Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#11
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
So who won the "when does NoCode happen" pool? | Policy | |||
Why You Don't Like The ARRL | Policy | |||
Why You Don't Like The ARRL | Shortwave | |||
Some comments on the NCVEC petition | Policy | |||
NCVEC NPRM for elimination of horse and buggy morse code requirement. | Policy |