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.

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

(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...
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.




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.

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

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message ...
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.

No response because I don't read most of what "William" writes here. I
only saw this because it was quoted by Steve.

Besides, why should I answer "William's" questions when he won't
answer mine? Also, I've already answered the above question in another
post.

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.

That's a side benefit.

Here's the plain facts:

The speed and accuracy of *any* mode that requires a human operator is
highly dependent upon that operator's skill. Doesn't matter if it's
done with a key, keyboard or microphone. If you have 10 wpm Morse
operators, you have (at best) a 10 wpm system. If you have 10 wpm
teletypists, you have (at best) a 10 wpm system regardless of what the
maximum speed of the system is rated. Same for voice.

That's just common sense.

The use of prerecorded storage can speed things up somewhat if, say, a
10 wpm teletypist is punching tape while receiving. But that takes the
systems out of real-time communications. One could prerecord Morse and
transmit it at high speed, as was done over 60 years ago, just as
well.

The basic fact is that Morse code is *not* the slowest mode available
to hams.

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

Yup.

Various forms of error detection and correction, checksums, ACK/NAK
and other methods can do a lot of that stuff automatically. At a cost
in speed, of course.

But that's not really the issue.

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.

Exactly!

Or:

The bridge is down to one lane in each direction, and the speed limit
is such that only 1/10 as many cars/hour get through as would normally
be able to use the bridge. The effective capacity of the road is then
reduced to 1/10 of normal (between the exits before and after the
blockage).


73 de Jim, N2EY

(N2EY) wrote in message . com...
(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message ...
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.

No response because I don't read most of what "William" writes here. I
only saw this because it was quoted by Steve.

Of course. Hi!

Besides, why should I answer "William's" questions when he won't
answer mine? Also, I've already answered the above question in another
post.

I didn't see it because I don't read most of what "Jim" posts.

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.

That's a side benefit.

Assuming both ops have QSK. And there's nothing inherently wrong with
asking for "all again after xxx." SOP if you know what I mean.

Here's the plain facts:

The speed and accuracy of *any* mode that requires a human operator is
highly dependent upon that operator's skill. Doesn't matter if it's
done with a key, keyboard or microphone. If you have 10 wpm Morse
operators, you have (at best) a 10 wpm system. If you have 10 wpm
teletypists, you have (at best) a 10 wpm system regardless of what the
maximum speed of the system is rated. Same for voice.

That's just common sense.

But you chose to imply that the CW op was somehow better than rtty for
throughput. And you got called on it.

The use of prerecorded storage can speed things up somewhat if, say, a
10 wpm teletypist is punching tape while receiving. But that takes the
systems out of real-time communications. One could prerecord Morse and
transmit it at high speed, as was done over 60 years ago, just as
well.

Unless you have an Extra Class operator who vows to do his best to
make machine copy impossible. Ever heard of such stupidity?

The basic fact is that Morse code is *not* the slowest mode available
to hams.

It is among the very slowest, all else being equal.

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

Yup.

Ditto W0EX sent cw.

Various forms of error detection and correction, checksums, ACK/NAK
and other methods can do a lot of that stuff automatically. At a cost
in speed, of course.

But that's not really the issue.

Never is. CW is better than everything else. That is the issue.

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.

Exactly!

Ever heard of changing bands, or relaying?

Or:

The bridge is down to one lane in each direction, and the speed limit
is such that only 1/10 as many cars/hour get through as would normally
be able to use the bridge. The effective capacity of the road is then
reduced to 1/10 of normal (between the exits before and after the
blockage).


73 de Jim, N2EY

The only blockage are the eyes rolled back Morse Code elitists.

"William" wrote


Unless you have an Extra Class operator who vows to do his best to
make machine copy impossible. Ever heard of such stupidity?


I've never heard of that, but I have heard of skilled operators who
make no effort to send machine perfect code, and who in fact take some
pride in sending Morse with some personality.

There are a couple of reasons for this seemingly maverick behaviour.

Reason #1: Before the days of "electronic precision" in keying, Morse
was a manual art. An operators fist was a second "signature", and many
operators cultivated a distinctive style. This was especially true
where more than one operator shared a single call sign. You could tell
who was on watch at KFS by the fist of the operator.

Even with the advent of electronic keyers, some of this old preference
exists, and I must admit I get pretty bored with the
machine-perfect-sterile-without-personality Morse we hear today. It
sounds like robots talking to robots. If you ever heard the melodic
fist of pioneers like W4KFC, you would not have asked the question.
grin.

Reason #2: Under "less than ideal" conditions, a little overweighting
with emphasis on the DAH seems to make copy a bit easier.


73, de K0HB
didididahdiDAH
--
My name is Hans and I improved this message.

"KØHB" wrote in message k.net...
"William" wrote


Unless you have an Extra Class operator who vows to do his best to
make machine copy impossible. Ever heard of such stupidity?


I've never heard of that, but I have heard of skilled operators who
make no effort to send machine perfect code, and who in fact take some
pride in sending Morse with some personality.

There are a couple of reasons for this seemingly maverick behaviour.

Reason #1: Before the days of "electronic precision" in keying, Morse
was a manual art. An operators fist was a second "signature", and many
operators cultivated a distinctive style. This was especially true
where more than one operator shared a single call sign. You could tell
who was on watch at KFS by the fist of the operator.

The need or desire to develop a distinctive style because of a shared
call sign should not have had much play in the amateur service where
each operator is assigned a unique call sign.

If you wish to speak of other services morse code use, then there are
other venues for that.

Even with the advent of electronic keyers, some of this old preference
exists, and I must admit I get pretty bored with the
machine-perfect-sterile-without-personality Morse we hear today. It
sounds like robots talking to robots. If you ever heard the melodic
fist of pioneers like W4KFC, you would not have asked the question.
grin.

Wunnerful.

Reason #2: Under "less than ideal" conditions, a little overweighting
with emphasis on the DAH seems to make copy a bit easier.

Perhaps.

73, de K0HB
didididahdiDAH

Yet Dick stated that his mission was to make his fist uncopyable to
no-code Technicians with a machine reader.

bb

In article , "KØHB"
writes:

"William" wrote

Unless you have an Extra Class operator who vows to do his best to
make machine copy impossible. Ever heard of such stupidity?

I've never heard of that, but I have heard of skilled operators who
make no effort to send machine perfect code, and who in fact take some
pride in sending Morse with some personality.

Ahem...Brian was referring to a once-regular in here named Dick
Carroll, W0EX.

There are a couple of reasons for this seemingly maverick behaviour.

Heah com de excuses...heah com de excuses! :-)

Reason #1: Before the days of "electronic precision" in keying, Morse
was a manual art. An operators fist was a second "signature", and many
operators cultivated a distinctive style. This was especially true
where more than one operator shared a single call sign. You could tell
who was on watch at KFS by the fist of the operator.

Not much NEED of that now, is there?

Even with the advent of electronic keyers, some of this old preference
exists, and I must admit I get pretty bored with the
machine-perfect-sterile-without-personality Morse we hear today. It
sounds like robots talking to robots. If you ever heard the melodic
fist of pioneers like W4KFC, you would not have asked the question.
grin.

GUFFAW!

Morse code radiotelegraphy STILL sounds like robot-to-robot
communications.

Absolutely NO human-sense clues as to the other operator other
than the monotonic "personality" of dot-dash "weighting." Can't
even tell the gender of the other operator...no voice tone, only the
need to Believe in the "honesty" of the operator that what they send
is "truth."

Sort of like "UR 599 OM!" Pbththththt.

Reason #2: Under "less than ideal" conditions, a little overweighting
with emphasis on the DAH seems to make copy a bit easier.

Your rationalization seems a bit overweight on the DUH.

Fantasy Island, amateur style.

Make certain amateur radio is safe from SEX...force all to learn morse
and qualify by test to exclude any trace of gender. Make certain
amateur radio is safe from humor...use "HI HI" for laughter by qualified
morse testing. Remove all honesty from signal strength-tone "reports."

[morse allows anyone to use another callsign without an immediate
recognition of the fraudulent ID...such as using a spouse's ham call]

Keep the "tradition" firm, fast, held in place by armor-protected
concrete & rebar footing, make all hams "qualify" to operate below
30 MHz by morse test. Just like the OLD, OLD days.

Subject: Doing Battle? Can't Resist Posting?
From: (William)
Date: 10/18/2004 7:25 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(N2EY) wrote in message
.com...

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.

That's a side benefit.

Assuming both ops have QSK. And there's nothing inherently wrong with
asking for "all again after xxx." SOP if you know what I mean.

I dare say we know better than you do, Brain.

And if you ARE operating QSK, you don't have to ask "all after"...You can
stop them and get a "fill" right then and there.

(People who USE "QSK" know this...)

Here's the plain facts:

The speed and accuracy of *any* mode that requires a human operator is
highly dependent upon that operator's skill. Doesn't matter if it's
done with a key, keyboard or microphone. If you have 10 wpm Morse
operators, you have (at best) a 10 wpm system. If you have 10 wpm
teletypists, you have (at best) a 10 wpm system regardless of what the
maximum speed of the system is rated. Same for voice.

That's just common sense.

But you chose to imply that the CW op was somehow better than rtty for
throughput. And you got called on it.

"...got called on it"...?!?!

In some circumstances CW WILL get through and with greater accuracy than
RTTY.

This has already been demonstrated.

The use of prerecorded storage can speed things up somewhat if, say, a
10 wpm teletypist is punching tape while receiving. But that takes the
systems out of real-time communications. One could prerecord Morse and
transmit it at high speed, as was done over 60 years ago, just as
well.

Unless you have an Extra Class operator who vows to do his best to
make machine copy impossible. Ever heard of such stupidity?

Only from somone stupid enough to make the suggestion.

Ooooooooooooooooooppps! That was YOU, Brain! 'Magine that!

The basic fact is that Morse code is *not* the slowest mode available
to hams.

It is among the very slowest, all else being equal.

What do YOU know about "being equal"...?!?!

A good CW net can clear 10-15 messages while the SSB net is still in roll
call.

I know...I've been there.

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

Yup.

Ditto W0EX sent cw.

Various forms of error detection and correction, checksums, ACK/NAK
and other methods can do a lot of that stuff automatically. At a cost
in speed, of course.

But that's not really the issue.

Never is. CW is better than everything else. That is the issue.

That's the "issue" only to you and Lennie.

The rest of us with some practical experience in such issues KNOW better.

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.

Exactly!

Ever heard of changing bands, or relaying?

OK.

You're taking traffic from someone on 40 meter RTTY. The band sucks.

You just missed practically everything he sent. He finally QRT's.

How are you going to tell him to QSY if RTTY isn't working? Use an even
WIDER bandwidth mode on a band that's already crappy?

Or:

The bridge is down to one lane in each direction, and the speed limit
is such that only 1/10 as many cars/hour get through as would normally
be able to use the bridge. The effective capacity of the road is then
reduced to 1/10 of normal (between the exits before and after the
blockage).


73 de Jim, N2EY

The only blockage are the eyes rolled back Morse Code elitists.

The only "blockage" is in your lower bowel that allows all that BS to back
up to your eyes, Brain...You really are the epitome of "idiot".

Steve, K4YZ