John Smith I wrote:

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.

They (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...

The programming experience of most hams has little to do with their ability to
work computer CW. Virtually everybody I work (who admits to) using a computer on
CW is using either a *commercial* multimode decoding box or *commercial*
computer software and an interface.

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

IMO the ear still beats computer copy in *real life*. I've played with a lot of
multimodes and software over the years and none has ever come close to ear copy
under poor signal conditions and/or someone with a poor fist.

This would only require that polymorphic coding be used in the software...

My computer screen might read NNTTA when the op was really sending CQ. The
computer saw five letters when there were really two because the op had poor
letter spacing. My ear picked up the CQ easily, but the computer read gibberish.
When I contact him I will still be able to understand him while the computer
continues to spit out gibberish. Your program is going to need to understand
English grammar and Q signals along with timing to solve this
type of problem...

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.

It may be possible to write such a *perfect* CW program, but so far I haven't
found one. Maybe someone else here has. So for our victim who is using currently
available software it's certainly possible for the jerks to screw up his copy
with poor sending. But lets hope they were just spouting off in the post.

BTW Some advantages of computer CW:
It's fun to have a 80 or 100+ WPM QSO.
It's a great way to get your code speed up. Watch the screen while you listen to
the code at just above your speed. After awhile turn the screen away and you
will be copying in your head at the new speed.

A disadvantage of using computer CW:
During a QSO you can't turn up the speaker and leave the room
to take a leak...

AaronJ wrote:
...

I don't use commercial ware. I do have some open source code of others
I have used and incorporated into C/C++ programs I have created myself.

A search of the net will turn up many freeware and open source programs
capable of fooling the best, I can hardly believe there is no
commercial-ware which can't, perhaps it is in its use and configuration
by the user.

And trust me, long after your ear fails to copy solid, a good software
utility can ...

Regards,
JS

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.

But I think you will find that most hams are like me. They are not
professionally in electronics or computers, and thus buy mostly commercial
radios and software.

A search of the net will turn up many freeware and open source programs
capable of fooling the best,

Do you mean a CW program that prints perfectly under all conditions found on the
ham bands? I assure you that no such animal exists.

I can hardly believe there is no commercial-ware which can't,

I doubt that there's much of a market for CW software. The vast majority of CW
ops are over 60 and dying off fast. Then the FCC won't force newcomers to learn
the code anymore so that market is gone. (I sure wouldn't have learned it if
they hadn't forced me to.) Since there's not much money to be made on a dying
market there's not much incentive to invest a lot of time writing the perfect
program. And I suspect most CW ops are like me and probably wouldn't buy it
anyway cause we would prefer to do it the old fashioned way anyway...

And trust me, long after your ear fails to copy solid, a good software utility can ...

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. IMO the old computer between
the ears still does the best all around job, especially under poor conditions.

"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?

"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?