"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Steve

In article ,

(Len Over 21) writes:

Morse code is slower that ALL modes.

"slower that ALL"??


Dug this up this morning. Goodness, it's getting hard to find anything on
this newsgroup that is really worth even bothering with.

"Morse code is slower than ALL modes." Hmmmm, that's a rather interesting
observation. I think it would have to be determined on when and where. If
there's a CW net in progress and there are not very experienced people, then
it probably would be pretty darned slow--and repetitive.

However, under dire circumstances when, presumably, a CW net would be
underway with very experienced communicators and would be the fastest, most
efficient method of communication (hands down, no pun intended). For once,
this is a thread wherein the real point of CW can be highlighted. CW may or
may not ALWAYS be the "one mode that gets through when no other will." But,
it's hard to argue that CW--if clear and done well--is the fastest and most
efficient mode.

Kim W5TIT

Good to see you back, Kim!

In article , "Kim"
writes:

"Morse code is slower than ALL modes." Hmmmm, that's a rather interesting
observation.

It's also not true.

I think it would have to be determined on when and where. If
there's a CW net in progress and there are not very experienced people, then
it probably would be pretty darned slow--and repetitive.

I agree 100%. But isn't that also true of *any* mode?

How many times in your life have you tried to pass a simple message to someone
over the telephone, and it took 5-10 minutes just to get the person on the
other end (an adult!) to write down your name, phone number, and "please call
me back"? On CW, a couple of ops with decent skills would be done doing that in
15-20 seconds, tops.

However, under dire circumstances when, presumably, a CW net would be
underway with very experienced communicators and would be the fastest, most
efficient method of communication (hands down, no pun intended).

I *sort of* disagree. It depends entirely on the situation.

For once,
this is a thread wherein the real point of CW can be highlighted. CW may or
may not ALWAYS be the "one mode that gets through when no other will." But,
it's hard to argue that CW--if clear and done well--is the fastest and most
efficient mode.

I'm not sure whether you're arguing that CW is or is not the fastest and most
efficient mode, Kim. Perhaps I'm just not getting that last sentence the way
you intended it.

But in any case, I say it depends entirely on the situation. For example:

Suppose you have a number of stations set up with 100 wpm "keyboard modes". But
the operators can only type 10-20 wpm. Then the real speed of that mode is only
10-20 wpm. And if stations don't have printers, "hard copy" via keyboard modes
is no faster than any other mode where writing is involved.

Suppose you have a voice net, and you want to pass traffic that has to be
written down. Even though people allegedly talk 100-200 wpm, in such a
situation the real speed of operation is how fast the receiving ops can write
legibly. Which is typically about 15-30 wpm for untrained folks.

(insert your favorite scenario here)

You can come up with all kinds of scenarios where one mode or another has an
advantage for various reasons. For example:

- You can safely drive and operate voice or CW, but not RTTY-type modes

- RTTY-type modes, with the right equipment, can be set up to deliver multiple
hard copies, to forward via email or other methods, and to relay without much
"handling".

- Voice modes are almost entirely insecure (anybody with a receiver can listen
in and gather information, and people nearby the transmitting operator know
what is being said).

- CW requires the simplest equipment and *usually* the least power for a given
communications capability.

Etc., etc., etc.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , "Kim"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Steve

In article ,

(Len Over 21) writes:

Morse code is slower that ALL modes.

"slower that ALL"??


Dug this up this morning. Goodness, it's getting hard to find anything on
this newsgroup that is really worth even bothering with.

"Morse code is slower than ALL modes." Hmmmm, that's a rather interesting
observation. I think it would have to be determined on when and where. If
there's a CW net in progress and there are not very experienced people, then
it probably would be pretty darned slow--and repetitive.

Kim, you are welcome to hold any belief system you wish, but the
FACT that on-off-keyed "CW" morse IS the slowest communications
mode in use today or in use a half century ago. I've seen it up close
and personal throughout this whole past half century. It is evidenciary
in the REST of the radio communications world.

The slowest teleprinter rates of a half century ago was 60 WPM and,
to some degree still with old, worn-out surplus teleprinters of that
era. With Mark-Space shift of 170 Hz, those old, cranky 60 WPM
Teletypes need less than 400 Hz of bandwidth to transmit in FSK.
Those ancient machines (already around well before Jimmie was
born) can run continuously at 60 WPM throughput as long as they
are fed paper rolls and paper tape. I once watched over 200 such
teleprinters busy, busy working continuously 24/7 in the same
place on several "networks."

The old electromechanical Teletypes of the 1970s can sustain 100
WPM throughput as long as the old 1940s era machines did. A
modern PC can emulate either of them and go faster, having much
more mass memory to store archives of network messages.

It is the EXCEPTIONAL rarity now to find any two morsemen at
each end of a ham radio circuit who can do SUSTAINED "network"
communications by on-off-keyed "CW" morse at 40 WPM for
hours. HOURS. Networks need hours if the number of messages
are great.

I've known a couple of speed freak morsemen who had regular
QSOs along the California coast, doing bursting rates of about
60 WPM for a minute or so at a time. I took their word for it, not
hearing their ham transmissions. A minute or so at a high rate of
morse is not good enough for real networking, copying down and
recording for later re-transmission of message content.

However, under dire circumstances when, presumably, a CW net would be
underway with very experienced communicators and would be the fastest, most
efficient method of communication (hands down, no pun intended). For once,
this is a thread wherein the real point of CW can be highlighted. CW may or
may not ALWAYS be the "one mode that gets through when no other will." But,
it's hard to argue that CW--if clear and done well--is the fastest and most
efficient mode.

Nonsense alive and well only in the imaginative fantasies of mighty
macho morsemen. Real networks don't operate on imagination.
"Error-free" messages don't get relayed through self-glorified boasting.

The rest of the radio communications AND wire communications world
learned that between a full century and a half century ago. That's why
NONE of them use morse code for message communications now.

All that said, I think that radiotelegraphy IS faster than the old British
and French semaphore communications systems. Morse radio-
telegraphy IS faster than the pony express and IS faster than paper
surface mail. Radiotelegraphy does reach out farther than the human
voice can transmit unaided by anything but the human body.
Other than that, morse radiotelegraphy still remains the slowest
mode of communications available to radio amateurs.

Those who want to fantasize that morse is "faster" or "better" will
have to set up a controlled test NOT in morse favor to demonstrate
that alleged fact. Let all those might macho morsemen sustain
20 to 40 WPM continuously for an 8-hour period...and do the
communications with LESS error than any teleprinter circuit.

Subject: No Morse Code discourse
From: (William)
Date: 10/13/2004 9:53 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

Not only don't I see "civil discourse," I sense an unwillingness for
you to discuss your own Morse Code statements.

And this would be different from YOUR "unwillingness" to discuss YOUR
"unlicensed devices play a "major role" in emergency comms" statement or your
"I operated from Somalia" statements, Brain?

Sheeeeeesh.

Steve, K4YZ

Len Over 21 wrote:

Kim, you are welcome to hold any belief system you wish, but the
FACT that on-off-keyed "CW" morse IS the slowest communications
mode in use today or in use a half century ago. I've seen it up close
and personal throughout this whole past half century.

Don't exaggerate, Leonard. You might have seen it up close but for you,
it wasn't personal.

The slowest teleprinter rates of a half century ago was 60 WPM and,
to some degree still with old, worn-out surplus teleprinters of that
era. With Mark-Space shift of 170 Hz, those old, cranky 60 WPM
Teletypes need less than 400 Hz of bandwidth to transmit in FSK.
Those ancient machines (already around well before Jimmie was
born) can run continuously at 60 WPM throughput as long as they
are fed paper rolls and paper tape. I once watched over 200 such
teleprinters busy, busy working continuously 24/7 in the same
place on several "networks."

The old electromechanical Teletypes of the 1970s can sustain 100
WPM throughput as long as the old 1940s era machines did. A
modern PC can emulate either of them and go faster, having much
more mass memory to store archives of network messages.

Actually, many of the old Mod 26's, a relic of the '60s could do 100
wpm.
They couldn't do it in the presence of heavy static or multipath flutter
or echo though, even with the use of modern digital "helpers" such as
various HF link enhancement devices.

It is the EXCEPTIONAL rarity now to find any two morsemen at
each end of a ham radio circuit who can do SUSTAINED "network"
communications by on-off-keyed "CW" morse at 40 WPM for
hours. HOURS. Networks need hours if the number of messages
are great.

....and you know this because of your vast experience in the use of
morse?

One thing for su It is certainly a rarity to find TWO morse ops at
each end of a circuit.


Nonsense alive and well only in the imaginative fantasies of mighty
macho morsemen. Real networks don't operate on imagination.
"Error-free" messages don't get relayed through self-glorified boasting.

They certainly don't, even if TTY machines are being used on an HF
circuit.


Those who want to fantasize that morse is "faster" or "better" will
have to set up a controlled test NOT in morse favor to demonstrate
that alleged fact. Let all those might macho morsemen sustain
20 to 40 WPM continuously for an 8-hour period...and do the
communications with LESS error than any teleprinter circuit.

You surely don't know much about radio contesting, do you, Leonard?

I'll allege that you are the original "might" macho type.

Dave K8MN

Subject: Doing Battle? Can't Resist Posting?
From: (William)
Date: 10/14/2004 5:34 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

Jim has stated that the throughput of a rtty system may be limited by
the typing speed of the operator. The example he used is that the
rtty operator might only be able to type 10wpm, thus rendering the
rtty a 10wpm machine.

I responded that the throughput of a CW system might be limited by the
Morse Code operator only knowing the code at 10wpm.

I wanted to know how that was different from his example. So far no
response.

Even if the operator can type 120 WPM, if s/he can't be interrupted in the
midst of the string and asked for a repeat, as a good QSK CW operator can, then
that error will exist until the end of the transmission and the error resolved.

Assuming the interruption it to tell the transmitting station that it's
ALL garbled, your 60-100WPM teletype just became zero.

A bridge out in the middle of the Autobahn means everyone goes zero until
the bridge is replaced regardless of what the thoroughfare will otherwise
allow. Same thing.

Steve, K4YZ