...and in Vancouver, BC. As in "Let's shoot some coffee" or "How about getting together and shooting some high test"? Lots of quaint old terms still persist in the entertainment industry...but you KNOW them all, don't you? Of course you do...you will remind us by telling us all what they mean...after all, you are a code-tested amateur extra and KNOW everything. I see. You live in the Los Angeles area and now you're an expert on Hollywood films as well as amateur radio. BTW, the "Cabo" I mentioned was "Cabo Tan Lucas" on Victory Blvd in Burbank, CA (half a block from Hollywood Way a north-south major street). A tanning salon, now under a different business name. :-) Great. Is it near the Burbank Ikea? Oh, and Carl, there's roughly 2 to 3 production companies shooting on location somewhere in the Los Angeles area every workday (and many Saturdays). Ah, but you KNEW that, didn't you, Carl? Of course you did, you are a code-tested amateur extra and KNOW those things. How many are not porn? According to NPR, the porn industry is now bigger than Hollywood. Nice talking to you, Carl... LA La, la te dum-te-dum. Dave K8MN |
One way to promote learning of code ...
"AaronJ" wrote in message ... "Stefan Wolfe" wrote: "AaronJ" wrote in message I once wrote a homebrew CW receive program... Does your program only receive CW or does it transmit as well? My programs both send and receive CW. But I don't use computer CW all that often anymore. These days my favorite way to work CW has become laying back in my big recliner relaxing with my eyes closed. A computer would just be in the way. I've found that In CW as in life position can greatly improve the endeavor... ;) I like doing that too. I mostly listen to CW QSO's in a relaxed mode, like you. It is very enjoyable! The reason I asked the question is because the Part 97 technicalities seem to raise some interesting issues. For example, when using such programs, does the radio actually transmit A1A does it transmit SSB with the analog sound card output connected to the mike input? I believe it is usually (but not always) the latter. "CW" by FCC definition (for band allocation purposes) is A1A only. Using a sound card output or modem that is electrically coupled to the mike input, I believe one would be transmitting suppressed carrier SSB AM, not A1A but more likely J3A or J3B (if the code is super fast). In any case, with such programs one might technically be receiving A1A CW but transmitting sideband carrier modulated data. That is legally OK since the CW sub-bands also allow "digital" (transmitted in an analog fashion), which would comprise both the carrier modulated modes and the phase shift modulated modes (like psk31 etc.). If the computer used acoustic coupling from speaker to mike, (perhaps using the VOC as the PTT switch), I believe that would not be legal on the CW sub-bands; that would be classified as J3E voice. One cannot hold the mike to the computer speak, press PTT and transmit. My reading would be, computer "CW" (with sound card output electrically coupled to mike input and does not operate true A1A), is still legal in the CW sub-bands provided the data coupling from computer to radio is electrical and not acoustic. Actually, I would think acoustic coupling has superior protective isolation between radio and computer, better than toroids and optocouplers. Why should it make a difference legally? Because the FCC has these definitions, you see. The technology with the best isolation is also illegal to operate on the CW sub-bands as soon as anything in the circuit is reduced non-EM waves (sound). It becomes J3E (voice). Although electrically coupled J3A and J3B are legal in the CW sub-bands, one should observe the gentlemen's agreements in the band sharing plans and transmit computer CW that uses J3A and J3B only in the appropriate sections, not in the entire sub-band as A1A is permitted to do. This would imply, of course, that computer programs for CW are not acceptable (even if legal) across the entire CW allocation unless the output actually "keys" the CW carrier. They are NOT equivalent to CW. |
One way to promote learning of code ...
"Stefan Wolfe" wrote in message ... "AaronJ" wrote in message ... "Stefan Wolfe" wrote: "AaronJ" wrote in message I once wrote a homebrew CW receive program... Does your program only receive CW or does it transmit as well? My programs both send and receive CW. But I don't use computer CW all that often anymore. These days my favorite way to work CW has become laying back in my big recliner relaxing with my eyes closed. A computer would just be in the way. I've found that In CW as in life position can greatly improve the endeavor... ;) I like doing that too. I mostly listen to CW QSO's in a relaxed mode, like you. It is very enjoyable! The reason I asked the question is because the Part 97 technicalities seem to raise some interesting issues. For example, when using such programs, does the radio actually transmit A1A does it transmit SSB with the analog sound card output connected to the mike input? I believe it is usually (but not always) the latter. "CW" by FCC definition (for band allocation purposes) is A1A only. Using a sound card output or modem that is electrically coupled to the mike input, I believe one would be transmitting suppressed carrier SSB AM, not A1A but more likely J3A or J3B (if the code is super fast). In any case, with such programs one might technically be receiving A1A CW but transmitting sideband carrier modulated data. That is legally OK since the CW sub-bands also allow "digital" (transmitted in an analog fashion), which would comprise both the carrier modulated modes and the phase shift modulated modes (like psk31 etc.). If the computer used acoustic coupling from speaker to mike, (perhaps using the VOC as the PTT switch), I believe that would not be legal on the CW sub-bands; that would be classified as J3E voice. One cannot hold the mike to the computer speak, press PTT and transmit. My reading would be, computer "CW" (with sound card output electrically coupled to mike input and does not operate true A1A), is still legal in the CW sub-bands provided the data coupling from computer to radio is electrical and not acoustic. Actually, I would think acoustic coupling has superior protective isolation between radio and computer, better than toroids and optocouplers. Why should it make a difference legally? Because the FCC has these definitions, you see. The technology with the best isolation is also illegal to operate on the CW sub-bands as soon as anything in the circuit is reduced non-EM waves (sound). It becomes J3E (voice). Although electrically coupled J3A and J3B are legal in the CW sub-bands, one should observe the gentlemen's agreements in the band sharing plans and transmit computer CW that uses J3A and J3B only in the appropriate sections, not in the entire sub-band as A1A is permitted to do. This would imply, of course, that computer programs for CW are not acceptable (even if legal) across the entire CW allocation unless the output actually "keys" the CW carrier. They are NOT equivalent to CW. Most CW computer programs are set up so that for transmission you set the radio to CW mode and then run a line from a computer serial port to the straight key jack on the radio. Therefore you are using an actual A1A transmission. Right off hand, I don't know any CW programs that feed a tone into the mic jack although I suppose there could be some out there. Dee, N8UZE |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:12 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com