In article et, "KØHB"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote

Code groups are harder to copy than plain language, too.

On the contrary, when copying for a speed test (verbatim hard copy) 5
letter coded groups are FAR easier to copy than plain text.

Well, Hans, IIRC the test standards usually worked the other way. IOW the
required speed was higher for plain text than for coded groups.

However, that doesn't necessarily mean it was harder. Since truly coded groups
lose the advantage of variable-lenght (Hoffman?) coding, that could account for
the speed difference.

It does make sense that copying code groups eliminates the need for one skill:
figuring out word spaces. You *know* that each group is 5 characters long.

Most Navy
operators could copy coded groups at a about speed 20% higher than plain
text press.

Well, that proves your point. Perhaps the difference in percevied difficulty
comes from the fact that most nonmilitary CW ops don't get a lot of practice on
code groups.

So I'll revise my statement:

"Whether code groups or plain language is harder to copy depends entirely on
the operator. Those with extensive experience in both report that code groups
are actually easier to copy."

Thanks for the info.

73 de Jim, N2EY

PAMNO (N2EY) wrote

It does make sense that copying code groups eliminates
the need for one skill: figuring out word spaces. You
*know* that each group is 5 characters long.

That's one factor, but a more important one is that the operator
copying coded groups has no temptation to 'understand' the message
being copied. This has two implications ---

1) The operator will not (consciously or unconsciously) attempt to
anticipate the word being sent, thus will not get 'flummoxed' when the
expected word is incorrect (for example hearing 't h e s' he might
expect the word to be "these" and transcribe it that way, only to have
it turn out to be "thespian", causing him to drop out of his "zone" to
fix the error, perhaps missing the following word.

2) If the operator is not trying to 'understand' the message being
copied, the mechanics of copying become more 'automatic' with (as one
old telegrapher described to me) a mode in which "the message follows
a short circuit between the eardrum and the fingertips without passing
through the brain". From this mode come the (true) tales of operators
who could seemingly "multi-task" copying Morse at a subcounscious
level, and carry on other activitives like carry on a conversation,
retune the receiver, or read a book at the same time.

73, de Hans, K0HB

In article ,
(Hans K0HB) writes:

(N2EY) wrote

It does make sense that copying code groups eliminates
the need for one skill: figuring out word spaces. You
*know* that each group is 5 characters long.

That's one factor, but a more important one is that the operator
copying coded groups has no temptation to 'understand' the message
being copied.

Rewrite my previous statement to read: "Eliminates the need for two skills:
figuring out word spaces, and copying what was actually sent, not what was
anticipated"

This has two implications ---

1) The operator will not (consciously or unconsciously) attempt to
anticipate the word being sent, thus will not get 'flummoxed' when the
expected word is incorrect (for example hearing 't h e s' he might
expect the word to be "these" and transcribe it that way, only to have
it turn out to be "thespian", causing him to drop out of his "zone" to
fix the error, perhaps missing the following word.

Yep.

2) If the operator is not trying to 'understand' the message being
copied, the mechanics of copying become more 'automatic' with (as one
old telegrapher described to me) a mode in which "the message follows
a short circuit between the eardrum and the fingertips without passing
through the brain". From this mode come the (true) tales of operators
who could seemingly "multi-task" copying Morse at a subcounscious
level, and carry on other activitives like carry on a conversation,
retune the receiver, or read a book at the same time.

Yep again. Having seen that sort of thing done, and having done it myself to a
small degree, it makes perfect sense.

Thanks Hans.

73 de Jim, N2EY