About Us

October 14th 04, 11:34 AM

(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.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Money just for posting	Clayson111160	Digital	0	October 20th 04 01:13 PM
Money just for posting	Clayson111160	Digital	0	October 20th 04 01:13 PM
Who peed in the pool?	Mike Coslo	Policy	139	September 30th 04 12:01 PM
Guidelines for posting to this newsgroup?	Nick Lamendola	Boatanchors	3	March 3rd 04 01:22 AM
rsgb now posting their fantastic $2 membership offer	Bob Miller	Antenna	0	August 7th 03 06:27 AM

Menu

About Us