"Dick Carroll" wrote in message
...


"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote:

OOK Morse is clearly still a viable mode of
communications ... (to use the much-used analogy, so is horseback
riding as a form of transcontinental transportation).



So you equate transcontinental horseback riding to the use of
radiotelegraphy.

Yes ... in the sense that they have both been supplanted by more modern and
efficient means.

And you regard yourself as an engineer (even nondegreed)?

Yup ... so do my peers (you don't fall into that category), including the
dozen
or so PhD's that I was responsible for bringing into my company.

Just for your basic information, radiotelgraphy uses the same radio
propagation
that any other mode uses,

Really? No fooling? :-)

and - when the operater is actually skilled in its use-
often does it better and faster, at lower power than most other common
modes,

ROTFLMAO!!! Better and faster, ha! At lower power, perhaps ... though
as has been pointed out before (though you continue to ignore the reality),
plain
old BFSK, at the same data rates as OOK Morse, has something on the order
of a 9 dB weak signal advantage over OOK Morse.

particularly than weak-signal voice modes which demand slowly pronounced
and
enunciated words and the use of phonetics.

See my previous paragraph above ...

And, as it happens, both travel at the same speed! Eureka!Carl has found
it!

You're delusional again ... take your meds or something.

But you already knew all that, you just like to slam CW.

It's not that I'm "slamming CW" ... as I've said, use it to your heart's
content.
But in the future when folks are not forced to learn it, you'll have to do
your
own "recruiting," rather than relying on a government life support system
for
it ...

You still remember failing that 13wpm test long ago, don't you?

Actually, Dick, I never failed a 13 wpm test because I never TOOK one.
I took my 5 wpm test, then improved my speed working 40 cw, then
during a period when I was moving and the HF station (a Heathkit CW
only rig) was in storage, I got involved in VHF/UHF repeaters, packet
radio (in the early days), etc. and by the time the stuff was out of storage
I'd discovered that there were a lot more interesting things to do in ham
radio than making beeps ...

Carl - wk3c

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote:


and - when the operater is actually skilled in its use-
often does it better and faster, at lower power than most other common
modes,

ROTFLMAO!!! Better and faster, ha!

THAT'S RIGHT, genius. Better and faster and MORE ACCURATE than voice in
marginal conditions,
like it or not. It's clear you have zero experience in this area but that sure
doesn't stop you from claiming
to be the original expert!



At lower power, perhaps ... though
as has been pointed out before (though you continue to ignore the reality),
plain
old BFSK, at the same data rates as OOK Morse, has something on the order
of a 9 dB weak signal advantage over OOK Morse.

Yes you've been hawking that for years now. So where's the beef, as you like to
say?
Where's all that original designed hardware that will do it all without dragging
a computer
along for the overhead, and hopefully keeping it functioning within the system
as intended?
You and Cecil Moore were gonna come up with all sorts of goodies for ham radio
that would
take care of all these shortcomings, remember? So far all we've seen is BS
verbiage about how
you slew the old CW dragon at Geneva.

AND, don't forget that there is MUCH more to the story. Propagation conditions
have a LOT to
play in these new technologies, an important point which you are evidently
intent on ignoring.
For one example you can google up my posts of a few years ago about trying to
copy some very
weak Europeans working PSK31 on a near-dead 20 meter band when it wasn't
possible to
lock and print the PSK, but the CW ID came through loud and clear, on all of
them! The cause
was almost certainly polar phase shift, which corrupted the PSK but affected the
CW signal not a bit!




particularly than weak-signal voice modes which demand slowly pronounced
and
enunciated words and the use of phonetics.

See my previous paragraph above ...

And, as it happens, both travel at the same speed! Eureka!Carl has found
it!

You're delusional again ... take your meds or something.

But you already knew all that, you just like to slam CW.

It's not that I'm "slamming CW" ... as I've said, use it to your heart's
content.
But in the future when folks are not forced to learn it, you'll have to do
your
own "recruiting," rather than relying on a government life support system
for
it ...

You still remember failing that 13wpm test long ago, don't you?

Actually, Dick, I never failed a 13 wpm test because I never TOOK one.
I took my 5 wpm test, then improved my speed working 40 cw, then
during a period when I was moving and the HF station (a Heathkit CW
only rig) was in storage, I got involved in VHF/UHF repeaters, packet
radio (in the early days), etc. and by the time the stuff was out of storage
I'd discovered that there were a lot more interesting things to do in ham
radio than making beeps ...

I simply don't believe you, based on your past postings. You got a Tech license
at
an FCC district office, - San Diego, I believe you said , IIRC ,
when the ONLY way you could do that was to fail the 13wpm
code test when trying for General but copying enough to qualify for 5wpm,
because Tech in that time frame was a by-mail-order only license. You
wouldn't be allowed to walk into a FCC office then and ask to take a 5wpm code
test
and the Tech written, which was the same written as General. But if you were
taking the
General and failed the 13wpm test, copying enough to qualify you for 5wpm,
they'd allow
you to go ahead and finish out the exam by taking the General written, thus
qualifying
as a Tech. You could then return later and pass the 13wpm code test and upgrade
to
General.
You shoulda did it, Carl, would have saved you lot of grief over the years.

And no, that didn't happen to me, I read about in in QST back then. When I went
to the
FCC office to test, I took every ham test except the Novice which was all
the credit allowed for a Conditional General, and brought home my Extra.

Of course I could be wrong, but you could be obfuscating just to save face, too.