"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote:

I have logged many hundreds

of
hours of emergency comms service in my over 25 years as a ham ... and never
had to use CW


Fortuitous it was, too, since you'd have been totally out of luck.......



(not that anyone else in the ARES or RACES teams would have
suggested it either ...)

Of course not, when you run with the likeminded......




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?

The numbers were presented years ago ... google them up if you want to
refresh your memory.


Yeah, right, numbers will get you a bet....ham radio takes some hardware, which
you
clearly aren't capable of hatching up in support of your "numbers", in spite of
your
longtime rants. All show and no go, that's out boy Carl.





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?

Ah, so you have a problem with computers .



Sure seems it's YOU that has a problem with computes, why else all the smoke and
mirrors
you play and still nothing more? Numbers indeed! A few of em on some green will
get you a cup
at Starbucks but here on rrap they'll get you shown up. Consider yourself
exposed for what
you are........and more accurately what you are NOT. Nothing but a numbers
runner.



.. better start walking ... the
average
modern vehicle has sosmething on the order of a couple of dozen or more
computer
chips in it ...

Yeah, there's where computer people actually do what they say they can. What
happened to you? Got a problem actually doing all that stuff you claim to be so
good at?




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.

NO, some of them are more robust than CW by a bunch ...

Read it again for accuracy this time, Carl, and unstick yourself off the old
saw about what's robust. Just because you can't copy CW through noise
(nor any other way) doesn't mean no one else can.





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!

Or more likely you don't know how to properly adjust soundcard levels and
tune the PSK-31 signal ...

Yep, right in character, you are. When you can't find any way to counter the
facts
just slam the messenger. I was working PSK31 long before you ever were
authorized
on the PSK frequencies, as though that matters. What I was doing this particular
day was
monitoring, and with Digipan tuning them in isn't much of a problem in any case,
but maybe
you've been too busy rachetjawing on 20 sideband to notice.
Even you should understand that on a phase shifted signal any atmospheric phase

shifting can easily corrupt the signal while enroute. Oh well.

But it was really remarkable- all that high tech digital communicating going on
and nothing was
coming across except ancient old CW. Really neat!




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 ,

Actually, it was Long Beach ...

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.

Not true ... at the time, the only test that was given by volunteer
examiners was the Novice ...




Don't think so, but that's what you'd say in any case, so nothing has changed.