| Page 2 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Len Anderson wrote: In article .com, writes: In later "polar keying" telegraphy, the current was either flowing in one direction or flowing in the opposite direction. Two states. However, such "polar keying" (originally "polarized keying"), those are implemented as TRINARY since there is the state where no current is flowing in the loop . . . Welp then that means CW is a tertiary mode. Given a slice of RF spectrum space in which CW is being transmitted there are actually three states: Key down, key up and the noise between up n' down. OYeah, the noise matters as a "state". Morse code is definitely BINARY. Binary does not refer to the time or duration of maintaining either of two states. None of that really matters to any policy discussions. It matters greatly to those chat-roomers or morse-bloggers who MUST fill space with all kinds of miscellaneous dreck subjects reveling in the sanctity, efficacy, nobility . . . Sweetums for God's sake it's drek . . as in "Drek mit Leber" . . w3rv |
Len Anderson wrote:
Two states. In any of the states of the United States and in all the "airwaves" of the universe. Sorry, old bean. I live in a tri-state area. Dave K8MN |
Can a person request to be tested by sending? My sending has always outpaced my receiving! 99% of people are that way. The FCC found that nobody ever failed a sending test if they passed a receiving test. So they decided why bother with sending. |
In article , Mike Coslo
writes: N2EY wrote: In article ws.com, "Phil Kane" writes: On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 04:13:16 GMT, Doug McLaren wrote: But to retort -- 1) The FCC doesn't administer ham radio tests any more Nothing in the Rules says that someone can't be called into an FCC office and administered an individual test if the FCC deems it necessary. Bring 'em on! ;-) 2) The tests are generally receiving, not sending, and Generally but not always. It's up to the examiner. Yep. It is possible to pass Element 1 by *sending only*. Can a person request to be tested by sending? It is my understanding that such a test can be administered as an accomodation. Same as someone might request a flashing light rather than audio tone, or a pitch other than the usual 750 Hz. My sending has always outpaced my receiving! Mine too. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
In article , Michael Coslo
writes: N2EY wrote: In article , Mike Coslo writes: wrote: Michael Coslo wrote: I felt kinda bad about being mean to Len, When were you mean to Len, Mike? Unless you count disagreeing with him and proving him wrong as "being mean", you've been nothing but nice to him. Well, he probably thinks so! Whether he thinks at all is unknown. It's clear he has no shame, however, considering how he behaves here and all the Godwin violations. He and "F%$@ $%#k" Dick Cheney must be buddies. Mike Deignan had him pegged. Len's really ticked that somewhere, out there, somebody is having fun with ham radio. *Every Day*! If I'm not operating, I'm reading or surfing the web to learn about it. And I venture in here for a little mud wrestling from time to time too! 8^) What *really* ticks him, I suppose, is people having fun with ham radio and Morse Code... so I'll try to meet him halfway with a Morse code topic. His definition of meeting halfway is that you agree with him 100%. That is certainly possible... It's self-evident... So maybe we can ressurect this old one... I hear lots of Hams declare that Morse code is a binary mode. It is most certainly not. Depends how you define "binary". One state equals "0" or "off". The other state equals "1" or "on". You have to define "state". If "key up" and "key down" are the states, it's binary. Time isn't the factor you make it - look at how Baudot works. Certainly. But Morse code, which was invented as a human translated code, does not qualify to me as a 1 or 0 state. Here is my rationale: If the key is up, the radio is certainly not sending 0's. Doesn't have to. This brings up an interesting paradox... If the lack of a signal is a 0 state, then when no signal is being transmitted, you are receiving zeros until someone sends something. That's right. And a string of zeroes is interpreted as lots of spaces. I grant that a dit might be a 1. If a dah is 3 1's, why do we not send 3 dits. I either hold the key down longer or press the dah switch on my keyer. It sends out a longer pulse, not 3 1's. It sends three dits with no space between them. Describing the signal as how many 1's a signal is, or how many 0's indicate intercharacter or interword spacing is a method of translating the varying length Morse code signals into digital format. So? The basic element is one dit length long. Three of them together in the one state is a dah. Let us look at the situation. Is the Dit a "0"? No. Is the Dah a "1"? No. Is the space between characters a "0"? and the Dih a "1"? Oh wait, what is the Dah then? Oh, and what about the space between words? Key up is "0". Key down is "1". Also known as "space" and "mark", respectively. Unfortunately, there are two separate "1" states, and the zero state is not a constant thing. Doesn't have to be. It's a time code. There is the matter of time. A zero might me the space between letters, or one half of a dit. It might also mean the space between words. All different things. No. The characters are built from the basic elements, which are key up and key down, just like, say, Baudot RTTY. That Morse code can be turned into binary is not at argument here. It obviously can, just as images, emails and everything else we do on the computer. Are they binary because someone has written a program to turn them into strings of 1's and 0's? Their basic transmission form is binary, same as Morse. A non-binary code is one that has more than two *transmission* states, like QPSK. Which is typically implemented as 0, 90, 180 and 270 degrees shift. Four transmission states rather than two. It isn't binary, Depends on how you define "binary". and the way our noodles process it isn't binary. Different subject. Not really. If you look at the string of 1's and 0's that Doug posted as the binary result of my hypothetical CQ, is that something that you would recognize as that CQ? That string IS binary. I would recognize it easily. Why does the - and . method of typing out the code convey the information? the dashes and the spaces convey time information to the person looking at them. I'm counting more than two states here. It's not the simplest way, though. It shows the time differently. It's not binary. Most Morse operators with any skill (that excludes Len) process a complete character as one "sound". "didahdidit" is recognized as "L", in the same way that when you hear the word "cat", you think of the animal. The Morse operator does not think in terms of dits and dahs any more than a person thinks in terms of the consonant and vowel sounds (phonemes) making up "cat". Of course *really* skilled Morse ops hear entire words as units of sound. And at some level, they begin to think in Morse, just as fluent speakers of a language think in that language. Of course Len wouldn't know about that... The big question is: what does it matter if Morse is binary or not? Of course not! I thought it might be something better to talk about than whether Len thinks we're "jackboot thugs" tho'! 8^) Who cares what Len thinks? I sure don't. His behavior here has caused most of us to lose whatever respect we might have once had for him. His latest reply to K8MN simply reinforces that once again. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Len Anderson wrote:
Now if you want to continue arguing this inapplicable non-discussion, please go to rec.nonsense.angels.dance.on.pin newsgroup and live it up. Morse code is NOT high technology. It was devised out of a need to use very primitive electrical devices to communicate. Some 52 years after the first morse code was used, very primitive early radio technology used morse code to enable communication by radio. [that was in 1896 and began the Mythology of Morse some 109 years ago, before the invention of the multi-element vacuum tube and well before the first transistor] Put the subject to rest. RIP. And here, once again, we have Lennie dead-to-rights in yet another "Do As I Say, Not Do As I Do" rant. Lennie will be the first one to yell "You're not a moderator!", yet he has absolutlely no reservation about telling anyone else to shut up or to "take it elsewhere". Never mind that Mike never made such accusations or suggestions to Lennie. His right to "freedom of speech" notwithstanding, Lennie has no business here. He is not a licensed Amateur, has no practical experience in Amateur Radio, and he frequently demonstrates incompetence in matters of Amateur practice, policy and regulation. In short, he's a putz. 73 Steve, K4YZ |
In article ws.com,
"Phil Kane" wrote: .... If it's who I think it is - someone who had a history of deciding what other hams "needed" - he was a traffic handler and contester who knew code very well. In that era the only FCC field folks who were not required to be Morse-qualified were the clerical staff. If I recall correctly the lady that did my test was a member of the clerical staff. From the above, has there been a change in the CW requirement for field staff? I know when I was offered a Field Engineer job they were happy I would not have to study CW (I turned it down, the idea of paying my moving and transfer expenses rankled me) -- -------------------------------------------------------- Personal e-mail is the n7bsn but at amsat.org This posting address is a spam-trap and seldom read RV and Camping FAQ can be found at http://www.ralphandellen.us/rv |
On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 08:13:22 -0800, Ralph E Lindberg wrote:
From the above, has there been a change in the CW requirement for field staff? I know when I was offered a Field Engineer job they were happy I would not have to study CW (I turned it down, the idea of paying my moving and transfer expenses rankled me) AFAIK the "technical agents" (used to be called engineers or technicians) still have to qualify at a minimum of 20 wpm text and 16 wpm code groups. The non-technical agents (used to be called Public Contact Specialists) and the clerical staff do not have to be code-qualified although I know several who are code-qualified from being licensed ham operators or once were monitoring station technicians. As far as relocation - when I hired on in 1967 they paid my transportation and moving expenses cross-country. It may have changed by the time that you were contacted. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
N2EY wrote:
In article , Michael Coslo writes: snippage for readability Mike Deignan had him pegged. Len's really ticked that somewhere, out there, somebody is having fun with ham radio. *Every Day*! If I'm not operating, I'm reading or surfing the web to learn about it. And I venture in here for a little mud wrestling from time to time too! 8^) What *really* ticks him, I suppose, is people having fun with ham radio and Morse Code... Such an odd thing to be so concerned about....... so I'll try to meet him halfway with a Morse code topic. His definition of meeting halfway is that you agree with him 100%. That is certainly possible... It's self-evident... So maybe we can ressurect this old one... I hear lots of Hams declare that Morse code is a binary mode. It is most certainly not. Depends how you define "binary". One state equals "0" or "off". The other state equals "1" or "on". You have to define "state". If "key up" and "key down" are the states, it's binary. Time isn't the factor you make it - look at how Baudot works. Certainly. But Morse code, which was invented as a human translated code, does not qualify to me as a 1 or 0 state. Here is my rationale: If the key is up, the radio is certainly not sending 0's. Doesn't have to. This brings up an interesting paradox... If the lack of a signal is a 0 state, then when no signal is being transmitted, you are receiving zeros until someone sends something. That's right. And a string of zeroes is interpreted as lots of spaces. And it means that information is being sent with no energy used in the sending. Hence the paradox. Of course if we are dealing in quantum matters, there is not as much paradox, except for why it is all 0's instead of a 1 here and there. I grant that a dit might be a 1. If a dah is 3 1's, why do we not send 3 dits. I either hold the key down longer or press the dah switch on my keyer. It sends out a longer pulse, not 3 1's. It sends three dits with no space between them. Only after you decide that the signal is digital for the sake of calling it a binary or digital signal. It isn't sent that way, and when you listen, you don't think of it that way. The only time you need to think of it that way is when you decide to do something with a computer, and need to translate the Morse code signal into something that the computer will understand. Describing the signal as how many 1's a signal is, or how many 0's indicate intercharacter or interword spacing is a method of translating the varying length Morse code signals into digital format. So? The basic element is one dit length long. Three of them together in the one state is a dah. In the computer it is. In the human brain it isn't. The human brain decodes the dits and dahs and interletter and interword spaces quite differently. No 1's or 0's required Let us look at the situation. Is the Dit a "0"? No. Is the Dah a "1"? No. Is the space between characters a "0"? and the Dih a "1"? Oh wait, what is the Dah then? Oh, and what about the space between words? Key up is "0". Key down is "1". Also known as "space" and "mark", respectively. Unfortunately, there are two separate "1" states, and the zero state is not a constant thing. Doesn't have to be. It's a time code. There is the matter of time. A zero might me the space between letters, or one half of a dit. It might also mean the space between words. All different things. No. The characters are built from the basic elements, which are key up and key down, just like, say, Baudot RTTY. That Morse code can be turned into binary is not at argument here. It obviously can, just as images, emails and everything else we do on the computer. Are they binary because someone has written a program to turn them into strings of 1's and 0's? Their basic transmission form is binary, same as Morse. A non-binary code is one that has more than two *transmission* states, like QPSK. Which is typically implemented as 0, 90, 180 and 270 degrees shift. Four transmission states rather than two. It isn't binary, Depends on how you define "binary". and the way our noodles process it isn't binary. Different subject. Not really. If you look at the string of 1's and 0's that Doug posted as the binary result of my hypothetical CQ, is that something that you would recognize as that CQ? That string IS binary. I would recognize it easily. Why does the - and . method of typing out the code convey the information? the dashes and the spaces convey time information to the person looking at them. I'm counting more than two states here. It's not the simplest way, though. It shows the time differently. It's not binary. Most Morse operators with any skill (that excludes Len) process a complete character as one "sound". "didahdidit" is recognized as "L", in the same way that when you hear the word "cat", you think of the animal. The Morse operator does not think in terms of dits and dahs any more than a person thinks in terms of the consonant and vowel sounds (phonemes) making up "cat". Of course *really* skilled Morse ops hear entire words as units of sound. And at some level, they begin to think in Morse, just as fluent speakers of a language think in that language. Of course Len wouldn't know about that... The big question is: what does it matter if Morse is binary or not? Of course not! I thought it might be something better to talk about than whether Len thinks we're "jackboot thugs" tho'! 8^) Who cares what Len thinks? I sure don't. I'm not terribly concerned much about his opinions either, although I have some fun with him from time to time. As do you! 8^) His behavior here has caused most of us to lose whatever respect we might have once had for him. His latest reply to K8MN simply reinforces that once again. But my main purpose is to get a little traffic on the list that isn't the bottom feeders type stuff. I enjoy the occasional good row that develops. I wouldn't mind seeing that continue. Note that almost everyone disagrees with me, the thread has been largely civil discussion. - Mike KB3EIA - |
robert casey wrote:
Can a person request to be tested by sending? My sending has always outpaced my receiving! 99% of people are that way. The FCC found that nobody ever failed a sending test if they passed a receiving test. So they decided why bother with sending. I don't doubt it. Set me down with a written piece and I can send pretty quickly - easily at the old Extra rate. When ad-libbing, I'm a bit slower. Unfortunately I still fly a little behind the plane when recieving! 8^( - Mike KB3EIA - |
In article ws.com,
"Phil Kane" wrote: .... As far as relocation - when I hired on in 1967 they paid my transportation and moving expenses cross-country. It may have changed by the time that you were contacted. Actually I would have had to waive the relocation required by regulations, since I would have been a transfer from the Navy. I declined to, they declined to finalize the offer. I did have to laugh, the manager in question was elated over a budget increase that amounted to the "pin" money my minor project had. But then I was DoD under Regan and he wasn't -- -------------------------------------------------------- Personal e-mail is the n7bsn but at amsat.org This posting address is a spam-trap and seldom read RV and Camping FAQ can be found at http://www.ralphandellen.us/rv |
Mike Coslo wrote: Len Anderson wrote: In article , Mike Coslo writes: Len Anderson wrote: In article .com, writes: The big question is: what does it matter if Morse is binary or not? . . . finally . . of course not. But you already knew that . . Quite true. The coslonaut (reaching for the threashold of space through surplus helium balloons) originally posted a troll message to liven up this "members-only" chat room cum group blog. You betchya! Webster's New World Compact School and Office Dictionary (1989) has the definition of BINARY as following: "1. Made up of two parts: double 2. designating or of a number system in which the base used is two, each number being expressed by using only two digits, specifically 1 and 0." How many states are there in Morse code? On, and Off? Is that all? Coslo, do you have a reading defect? Here's what I wrote: I can read. ========== Webster's New World Compact School and Office Dictionary (1989) has the definition of BINARY as following: "1. Made up of two parts: double 2. designating or of a number system in which the base used is two, each number being expressed by using only two digits, specifically 1 and 0." Specifically 1 and 0, indeed. That is why when we try to make Morse code computer compatible, We? W0EX did not, RIP. He specifically stated that he would send Morse Code so that computer readers (manned by unworthy no-code Technicians) could not copy his messages. Besides, if something is digital, why would you have to try so hard to make it computer compatible? we interpret the dah or dash as 3 '1's" in length, (followed by a 0) the dit or dot as 1 "1" (followed by a 0, and various numbers of 0's for spaces in between letters or numbers, or words. As used in all electronics, the first definition is used with an emphasis on STATE of something, such as on or off, there or not there. Two-state. In on-off keying (OOK) CW the carrier is either present or not there. Two states. No. At least to only two states. Obviously it is either there or not there. It has a time component that is what carries the information. The "there" or "not thereness" of the signal is one thing. The relationship of one carrier pulse length to other carrier pulse length, and to the intercarrier lack of pulse time is what is important. Try the null hypothesis. Are you saying the silent periods are valueless? |
Dave Heil wrote: Len Anderson wrote: Two states. In any of the states of the United States and in all the "airwaves" of the universe. Sorry, old bean. I live in a tri-state area. Dave K8MN Twit. |
Much to do about nothing
Morse is about sounds Binary in modern use is ones and zeroes in computer stuff -- Caveat Lector (Reader Beware) |
bb wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote: Len Anderson wrote: In article , Mike Coslo writes: Len Anderson wrote: In article .com, writes: The big question is: what does it matter if Morse is binary or not? . . . finally . . of course not. But you already knew that . . Quite true. The coslonaut (reaching for the threashold of space through surplus helium balloons) originally posted a troll message to liven up this "members-only" chat room cum group blog. You betchya! Webster's New World Compact School and Office Dictionary (1989) has the definition of BINARY as following: "1. Made up of two parts: double 2. designating or of a number system in which the base used is two, each number being expressed by using only two digits, specifically 1 and 0." How many states are there in Morse code? On, and Off? Is that all? Coslo, do you have a reading defect? Here's what I wrote: I can read. ========== Webster's New World Compact School and Office Dictionary (1989) has the definition of BINARY as following: "1. Made up of two parts: double 2. designating or of a number system in which the base used is two, each number being expressed by using only two digits, specifically 1 and 0." Specifically 1 and 0, indeed. That is why when we try to make Morse code computer compatible, We? W0EX did not, RIP. He specifically stated that he would send Morse Code so that computer readers (manned by unworthy no-code Technicians) could not copy his messages. Yeah, I'm not sure what the deal was there. Besides, if something is digital, why would you have to try so hard to make it computer compatible? Good point! we interpret the dah or dash as 3 '1's" in length, (followed by a 0) the dit or dot as 1 "1" (followed by a 0, and various numbers of 0's for spaces in between letters or numbers, or words. As used in all electronics, the first definition is used with an emphasis on STATE of something, such as on or off, there or not there. Two-state. In on-off keying (OOK) CW the carrier is either present or not there. Two states. No. At least to only two states. Obviously it is either there or not there. It has a time component that is what carries the information. The "there" or "not thereness" of the signal is one thing. The relationship of one carrier pulse length to other carrier pulse length, and to the intercarrier lack of pulse time is what is important. Try the null hypothesis. Are you saying the silent periods are valueless? From what I've seen there is a gender difference as to the worth of silence! ;^) - Mike KB3EIA - |
Len Anderson wrote:
Coslonaut might just think that off times have great value...as in the old hoary expression "silence is golden." Thanks Len, but I'll pass on the silence thing. Perhaps you should filter my messages? If so, he should gilt himself and be silent, quit trying to make a primitive method into high technology. If you think I'm trying to turn Morse code into high technology, you have it wrong. All apologies for being a besetment! 8^) - Mike KB3EIA - |
Besides, if something is digital, why would you have to try so hard to make it computer compatible? Telling "S" from "O" is hard if you don't already know from looking at other characters what the speed must be. Something easy for the brain but hard for computers to do when the sender varies his speed. |
In article et, robert casey
writes: Besides, if something is digital, why would you have to try so hard to make it computer compatible? Telling "S" from "O" is hard if you don't already know from looking at other characters what the speed must be. No, it's easy. "S" is one time unit on, one time unit off, one time unit on, one time unit off, one time unit on. Then at least three time units off. "O" is three time units on, one time unit off, three time units on, one time unit off, three time units on. Then at least three time units off. The only true ambiguity is between "E" and "T" sent all by themselves. Unless you know the speed from some other source, there's no way to tell them apart. Something easy for the brain but hard for computers to do when the sender varies his speed. Naw, just requires a bit more software. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
bb wrote:
Dave Heil wrote: Len Anderson wrote: Two states. In any of the states of the United States and in all the "airwaves" of the universe. Sorry, old bean. I live in a tri-state area. Twit. Don't be too hard on yourself. Dave K8MN |
No, it's easy. "S" is one time unit on, one time unit off, one time unit on, one time unit off, one time unit on. Then at least three time units off. "O" is three time units on, one time unit off, three time units on, one time unit off, three time units on. Then at least three time units off. That assumes the sender sends correctly. If he spaces his dahs too far apart, or runs his dits too close, decoders might get confused. But only lids would do that..... |
On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 06:36:03 -0800, Ralph E Lindberg wrote:
I did have to laugh, the manager in question was elated over a budget increase that amounted to the "pin" money my minor project had. But then I was DoD under Regan and he wasn't It's never been a secret that the agency did its work for many years and up to today on a budget that was less than the paper towel and toilet paper expenses of DoD. We bitched about that all the time. Yet, both the FBI and the Secret Service came to us to teach them how to use simple DF equipment because they were embarrased calling us out all the time to find radio signals for them, and in that same time frame, in competition with the military using feeds from the same Wullenweber antennas as they were using, and string-and-weight vectors over paper maps, our monitoring folks got fixes which were several times tighter than the military folks using the whiz-bang computer systems did..... Sorry you missed all the fun.... ggg -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
robert casey wrote:
No, it's easy. "S" is one time unit on, one time unit off, one time unit on, one time unit off, one time unit on. Then at least three time units off. "O" is three time units on, one time unit off, three time units on, one time unit off, three time units on. Then at least three time units off. That assumes the sender sends correctly. If he spaces his dahs too far apart, or runs his dits too close, decoders might get confused. Not only might, but DO. I think some of the confusion is in the attempts to decode Morse with computers. I wonder if the computer programs use the method that Jim states? It soulw seem that in order to be accurate, there would need to be many more subdivisions, with the number of on or off states being multiplied for each component. This might help with the jitter of sending But only lids would do that..... umm, that would probably be me........... - Mike KB3EIA - |
In article , Mike Coslo
writes: N2EY wrote: In article , Michael Coslo writes: snippage for readability Mike Deignan had him pegged. Len's really ticked that somewhere, out there, somebody is having fun with ham radio. *Every Day*! If I'm not operating, I'm reading or surfing the web to learn about it. And I venture in here for a little mud wrestling from time to time too! 8^) What *really* ticks him, I suppose, is people having fun with ham radio and Morse Code... Such an odd thing to be so concerned about....... But that pretty much sums up Len's interest! He's one of those people who simply can't stand to see others have a good time in Ways Not Authorized By Len. so I'll try to meet him halfway with a Morse code topic. His definition of meeting halfway is that you agree with him 100%. That is certainly possible... It's self-evident... So maybe we can ressurect this old one... I hear lots of Hams declare that Morse code is a binary mode. It is most certainly not. Depends how you define "binary". Which you haven't done yet. One state equals "0" or "off". The other state equals "1" or "on". You have to define "state". If "key up" and "key down" are the states, it's binary. Time isn't the factor you make it - look at how Baudot works. Certainly. But Morse code, which was invented as a human translated code, does not qualify to me as a 1 or 0 state. Here is my rationale: If the key is up, the radio is certainly not sending 0's. Doesn't have to. Actually it is. "Off" is a string of zeroes. This brings up an interesting paradox... If the lack of a signal is a 0 state, then when no signal is being transmitted, you are receiving zeros until someone sends something. Why is that a paradox? Morse Code defines a string of more than 8 zeroes as "no signal". That's right. And a string of zeroes is interpreted as lots of spaces. And it means that information is being sent with no energy used in the sending. Hence the paradox. Not at all. The information sent by a long string of zeroes is not unique. It could mean that no signal is being transmitted. It could also mean that the transmission media isn't working. Of course if we are dealing in quantum matters, there is not as much paradox, except for why it is all 0's instead of a 1 here and there. Has to do with noise. You can send information with practically zero bandwidth, too. Just send a carrier of known frequency. I grant that a dit might be a 1. If a dah is 3 1's, why do we not send 3 dits. I either hold the key down longer or press the dah switch on my keyer. It sends out a longer pulse, not 3 1's. It sends three dits with no space between them. Only after you decide that the signal is digital for the sake of calling it a binary or digital signal. It isn't sent that way, and when you listen, you don't think of it that way. *I* don't - but some people do. Have you never seen someone copy slow Morse by writing down dots and dashes? The only time you need to think of it that way is when you decide to do something with a computer, and need to translate the Morse code signal into something that the computer will understand. Describing the signal as how many 1's a signal is, or how many 0's indicate intercharacter or interword spacing is a method of translating the varying length Morse code signals into digital format. So? The basic element is one dit length long. Three of them together in the one state is a dah. In the computer it is. In the human brain it isn't. The human brain decodes the dits and dahs and interletter and interword spaces quite differently. No 1's or 0's required See above. Let us look at the situation. Is the Dit a "0"? No. Is the Dah a "1"? No. Is the space between characters a "0"? and the Dih a "1"? Oh wait, what is the Dah then? Oh, and what about the space between words? Key up is "0". Key down is "1". Also known as "space" and "mark", respectively. Unfortunately, there are two separate "1" states, and the zero state is not a constant thing. Doesn't have to be. It's a time code. There is the matter of time. A zero might me the space between letters, or one half of a dit. It might also mean the space between words. All different things. No. The characters are built from the basic elements, which are key up and key down, just like, say, Baudot RTTY. That Morse code can be turned into binary is not at argument here. It obviously can, just as images, emails and everything else we do on the computer. Are they binary because someone has written a program to turn them into strings of 1's and 0's? Their basic transmission form is binary, same as Morse. A non-binary code is one that has more than two *transmission* states, like QPSK. Which is typically implemented as 0, 90, 180 and 270 degrees shift. Four transmission states rather than two. It isn't binary, Depends on how you define "binary". and the way our noodles process it isn't binary. Different subject. Not really. If you look at the string of 1's and 0's that Doug posted as the binary result of my hypothetical CQ, is that something that you would recognize as that CQ? That string IS binary. I would recognize it easily. Why does the - and . method of typing out the code convey the information? the dashes and the spaces convey time information to the person looking at them. I'm counting more than two states here. It's not the simplest way, though. It shows the time differently. It's not binary. Most Morse operators with any skill (that excludes Len) process a complete character as one "sound". "didahdidit" is recognized as "L", in the same way that when you hear the word "cat", you think of the animal. The Morse operator does not think in terms of dits and dahs any more than a person thinks in terms of the consonant and vowel sounds (phonemes) making up "cat". Of course *really* skilled Morse ops hear entire words as units of sound. And at some level, they begin to think in Morse, just as fluent speakers of a language think in that language. Of course Len wouldn't know about that... The difference is this: You've been ambiguous with definitions, particularly the definition of "binary". The transmission media for Morse Code are binary, meaning only two states are used. On/off, 1/0, key up/key down, mark/space, whatever, still only two states. But the encoding/decoding process, be it in hardware, software or wetware, is more than binary because it encompasses more than two states. The same is true of, say, Baudot or ASCII RTTY, PSK31, etc. In fact PSK31 has many Morse-like characteristics, such as variable-length characters. The big question is: what does it matter if Morse is binary or not? Of course not! I thought it might be something better to talk about than whether Len thinks we're "jackboot thugs" tho'! 8^) Who cares what Len thinks? I sure don't. I'm not terribly concerned much about his opinions either, although I have some fun with him from time to time. As do you! 8^) I just correct some of his mistakes, and offer proof that he should not be taken seriously. Which seems to enrage him, but that's not my problem. His behavior here has caused most of us to lose whatever respect we might have once had for him. His latest reply to K8MN simply reinforces that once again. But my main purpose is to get a little traffic on the list that isn't the bottom feeders type stuff. I enjoy the occasional good row that develops. I wouldn't mind seeing that continue. I wouldn't mind seeing Len behave himself in a civil manner. But we know that won;t happen as long as anyone disagrees with him, or points out his errors. Note that almost everyone disagrees with me, the thread has been largely civil discussion. Largely but not completely. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
N2EY wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo writes: N2EY wrote: snippage Depends how you define "binary". Which you haven't done yet. more snippage and a quick rearrangement The difference is this: You've been ambiguous with definitions, particularly the definition of "binary". partial post from webopedia http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/B/binary.html Pertaining to a number system that has just two unique digits. For most purposes, we use the decimal number system, which has ten unique digits, 0 through 9. All other numbers are then formed by combining these ten digits. Computers are based on the binary numbering system, which consists of just two unique numbers, 0 and 1. All operations that are possible in the decimal system (addition, subtraction, multiplication, division) are equally possible in the binary system. The FreeDictionary has 4 different parts to the definition http://www.thefreedictionary.com/binary 1. Characterized by or consisting of two parts or components; twofold. 2. Of or relating to a system of numeration having 2 as its base. 3. Chemistry Consisting of or containing only molecules consisting of two kinds of atoms. 4. Of or employing two comparatively nontoxic chemicals that combine to produce a deadly poison: binary weapons; a binary nerve gas. 5. Music Having two sections or subjects. The Sharpened glossary defines binary as: http://www.sharpened.net/glossary/definition.php?binary Binary is a two-digit (Base-2) numerical system, which computers use to store data and compute functions. The reason computers use the binary system is because digital switches inside the computer can only be set to either on or off, which are represented by a 1 or 0. Though the binary system consists of only ones and zeros, the two digits can be used to represent any number. So let us get to where I get my definition of binary. What I call binary is a base 2 numerical system. Morse code is not a base 2 numerical system. Apparently every one else here defines binary as the "consisting of two parts". Okay, so let us use *that* definition. As far as I am concerned, it is contradictory to define Morse as "consisting of two parts, and then shift to a different definition. (base 2) There is not any ambiguity in that if you are going to use it in a computer, at some point it must be converted to base 2. Do you follow me? I don't see any point in saying it is binary because it is in two parts, because despite it being "on" or "off", there is more then just the carrier being on or off, isn't there? So if everyone wants to say that Morse code is binary, using the two state on and off definition, (despite there being much more than just an on and off state) and *then* suddenly shift to the base 2 definition in order to shoehorn it into a weird 2 definition-definition, well that seems a lot more ambiguous than anything I've written so far. rest snipped - Mike KB3EIA - |
N2EY wrote: "S" is one time unit on, one time unit off, one time unit on, one time unit off, one time unit on. Then at least three time units off. "O" is three time units on, one time unit off, three time units on, one time unit off, three time units on. Then at least three time units off. The only true ambiguity is between "E" and "T" sent all by themselves. Unless you know the speed from some other source, there's no way to tell them apart. Something easy for the brain but hard for computers to do when the sender varies his speed. Naw, just requires a bit more software. 73 de Jim, N2EY What happened to your "1 and 0" and "mark and space" theory? |
robert casey wrote: No, it's easy. "S" is one time unit on, one time unit off, one time unit on, one time unit off, one time unit on. Then at least three time units off. "O" is three time units on, one time unit off, three time units on, one time unit off, three time units on. Then at least three time units off. That assumes the sender sends correctly. If he spaces his dahs too far apart, or runs his dits too close, decoders might get confused. But only lids would do that..... The sender may choose to send the code incorrectly, as at least one has claimed on here. |
Len Anderson wrote: In article .com, "bb" writes: Mike Coslo wrote: That is why when we try to make Morse code computer compatible, We? Coslonaut is a ham for all hams, all seasons. He is high tech. He may be high tech, but code didn't make him that way. W0EX did not, RIP. He specifically stated that he would send Morse Code so that computer readers (manned by unworthy no-code Technicians) could not copy his messages. Besides, if something is digital, why would you have to try so hard to make it computer compatible? It's the only way the coslonaut can become "high-tech?" Then he's heading down a dead end street. Hopefully he finds something else, like amateur near space exploration. After all, he is reaching for the threshold of space via surplus helium balloons carrying amateur radio. [pioneering work, important "science"] Bingo! This is the very same tack that all of the research universities use to get grant money. They propose to re-study something that has been studied previously. They get the grant money, hire a handful of chinese and indian post-grads. They redo the study, find exactly the same results, then always state that more research is necessary. And the government falls for it. Try the null hypothesis. Are you saying the silent periods are valueless? Coslonaut has gone way too far into reducto ad absurdum regions. By introducing variables unrelated to the basic principle of operation, he can expand his definition into a number of dimensions greater than the number of particles in the entire universe! :-) Yep. What if the Navy and Coast Guard had dismissed all of those "silent periods" while on radio watch? But, the use of "intercarrier lack of pulse time" is false. The "inter" means 'within.' In on-off keying "CW" there is NO carrier to be "within." The off time is short, long, or of infinite variation in duration. It's a use of "high-tech bafflegab" for a low-tech subject. But, but, but.... Len, they're master of it. In one breath, Miccolis says that Morse Code is ones and zeroes, marks and spaces, then in the next breath, he's back to the correct definition. A master of deception. Morse code is a very primitive form of technology 161 years ago when it first began (as representation of numbers, just numbers). A few years after the first Morse-Vail Telegraphy debut in 1844, the representation of English alphabet and some punctuation was added to the "code." [there is still a dispute of whether or not co-inventor Alfred Vail actually came up with the addition of the alphabet, but that is another subject...such is neither proved nor disproved] Morse code is still a very primitive form of representation of the western language alphabet, numbers and punctuation, regardless of the technology level of the equipment used to communicate in that mode. Some of these guys were there. They might know Vails actual role... Coslonaut might just think that off times have great value...as in the old hoary expression "silence is golden." If so, he should gilt himself and be silent, quit trying to make a primitive method into high technology. Now, now, now, Len. The off times must be important. It's the only way the ARRL can explain away how they can send a supposedly "Morse Code Exam" at 13-15 WPM and still claim it meets the FCC's 5WPM rate. And if these guys silenced themselves, then where will we ever get gems like, "...A morse code exam would be a deterrent to morse code use. N2EY" Hi, hi! |
N2EY wrote:
In article et, robert casey writes: Besides, if something is digital, why would you have to try so hard to make it computer compatible? Telling "S" from "O" is hard if you don't already know from looking at other characters what the speed must be. No, it's easy. "S" is one time unit on, one time unit off, one time unit on, one time unit off, one time unit on. Then at least three time units off. "O" is three time units on, one time unit off, three time units on, one time unit off, three time units on. Then at least three time units off. The only true ambiguity is between "E" and "T" sent all by themselves. Unless you know the speed from some other source, there's no way to tell them apart. Something easy for the brain but hard for computers to do when the sender varies his speed. Naw, just requires a bit more software. And let's not forget Farnsworth. This will confuse matters a bit. I have seen CWGet confuse S for O until it "settles in". My guess is that Farnsworth Morse might be involved. But it is odd that a binary method requires all that software. ;^) But I think I have the confusion figured out. What is happening is that people are starting by defining Morse code as a 2 state on and off system, and trying to offer proof of that by suddenly changing that to a base 2 system. Can anyone offer a proof that does not switch between the two definitions? I cannot accept Morse as a two part on and off system because there are more than two parts, as is made clear when people try to switch to base 2. - Mike KB3EIA - |
In article , Mike Coslo
writes: N2EY wrote: In article et, robert casey writes: Besides, if something is digital, why would you have to try so hard to make it computer compatible? Telling "S" from "O" is hard if you don't already know from looking at other characters what the speed must be. No, it's easy. "S" is one time unit on, one time unit off, one time unit on, one time unit off, one time unit on. Then at least three time units off. "O" is three time units on, one time unit off, three time units on, one time unit off, three time units on. Then at least three time units off. The only true ambiguity is between "E" and "T" sent all by themselves. Unless you know the speed from some other source, there's no way to tell them apart. Something easy for the brain but hard for computers to do when the sender varies his speed. Naw, just requires a bit more software. And let's not forget Farnsworth. This will confuse matters a bit. Not at all. Farnsworth spacing only affects the space between letters/numbers, not the space between dits and dahs. Hence any properly-designed decoder - hardware, software or wetware - will deal with it easily. I have seen CWGet confuse S for O until it "settles in". Then CWGet needs some work. A human operator with basic skills will not make that mistake. dididit doesn't sound anything like dahdahdah. My guess is that Farnsworth Morse might be involved. Naw, just a software problem. But it is odd that a binary method requires all that software. ;^) Who said it was binary? But I think I have the confusion figured out. What is happening is that people are starting by defining Morse code as a 2 state on and off system, and trying to offer proof of that by suddenly changing that to a base 2 system. Something like that. Of course a binary system can deal with a lot more numbers than 0 and 1. Can anyone offer a proof that does not switch between the two definitions? Depends on your definitions. It's like saying a balloon reaches an altitude of 100,000 feet. You have to also say "above what?" I cannot accept Morse as a two part on and off system because there are more than two parts, as is made clear when people try to switch to base 2. It's about time. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
N2EY wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo writes: N2EY wrote: In article et, robert casey writes: Besides, if something is digital, why would you have to try so hard to make it computer compatible? Telling "S" from "O" is hard if you don't already know from looking at other characters what the speed must be. No, it's easy. "S" is one time unit on, one time unit off, one time unit on, one time unit off, one time unit on. Then at least three time units off. "O" is three time units on, one time unit off, three time units on, one time unit off, three time units on. Then at least three time units off. The only true ambiguity is between "E" and "T" sent all by themselves. Unless you know the speed from some other source, there's no way to tell them apart. Something easy for the brain but hard for computers to do when the sender varies his speed. Naw, just requires a bit more software. hehe, software weenies say that a lot. Problem is not too many believe them any more.... And let's not forget Farnsworth. This will confuse matters a bit. Not at all. Farnsworth spacing only affects the space between letters/numbers, not the space between dits and dahs. Hence any properly-designed decoder - hardware, software or wetware - will deal with it easily. like I said... I have seen CWGet confuse S for O until it "settles in". Then CWGet needs some work. A human operator with basic skills will not make that mistake. dididit doesn't sound anything like dahdahdah. My guess is that Farnsworth Morse might be involved. Naw, just a software problem. Some times "just" can be quite a problem But it is odd that a binary method requires all that software. ;^) Who said it was binary? Quite a few people it would seem. But I think I have the confusion figured out. What is happening is that people are starting by defining Morse code as a 2 state on and off system, and trying to offer proof of that by suddenly changing that to a base 2 system. Something like that. Of course a binary system can deal with a lot more numbers than 0 and 1. Depends on the definition, hehe... Can anyone offer a proof that does not switch between the two definitions? Depends on your definitions. My other post noted the different definitions. I'll let you check that out before posting more. It's like saying a balloon reaches an altitude of 100,000 feet. You have to also say "above what?" Above sea level. In most cases, that should be a given. I cannot accept Morse as a two part on and off system because there are more than two parts, as is made clear when people try to switch to base 2. It's about time. - Mike KB3EIA - |
In article .com, "bb"
writes: Len Anderson wrote: In article .com, "bb" writes: Mike Coslo wrote: That is why when we try to make Morse code computer compatible, We? Coslonaut is a ham for all hams, all seasons. He is high tech. He may be high tech, but code didn't make him that way. But, but, but...he is a PCTA extra! Aren't those PCTA extras the pioneering leaders of ham high-tech? W0EX did not, RIP. He specifically stated that he would send Morse Code so that computer readers (manned by unworthy no-code Technicians) could not copy his messages. Besides, if something is digital, why would you have to try so hard to make it computer compatible? It's the only way the coslonaut can become "high-tech?" Then he's heading down a dead end street. Hopefully he finds something else, like amateur near space exploration. "On the threshold of space!" roll up gain on stirring, emotional background music :-) After all, he is reaching for the threshold of space via surplus helium balloons carrying amateur radio. [pioneering work, important "science"] Bingo! This is the very same tack that all of the research universities use to get grant money. They propose to re-study something that has been studied previously. They get the grant money, hire a handful of chinese and indian post-grads. They redo the study, find exactly the same results, then always state that more research is necessary. And the government falls for it. Ah...but it is SCIENCE! :-) Try the null hypothesis. Are you saying the silent periods are valueless? Coslonaut has gone way too far into reducto ad absurdum regions. By introducing variables unrelated to the basic principle of operation, he can expand his definition into a number of dimensions greater than the number of particles in the entire universe! :-) Yep. What if the Navy and Coast Guard had dismissed all of those "silent periods" while on radio watch? But, the use of "intercarrier lack of pulse time" is false. The "inter" means 'within.' In on-off keying "CW" there is NO carrier to be "within." The off time is short, long, or of infinite variation in duration. It's a use of "high-tech bafflegab" for a low-tech subject. But, but, but.... Len, they're master of it. In one breath, Miccolis says that Morse Code is ones and zeroes, marks and spaces, then in the next breath, he's back to the correct definition. A master of deception. Miccolis is a mighty macho moreseman, very high tech, built his own vacuum tube transmitter in the 1990s, pioneering work that was! Used "recycled" parts. Didn't cost any more than $100! Morse code is a very primitive form of technology 161 years ago when it first began (as representation of numbers, just numbers). A few years after the first Morse-Vail Telegraphy debut in 1844, the representation of English alphabet and some punctuation was added to the "code." [there is still a dispute of whether or not co-inventor Alfred Vail actually came up with the addition of the alphabet, but that is another subject...such is neither proved nor disproved] Morse code is still a very primitive form of representation of the western language alphabet, numbers and punctuation, regardless of the technology level of the equipment used to communicate in that mode. Some of these guys were there. They might know Vails actual role... Heh heh heh. I'm sure they think they were... :-) However, there IS a website for the Vail Family and much discussion of what Alfred did insofar as the Morse-Vail Telegraph. The Vail family bankrolled Sam while he tried (and failed) to improve the inking system that was the first method of reception - a thin pen marking on paper. No beeps until good old Reggie Fessenden built the first "BFO" using a low-power spark thing...his "heterodyne detector." Ed A. and his SUPERheterodyne didn't show up until 1918. Coslonaut might just think that off times have great value...as in the old hoary expression "silence is golden." If so, he should gilt himself and be silent, quit trying to make a primitive method into high technology. Now, now, now, Len. The off times must be important. It's the only way the ARRL can explain away how they can send a supposedly "Morse Code Exam" at 13-15 WPM and still claim it meets the FCC's 5WPM rate. I still find it strange that the FCC maintains a morse code test for amateur privileges below 30 MHz some 161 years after the first Morse-Vail Telegraph system started up. And if these guys silenced themselves, then where will we ever get gems like, "...A morse code exam would be a deterrent to morse code use. N2EY" Hi, hi! Well, I can well imagine that the ARRL would collect all those "gems" in a book for sale on-line (shipping charges extra). Prolly $19.95 at 100 pages. Profit maker. Collectors' item. I gotta love the hairy and hoary old slogan, "Morse gets through when nothing else will!" That one's been around longer than I have, I think. Next to that is the "reason" for maintaining that code test "so that American hams can talk to foreign hams in the 'universal language' of morse code!" Like all U.S. amateurs are "supposed" to talk to foreigners instead of the 700+ thousand licensees on U.S. soil? Oh, yeah, and the ARRL never ever lobbied for anything in regards to morse code and it was "entirely" the FCC's fault in dropping the maximum rate to 5 WPM (allegedly 5, but aperiodic to 15 for individual characters). ARRL is NEVER at fault...it's always the fault of someone else. League and morsemen can do no wrong. Did dit. "Why is the word 'abbreviation' so long?" - anon. question |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:01 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com