RadioBanter - Morse code binary?

RadioBanter (https://www.radiobanter.com/)

- Policy (https://www.radiobanter.com/policy/)

- - Morse code binary? (https://www.radiobanter.com/policy/63357-morse-code-binary.html)

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?

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