| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Morse code binary?
I felt kinda bad about being mean to Len, so I'll try to meet him
halfway with a Morse code topic. 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. Let us look at the situation. Is the Dit a "0"? Is the Dah a "1"? 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? It isn't binary, and the way our noodles process it isn't binary. It's not binary. - Mike KB3EIA - |
thats funny, the program i am writing represents it very nicely with just
1's and 0's. "Michael Coslo" wrote in message ... I felt kinda bad about being mean to Len, so I'll try to meet him halfway with a Morse code topic. 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. Let us look at the situation. Is the Dit a "0"? Is the Dah a "1"? 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? It isn't binary, and the way our noodles process it isn't binary. It's not binary. - Mike KB3EIA - |
Dave wrote:
thats funny, the program i am writing represents it very nicely with just 1's and 0's. Looking at it that way, all things that can be put into a digital program are digital, such as photographs, word processing, database, etc. Let us put it to the test, Dave. Write out a short sentence, or even a CQ de (your callsign) in binary format, and let me read it right off the screen. If Morse code is binary, it will be no problem. This is a screen readable approximation of me calling CQ ..-.- --.- -.. . -.- -... ...-- . .. .- .--. ... . -.- it is not binary. - Mike KB3EIA - "Michael Coslo" wrote in message ... I felt kinda bad about being mean to Len, so I'll try to meet him halfway with a Morse code topic. 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. Let us look at the situation. Is the Dit a "0"? Is the Dah a "1"? 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? It isn't binary, and the way our noodles process it isn't binary. It's not binary. - Mike KB3EIA - |
In article ,
Michael Coslo wrote: | I hear lots of Hams declare that Morse code is a binary mode. | | It is most certainly not. It most certainly is. .... | 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? Try looking at it at a lower level -- stop looking at the dits and dahs. Morse code is either on or off. 1 or 0. You're either emitting a signal, or you're not -- there's no in between. Looking up what binary means -- http://www.answers.com/binary -- bi na ry (b'n-r) pronunciation adj. 1. Characterized by or consisting of two parts or components; twofold. At the lowest level, there's only two components -- on or off, tone or no tone. It certainly fits the definition. Considering that `tone' = 1 and `no tone' = 0 ... Longer periods of 1's = dahs Shorter periods of 1's = dits Short period of 0's = space between a dit or a dah. Longer period of 0's = space between characters. Even longer period of 0's = space between words. It's not a particularly efficient binary code, but it *is*, at the lowest level, binary -- there's only two states. It's certainly not analog, or tinary, or ... Now, to be fair, at a higher level, you could say it has four states -- dit, dah, space between character, space between word. Which would be quadrary (is that the right word? is it even a real word?) But that doesn't mean it can't be binary at another level at the same time. | It isn't binary, and the way our noodles process it isn't binary. I'm not sure that the way our brain processes it is relevant. RTTY is binary (or do you disagree there too?) and yet our brain hardly processes it's output in a binary manner. | It's not binary. If you say so. I doubt I've convinced you, but it's really all a matter of how you look at it, and if you insist on looking at it in only one way, nobody's going to convince you otherwise. Why do I feel like I've just been trolled? :) -- Doug McLaren, , AD5RH What I want is all of the power and none of the responsibility. |
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. 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%. 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". 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. It isn't binary, Depends on how you define "binary". and the way our noodles process it isn't binary. Different subject. 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... 73 de Jim, N2EY |
In article ,
Mike Coslo wrote: | Let us put it to the test, Dave. | Write out a short sentence, or even a CQ de (your callsign) in binary | format, and let me read it right off the screen. If Morse code is | binary, it will be no problem. That's actually a reasonable test. And I shall give you an answer, though I don't think you expected one. And I'm not Dave. Here is a binary representation of `CQ DE K' (this gets rather tedious, so I'll only do the first few characters) : 10111010111000111011101011100000001110101000100011 1010111000 And to explain that further -- dit = 1 dah = 111 space between dit/dah = 0 space between letters = 000 space between words = 0000000 So, `CQ DE K' translates to : C 10111010111 000 Q 1110111010111 0000000 D 1110101 000 E 1 000 K 111010111 000 (the letters and newlines are there *only* to help make it readable.) To play this back is very simple -- -- Pick a time period -- for example, 1 = 1/10 th of a second. -- go through the list, going through each chracter -- 1 = play a tone for 1/10th of a second 0 = be completely silent for 1/10th of a second It's really that simple. If you want a program to do it -- #!/usr/bin/perl -w # C Q D E K B 3 E I A P S E K my $string = ".-.- --.-\n-.. .\n-.- -... ...-- . .. .-\n.--. ... . -.-" ; foreach my $c (split (//, $string)) { if ($c eq ".") { print "10" ; next } ; if ($c eq "-") { print "1110" ; next } ; if ($c eq " ") { print "00" ; next } ; # Only two 0s, because the last # character ended with a 0. if ($c eq "\n") { print "000000" ; next } ; # ditto, but 6. } print "\n" ; And the output of your complete CQ in binary is : 10111010111000111011101011100000001110101000100000 00 11101011100011101010100010101011101110001000101000 101110000000 101110111010001010100010001110101110 new lines and spaces are added by me only to help it fit on the screen. | This is a screen readable approximation of me calling CQ | | .-.- --.- -.. . -.- -... ...-- . .. .- .--. ... . -.- | it is not binary. Binary. -- Doug McLaren, , AD5RH ... Time is the best teacher, unfortunately it kills all of its students. |
Much to do about nothing
Morse code is sounds Binary in the customary useage is ones and zeroes -- computer stuff. -- Caveat Lector (Reader Beware) "Doug McLaren" wrote in message ... In article , Mike Coslo wrote: | Let us put it to the test, Dave. | Write out a short sentence, or even a CQ de (your callsign) in binary | format, and let me read it right off the screen. If Morse code is | binary, it will be no problem. That's actually a reasonable test. And I shall give you an answer, though I don't think you expected one. And I'm not Dave. Here is a binary representation of `CQ DE K' (this gets rather tedious, so I'll only do the first few characters) : 10111010111000111011101011100000001110101000100011 1010111000 And to explain that further -- dit = 1 dah = 111 space between dit/dah = 0 space between letters = 000 space between words = 0000000 So, `CQ DE K' translates to : C 10111010111 000 Q 1110111010111 0000000 D 1110101 000 E 1 000 K 111010111 000 (the letters and newlines are there *only* to help make it readable.) To play this back is very simple -- -- Pick a time period -- for example, 1 = 1/10 th of a second. -- go through the list, going through each chracter -- 1 = play a tone for 1/10th of a second 0 = be completely silent for 1/10th of a second It's really that simple. If you want a program to do it -- #!/usr/bin/perl -w # C Q D E K B 3 E I A P S E K my $string = ".-.- --.-\n-.. .\n-.- -... ...-- . .. .-\n.--. ... . -.-" ; foreach my $c (split (//, $string)) { if ($c eq ".") { print "10" ; next } ; if ($c eq "-") { print "1110" ; next } ; if ($c eq " ") { print "00" ; next } ; # Only two 0s, because the last # character ended with a 0. if ($c eq "\n") { print "000000" ; next } ; # ditto, but 6. } print "\n" ; And the output of your complete CQ in binary is : 10111010111000111011101011100000001110101000100000 00 11101011100011101010100010101011101110001000101000 101110000000 101110111010001010100010001110101110 new lines and spaces are added by me only to help it fit on the screen. | This is a screen readable approximation of me calling CQ | | .-.- --.- -.. . -.- -... ...-- . .. .- .--. ... . -.- | it is not binary. Binary. -- Doug McLaren, , AD5RH .. Time is the best teacher, unfortunately it kills all of its students. |
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Dave wrote: thats funny, the program i am writing represents it very nicely with just 1's and 0's. Looking at it that way, all things that can be put into a digital program are digital, such as photographs, word processing, database, etc. Let us put it to the test, Dave. Write out a short sentence, or even a CQ de (your callsign) in binary format, and let me read it right off the screen. If Morse code is binary, it will be no problem. This is a screen readable approximation of me calling CQ .-.- --.- -.. . -.- -... ...-- . .. .- .--. ... . -.- it is not binary. 11101011101001110111010111001110101001001110101110 01011101110111011100111001 11001110000 looks perfectly binary to me to make it more readable try replacing 1 with - and 0 with spaces to get: --- - --- - --- --- - --- --- - - - --- - --- - --- --- --- --- --- - -- --- |
Doug McLaren wrote:
In article , Michael Coslo wrote: | I hear lots of Hams declare that Morse code is a binary mode. | | It is most certainly not. It most certainly is. ... | 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? Try looking at it at a lower level -- stop looking at the dits and dahs. At a lower level, anything is digital when you look at it that way. A photograph, digital audio, whatever. If Morse code was really digital, there would be no need to have a lower level Morse code is either on or off. 1 or 0. You're either emitting a signal, or you're not -- there's no in between. Ahh, so the space between the dits and dahs means nothing? There is definitely an "in between" It is how we determine what the words a ...... is that the number 5, or is it HE or is it SI, or IS or EH? Looking up what binary means -- http://www.answers.com/binary -- bi na ry (b'n-r) pronunciation adj. 1. Characterized by or consisting of two parts or components; twofold. At the lowest level, there's only two components -- on or off, tone or no tone. It certainly fits the definition. Considering that `tone' = 1 and `no tone' = 0 ... Longer periods of 1's = dahs Shorter periods of 1's = dits Short period of 0's = space between a dit or a dah. Longer period of 0's = space between characters. Even longer period of 0's = space between words. You have just described more than two states. It's not a particularly efficient binary code, but it *is*, at the lowest level, binary -- there's only two states. It's certainly not analog, or tinary, or ... Disagree. It isn't analog for sure, but with only a 1 and a zero, it cant be described. Trying to describe it with 1's and 0's means that you have to translate it. That longer dah, is not a 1. It cannot be the same thing as the short dit. If both of them are 1's, the analogy fails Now, to be fair, at a higher level, you could say it has four states -- dit, dah, space between character, space between word. Which would be quadrary (is that the right word? is it even a real word?) But that doesn't mean it can't be binary at another level at the same time. | It isn't binary, and the way our noodles process it isn't binary. I'm not sure that the way our brain processes it is relevant. RTTY is binary (or do you disagree there too?) and yet our brain hardly processes it's output in a binary manner. | It's not binary. If you say so. I doubt I've convinced you, but it's really all a matter of how you look at it, and if you insist on looking at it in only one way, nobody's going to convince you otherwise. I'm saying that in order to have Morse code be binary, you have to digitize it, so to speak. You have to have a clocking action, and a dah has to either be something other than a "1" if the dit is considered a "1". If it was truly digital, you wouldn't have to do any of that. Why do I feel like I've just been trolled? :) Isn't that what the group is about? here - Mike KB3EIA - |
In article ,
Michael Coslo wrote: | At a lower level, anything is digital when you look at it that way. A | photograph, digital audio, whatever. Digital audio is digital if you look at it that way? Cute. As for a photograph, a black and white photograph could be seen that way -- after all, at the molecular level, a molecule of pigment is either there or not there. It's quantized. But no, not everything is digital. A specific sound isn't digital -- sure, you could approximate it with a digital stream, but ultimately it's just an approximation, no matter how fast your digital stream is. | If Morse code was really digital, there would be no need to have a | lower level Are you even thinking about what you're saying here? If there's only one level, then a morse code signal would be just a constant tone. It's hard to put much information into a constant, unchanging tone. If you want to transmit some information, you're going to need to have at least two states to choose from. | Morse code is either on or off. 1 or 0. You're either emitting a | signal, or you're not -- there's no in between. | | Ahh, so the space between the dits and dahs means nothing? There is | definitely an "in between" It is how we determine what the words a The space between the dits and dahs is `off' -- either 1, 3 or 7 zeros. The dits and dahs are `on', either one or three 1s. Look at my other post where I converted your CQ call to a binary representation of it. | ..... is that the number 5, or is it HE or is it SI, or IS or EH? If you feel that I claimed that the spaces are unimportant, then you did not understand me very well. Spaces are represented by a number of zeros, and dits and dahs by a number of ones. Binary. | Longer periods of 1's = dahs | Shorter periods of 1's = dits | Short period of 0's = space between a dit or a dah. | Longer period of 0's = space between characters. | Even longer period of 0's = space between words. | | You have just described more than two states. Sure -- I was trying to explain how it all boils down to two states. RTTY usually carries information encoded with BAUDOT. (You do believe that RTTY is digital, right? Even with that 1.5 baud stop bit?) Each BAUDOT character is chosen by 5 bits -- that's 32 states, and then there's the state of the shift, which gives you about 62 states (64 - 2, since two states don't matter.) So RTTY/BAUDOT uses somewhere between 32 and 64 states. But you do believe that that RTTY and BAUDOT are binary modulations or codes, right? | It's not a particularly efficient binary code, but it *is*, at the | lowest level, binary -- there's only two states. It's certainly not | analog, or tinary, or ... | | Disagree. It isn't analog for sure, but with only a 1 and a zero, it | cant be described. .... but I just did in my other post. It was a bit tedious, but hardly impossible. | Trying to describe it with 1's and 0's means that you | have to translate it. That longer dah, is not a 1. That is correct -- dah is not 1. It's three 1s in a row, followed by at least one 0. | It cannot be the same thing as the short dit. If both of them are | 1's, the analogy fails Sure. The short dit is just a single 1, followed by at least one 0. | I'm saying that in order to have Morse code be binary, you have to | digitize it, so to speak. You have to have a clocking action, and a dah | has to either be something other than a "1" if the dit is considered a | "1". If it was truly digital, you wouldn't have to do any of that. Have you looked at your morse code key lately? It has two positions -- on and off. That alone should be enough to let you realize that it's binary. Things like PSK31 and RTTY/BAUDOT aren't any different, except that the computer does the translation down to the binary level rather than your brain and your finger. It could be argued that the human brain doesn't easily deal with binary codes. Which would make sense -- many of us had a hard time learning morse code, even at the slowest possible speed. Yet it's only about 40 characters, which shouldn't be hard to memorize at all. -- Doug McLaren, , AD5RH "I found out why my car was humming. It had forgotten the words." |
"Michael Coslo" wrote in message ... Doug McLaren wrote: In article , Michael Coslo wrote: | I hear lots of Hams declare that Morse code is a binary mode. | | It is most certainly not. It most certainly is. ... | 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? Try looking at it at a lower level -- stop looking at the dits and dahs. At a lower level, anything is digital when you look at it that way. A photograph, digital audio, whatever. If Morse code was really digital, there would be no need to have a lower level Morse code is either on or off. 1 or 0. You're either emitting a signal, or you're not -- there's no in between. Ahh, so the space between the dits and dahs means nothing? There is definitely an "in between" It is how we determine what the words a ..... is that the number 5, or is it HE or is it SI, or IS or EH? Looking up what binary means -- http://www.answers.com/binary -- bi na ry (b'n-r) pronunciation adj. 1. Characterized by or consisting of two parts or components; twofold. At the lowest level, there's only two components -- on or off, tone or no tone. It certainly fits the definition. Considering that `tone' = 1 and `no tone' = 0 ... Longer periods of 1's = dahs Shorter periods of 1's = dits Short period of 0's = space between a dit or a dah. Longer period of 0's = space between characters. Even longer period of 0's = space between words. You have just described more than two states. It's not a particularly efficient binary code, but it *is*, at the lowest level, binary -- there's only two states. It's certainly not analog, or tinary, or ... Disagree. It isn't analog for sure, but with only a 1 and a zero, it cant be described. Trying to describe it with 1's and 0's means that you have to translate it. That longer dah, is not a 1. It cannot be the same thing as the short dit. If both of them are 1's, the analogy fails Now, to be fair, at a higher level, you could say it has four states -- dit, dah, space between character, space between word. Which would be quadrary (is that the right word? is it even a real word?) But that doesn't mean it can't be binary at another level at the same time. | It isn't binary, and the way our noodles process it isn't binary. I'm not sure that the way our brain processes it is relevant. RTTY is binary (or do you disagree there too?) and yet our brain hardly processes it's output in a binary manner. | It's not binary. If you say so. I doubt I've convinced you, but it's really all a matter of how you look at it, and if you insist on looking at it in only one way, nobody's going to convince you otherwise. I'm saying that in order to have Morse code be binary, you have to digitize it, so to speak. You have to have a clocking action, and a dah has to either be something other than a "1" if the dit is considered a "1". If it was truly digital, you wouldn't have to do any of that. even the 'real' digital modes have a clocking action. how else do you know when one character ends and another starts? the one big oddity of morse is that the characters are unequal lengths so it is not easy to make a simple clock mechanism to decode them like it is for baudot or ascii codes. then of course another oddity is that it is often sent by hand (or at least it used to be) so the timing varies even within a short message making it even harder to decode mechanically. however hscw and very low speed or coherent cw are normally machine encoded and decoded and rely on very exact timing. |
Doug McLaren wrote: In article , Mike Coslo wrote: | Let us put it to the test, Dave. | Write out a short sentence, or even a CQ de (your callsign) in binary | format, and let me read it right off the screen. If Morse code is | binary, it will be no problem. That's actually a reasonable test. And I shall give you an answer, though I don't think you expected one. And I'm not Dave. Here is a binary representation of `CQ DE K' (this gets rather tedious, so I'll only do the first few characters) : 10111010111000111011101011100000001110101000100011 1010111000 And to explain that further -- dit = 1 dah = 111 space between dit/dah = 0 space between letters = 000 space between words = 0000000 So, `CQ DE K' translates to : C 10111010111 000 Q 1110111010111 0000000 D 1110101 000 E 1 000 K 111010111 000 (the letters and newlines are there *only* to help make it readable.) To play this back is very simple -- -- Pick a time period -- for example, 1 = 1/10 th of a second. -- go through the list, going through each chracter -- 1 = play a tone for 1/10th of a second 0 = be completely silent for 1/10th of a second It's really that simple. If you want a program to do it -- #!/usr/bin/perl -w # C Q D E K B 3 E I A P S E K my $string = ".-.- --.-\n-.. .\n-.- -... ...-- . .. .-\n.--. ... . -.-" ; foreach my $c (split (//, $string)) { if ($c eq ".") { print "10" ; next } ; if ($c eq "-") { print "1110" ; next } ; if ($c eq " ") { print "00" ; next } ; # Only two 0s, because the last # character ended with a 0. if ($c eq "\n") { print "000000" ; next } ; # ditto, but 6. } print "\n" ; And the output of your complete CQ in binary is : 10111010111000111011101011100000001110101000100000 00 11101011100011101010100010101011101110001000101000 101110000000 101110111010001010100010001110101110 new lines and spaces are added by me only to help it fit on the screen. | This is a screen readable approximation of me calling CQ | | .-.- --.- -.. . -.- -... ...-- . .. .- .--. ... . -.- | it is not binary. Binary. -- Doug McLaren, , AD5RH .. Time is the best teacher, unfortunately it kills all of its students. Doug, please perform the same exercise for all variations of the Farnsworth code. Thanks. |
Doug McLaren wrote: In article , Michael Coslo wrote: | I hear lots of Hams declare that Morse code is a binary mode. | | It is most certainly not. It most certainly is. ... | 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? Try looking at it at a lower level -- stop looking at the dits and dahs. Morse code is either on or off. 1 or 0. You're either emitting a signal, or you're not -- there's no in between. Looking up what binary means -- http://www.answers.com/binary -- Look up what "Morse Code" means. If you can. The FCC no longer has a definition. |
In article .com,
bb wrote: | If you want a program to do it -- | | #!/usr/bin/perl -w | # C Q D E K B 3 E I A P S E | K | my $string = ".-.- --.-\n-.. .\n-.- -... ...-- . .. .-\n.--. ... .-.-" ; | foreach my $c (split (//, $string)) { | if ($c eq ".") { print "10" ; next } ; | if ($c eq "-") { print "1110" ; next } ; | if ($c eq " ") { print "00" ; next } ; # Only two 0s, because | the last | # character ended with | a 0. | if ($c eq "\n") { print "000000" ; next } ; # ditto, but 6. | } | print "\n" ; .... | Doug, please perform the same exercise for all variations of the | Farnsworth code. Thanks. Um, I'll pass :) I'm not sure what the value would be, but if you really think it's worthwhile, you can work out the timings yourself, and use my program to print out your 1s and 0s. (perl is available on most operating systems, including Windows, if you need it.) All you'd have to do is change the `00' and `000000' print statements to include more zeros. (But don't forget that there's already a 0 printed as a part of the last character when calculating the timings.) In any event, the expected timings for `standard' morse code are well defined -- a dah is 3x as long as a dit, the space between dits and dahs is as long as a dit, the space between characters is 3x as long as a dit, and the space between words is 7x as long as a dit. The Farnsworth method merely makes the 3x and 7x gaps longer. (My little program uses \n's to indicate the end of a word. This is needed because the `.-.- --.-' notation really has no standard way of indicating the difference between a 3-dit long pause and a 7-dit long pause.) -- Doug McLaren, internet, eh? I hear they have that on computers now. |
|
On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 17:50:02 GMT, Doug McLaren wrote:
dit = 1 dah = 111 space between dit/dah = 0 space between letters = 000 space between words = 0000000 So, `CQ DE K' translates to : C 10111010111 000 In what world is "C" = dit-dah-dit-dah ??? Send that in an FCC-administered code test and fail. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
Doug McLaren wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo wrote: | Let us put it to the test, Dave. | Write out a short sentence, or even a CQ de (your callsign) in binary | format, and let me read it right off the screen. If Morse code is | binary, it will be no problem. That's actually a reasonable test. And I shall give you an answer, though I don't think you expected one. And I'm not Dave. Sorry about that, Doug. Here is a binary representation of `CQ DE K' (this gets rather tedious, so I'll only do the first few characters) : 10111010111000111011101011100000001110101000100011 1010111000 -.-. --.- -.. . -.- Those certainly look different. And to explain that further -- dit = 1 dah = 111 space between dit/dah = 0 space between letters = 000 space between words = 0000000 So, `CQ DE K' translates to : C 10111010111 000 Q 1110111010111 0000000 D 1110101 000 E 1 000 K 111010111 000 (the letters and newlines are there *only* to help make it readable.) To play this back is very simple -- -- Pick a time period -- for example, 1 = 1/10 th of a second. -- go through the list, going through each chracter -- 1 = play a tone for 1/10th of a second 0 = be completely silent for 1/10th of a second It's really that simple. If you want a program to do it -- #!/usr/bin/perl -w # C Q D E K B 3 E I A P S E K my $string = ".-.- --.-\n-.. .\n-.- -... ...-- . .. .-\n.--. ... . -.-" ; foreach my $c (split (//, $string)) { if ($c eq ".") { print "10" ; next } ; if ($c eq "-") { print "1110" ; next } ; if ($c eq " ") { print "00" ; next } ; # Only two 0s, because the last # character ended with a 0. if ($c eq "\n") { print "000000" ; next } ; # ditto, but 6. } print "\n" ; And the output of your complete CQ in binary is : 10111010111000111011101011100000001110101000100000 00 11101011100011101010100010101011101110001000101000 101110000000 101110111010001010100010001110101110 new lines and spaces are added by me only to help it fit on the screen. | This is a screen readable approximation of me calling CQ | | .-.- --.- -.. . -.- -... ...-- . .. .- .--. ... . -.- | it is not binary. Binary. I think your explanation kind of proves my point. You do a pretty good job of showing how a person turns Morse code into digital 1's and 0's. But that does not make Morse code digital any more than doing the same for an image makes a photograph digital. The Morse code had to be translated into binary. The binary output of that CQ in binary doesn't look like anything that any Ham I know can read. If you are coding a CW reader, the output will be translated into words. If Morse was binary, the op could just read the string of 1's and 0's. - Mike KB3EIA - |
|
Dave wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... Dave wrote: thats funny, the program i am writing represents it very nicely with just 1's and 0's. Looking at it that way, all things that can be put into a digital program are digital, such as photographs, word processing, database, etc. Let us put it to the test, Dave. Write out a short sentence, or even a CQ de (your callsign) in binary format, and let me read it right off the screen. If Morse code is binary, it will be no problem. This is a screen readable approximation of me calling CQ .-.- --.- -.. . -.- -... ...-- . .. .- .--. ... . -.- it is not binary. 11101011101001110111010111001110101001001110101110 01011101110111011100111001 11001110000 looks perfectly binary to me Now send *that* in a QSO. Using *only* a 0 state or a 1 state. 8^) - Mike KB3EIA - |
In article ws.com,
Phil Kane wrote: | C 10111010111 | 000 | | In what world is "C" = dit-dah-dit-dah ??? Send that in an | FCC-administered code test and fail. Nice catch. I did pass element 1, but I never claimed to be good at it. In any event, I'd thought I just cut and pasted his CQ string, but obviously I made a mistake somewhere. But to retort -- 1) The FCC doesn't administer ham radio tests any more 2) The tests are generally receiving, not sending, and 3) You don't need 100% accuracy to pass :) (Wow, something actually related to policy!) -- Doug McLaren, , AD5RH MONEY IS THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL! SEND $9.95 FOR MORE DETAILS! |
Doug McLaren wrote: In article , Michael Coslo wrote: | At a lower level, anything is digital when you look at it that way. A | photograph, digital audio, whatever. Digital audio is digital if you look at it that way? Cute. Well, my XYL thinks I'm cute. 8^) As for a photograph, a black and white photograph could be seen that way -- after all, at the molecular level, a molecule of pigment is either there or not there. It's quantized. True enough. But no, not everything is digital. A specific sound isn't digital -- sure, you could approximate it with a digital stream, but ultimately it's just an approximation, no matter how fast your digital stream is. | If Morse code was really digital, there would be no need to have a | lower level Are you even thinking about what you're saying here? If there's only one level, then a morse code signal would be just a constant tone. It's hard to put much information into a constant, unchanging tone. If you want to transmit some information, you're going to need to have at least two states to choose from. | Morse code is either on or off. 1 or 0. You're either emitting a | signal, or you're not -- there's no in between. | | Ahh, so the space between the dits and dahs means nothing? There is | definitely an "in between" It is how we determine what the words a The space between the dits and dahs is `off' -- either 1, 3 or 7 zeros. The dits and dahs are `on', either one or three 1s. Look at my other post where I converted your CQ call to a binary representation of it. You converted. That is the core of the issue. I have no argument with what you did or what others have done to take a input of Morse code and convert it into a digital form. | ..... is that the number 5, or is it HE or is it SI, or IS or EH? If you feel that I claimed that the spaces are unimportant, then you did not understand me very well. Spaces are represented by a number of zeros, and dits and dahs by a number of ones. Binary. I completely understand that the spaces are of equal importance to all the other states. | Longer periods of 1's = dahs | Shorter periods of 1's = dits | Short period of 0's = space between a dit or a dah. | Longer period of 0's = space between characters. | Even longer period of 0's = space between words. | | You have just described more than two states. Sure -- I was trying to explain how it all boils down to two states. Understood. But you have to write software to take that Morse code signal and convert it or boil it down or whatever. RTTY usually carries information encoded with BAUDOT. (You do believe that RTTY is digital, right? Even with that 1.5 baud stop bit?) Each BAUDOT character is chosen by 5 bits -- that's 32 states, and then there's the state of the shift, which gives you about 62 states (64 - 2, since two states don't matter.) So RTTY/BAUDOT uses somewhere between 32 and 64 states. But you do believe that that RTTY and BAUDOT are binary modulations or codes, right? | It's not a particularly efficient binary code, but it *is*, at the | lowest level, binary -- there's only two states. It's certainly not | analog, or tinary, or ... | | Disagree. It isn't analog for sure, but with only a 1 and a zero, it | cant be described. ... but I just did in my other post. It was a bit tedious, but hardly impossible. I wasn't precise there. You have to time the signal, and assign multiple 1's and 0's to different parts of the sent signal. | Trying to describe it with 1's and 0's means that you | have to translate it. That longer dah, is not a 1. That is correct -- dah is not 1. It's three 1s in a row, followed by at least one 0. So you convert a dah into 3 1's and a zero. This sounds more to me like a conversion than anything else. | It cannot be the same thing as the short dit. If both of them are | 1's, the analogy fails Sure. The short dit is just a single 1, followed by at least one 0. A 1 and a 0. Like I said it's a conversion. That it is not a difficult conversion is not the point. | I'm saying that in order to have Morse code be binary, you have to | digitize it, so to speak. You have to have a clocking action, and a dah | has to either be something other than a "1" if the dit is considered a | "1". If it was truly digital, you wouldn't have to do any of that. Have you looked at your morse code key lately? It has two positions -- on and off. That alone should be enough to let you realize that it's binary. Just a second ago. I have an Iambic key, so that kind of clouds the issue. I have a key for dits, a key for dats, and nothing happens if I don't touch either. Things like PSK31 and RTTY/BAUDOT aren't any different, except that the computer does the translation down to the binary level rather than your brain and your finger. It could be argued that the human brain doesn't easily deal with binary codes. Which would make sense -- many of us had a hard time learning morse code, even at the slowest possible speed. Yet it's only about 40 characters, which shouldn't be hard to memorize at all. I had a hard time due to deafness. My XYL would agree with you if you said I don't listen very well! ;^) - Mike KB3EIA - |
Dave wrote: "Michael Coslo" wrote in message ... Doug McLaren wrote: In article , Michael Coslo wrote: | I hear lots of Hams declare that Morse code is a binary mode. | | It is most certainly not. It most certainly is. ... | 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? Try looking at it at a lower level -- stop looking at the dits and dahs. At a lower level, anything is digital when you look at it that way. A photograph, digital audio, whatever. If Morse code was really digital, there would be no need to have a lower level Morse code is either on or off. 1 or 0. You're either emitting a signal, or you're not -- there's no in between. Ahh, so the space between the dits and dahs means nothing? There is definitely an "in between" It is how we determine what the words a ..... is that the number 5, or is it HE or is it SI, or IS or EH? Looking up what binary means -- http://www.answers.com/binary -- bi na ry (b'n-r) pronunciation adj. 1. Characterized by or consisting of two parts or components; twofold. At the lowest level, there's only two components -- on or off, tone or no tone. It certainly fits the definition. Considering that `tone' = 1 and `no tone' = 0 ... Longer periods of 1's = dahs Shorter periods of 1's = dits Short period of 0's = space between a dit or a dah. Longer period of 0's = space between characters. Even longer period of 0's = space between words. You have just described more than two states. It's not a particularly efficient binary code, but it *is*, at the lowest level, binary -- there's only two states. It's certainly not analog, or tinary, or ... Disagree. It isn't analog for sure, but with only a 1 and a zero, it cant be described. Trying to describe it with 1's and 0's means that you have to translate it. That longer dah, is not a 1. It cannot be the same thing as the short dit. If both of them are 1's, the analogy fails Now, to be fair, at a higher level, you could say it has four states -- dit, dah, space between character, space between word. Which would be quadrary (is that the right word? is it even a real word?) But that doesn't mean it can't be binary at another level at the same time. | It isn't binary, and the way our noodles process it isn't binary. I'm not sure that the way our brain processes it is relevant. RTTY is binary (or do you disagree there too?) and yet our brain hardly processes it's output in a binary manner. | It's not binary. If you say so. I doubt I've convinced you, but it's really all a matter of how you look at it, and if you insist on looking at it in only one way, nobody's going to convince you otherwise. I'm saying that in order to have Morse code be binary, you have to digitize it, so to speak. You have to have a clocking action, and a dah has to either be something other than a "1" if the dit is considered a "1". If it was truly digital, you wouldn't have to do any of that. even the 'real' digital modes have a clocking action. how else do you know when one character ends and another starts? the one big oddity of morse is that the characters are unequal lengths so it is not easy to make a simple clock mechanism to decode them like it is for baudot or ascii codes. then of course another oddity is that it is often sent by hand (or at least it used to be) so the timing varies even within a short message making it even harder to decode mechanically. however hscw and very low speed or coherent cw are normally machine encoded and decoded and rely on very exact timing. I agree Dave. I'm a little familiar with the digital world. The oddities of Morse that you mention are both the blessing and curse of the mode. No argument on the ability to convert Morse to digital, and while the machine sent stuff is not too hard to translate, it is amazing what the human mind can do when recieving a signal from a person with a bad fist. - Mike KB3EIA - |
bb wrote:
Doug McLaren wrote: In article , Mike Coslo wrote: | Let us put it to the test, Dave. | Write out a short sentence, or even a CQ de (your callsign) in binary | format, and let me read it right off the screen. If Morse code is | binary, it will be no problem. That's actually a reasonable test. And I shall give you an answer, though I don't think you expected one. And I'm not Dave. Here is a binary representation of `CQ DE K' (this gets rather tedious, so I'll only do the first few characters) : 10111010111000111011101011100000001110101000100011 1010111000 And to explain that further -- dit = 1 dah = 111 space between dit/dah = 0 space between letters = 000 space between words = 0000000 So, `CQ DE K' translates to : C 10111010111 000 Q 1110111010111 0000000 D 1110101 000 E 1 000 K 111010111 000 (the letters and newlines are there *only* to help make it readable.) To play this back is very simple -- -- Pick a time period -- for example, 1 = 1/10 th of a second. -- go through the list, going through each chracter -- 1 = play a tone for 1/10th of a second 0 = be completely silent for 1/10th of a second It's really that simple. If you want a program to do it -- #!/usr/bin/perl -w # C Q D E K B 3 E I A P S E K my $string = ".-.- --.-\n-.. .\n-.- -... ...-- . .. .-\n.--. ... . -.-" ; foreach my $c (split (//, $string)) { if ($c eq ".") { print "10" ; next } ; if ($c eq "-") { print "1110" ; next } ; if ($c eq " ") { print "00" ; next } ; # Only two 0s, because the last # character ended with a 0. if ($c eq "\n") { print "000000" ; next } ; # ditto, but 6. } print "\n" ; And the output of your complete CQ in binary is : 10111010111000111011101011100000001110101000100000 00 11101011100011101010100010101011101110001000101000 101110000000 101110111010001010100010001110101110 new lines and spaces are added by me only to help it fit on the screen. | This is a screen readable approximation of me calling CQ | | .-.- --.- -.. . -.- -... ...-- . .. .- .--. ... . -.- | it is not binary. Binary. -- Doug McLaren, , AD5RH .. Time is the best teacher, unfortunately it kills all of its students. Doug, please perform the same exercise for all variations of the Farnsworth code. Thanks. Good point Brian. Farnsworth will have a different representation in timing. While the human mind will interpret Farnsworth fairly easily, the software may have some problems? - Mike KB3EIA - |
In article ,
Mike Coslo wrote: | 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. Your key is either up or down. There is no in between. That alone is enough to say `binary'. As for `two seperate 1 states', it's just that one is one 1 state, and the other is 3 1 states in a row. | 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. It's the number of zeros in a row that signifies that. | 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. An image or file on your computer is already binary, pretty much by definition. But the image you see out your window is not -- it's analog, and while you can approximate this image with a binary stream, you can never match it exactly. | 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? If you played it audibly, yes, you would notice it as a perfectly timed morse code CQ (my mistake with the C not withstanding.) Visually, it's not the format that people are used to seeing, so they don't recognize it at first. Not surprising. | 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. Of course, Morse code is sent as a intermittent tone, RF carrier, or light. It's *not* sent with strings of periods, dashes and spaces -- that's just a simple way of writing it on paper. When you look at the tone, carrier or light, the item is either there, or it's not. Two states. Binary. This is not something that can be rationally denied. However, groups of these two states are combined into five states -- dit, dah, intra-character spaces, intra-word spaces and intra-sentence spaces. This can't really be denied either, and this is how people generally think of Morse code -- dits and dahs. This is where the argument lies -- the `I see two states -- binary!' people look at the first part -- the carrier itself. The `It's not binary! It's dits and dahs and spaces' people are looking at what the combinations of the binary states give them, and that's how humans generally view it.. Both views are correct, so a claim that one view is wrong is incorrect. Morse code gives you a way of turning a series of binary states (on or off) into text. ASCII, EBCDIC, BAUDOT, UTF-8 and oodles of others do the same thing. Morse code is just as `binary' as they are, but it just happens to be more suited to human use. Ultimately, it's a pointless argument, because whatever Morse code is and is not, people use it, and they agree on what sequences indicate what letters (of course, this wasn't always the case, but that's another story), and that's pretty much all that's needed for it to work, and so on that note I'll attempt to remove myself from the discussion. -- Doug McLaren, Math illiteracy affects 8 out of every 5 people. |
Michael Coslo wrote:
I felt kinda bad about being mean to Len, so I'll try to meet him halfway with a Morse code topic. 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. Let us look at the situation. Is the Dit a "0"? Is the Dah a "1"? 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? It's a form of pulse width modulation. Space between characters would be a "low" or "0". Characters are "high" or "1". A dit would be a single "1", dah would be "1,1,1". Spaces between dits and dahs in the same letter would be a single "0". Spaces between letters would be "0,0,0". The typical letter is about 9 zeros or ones long, and add 3 more zeros for the space on one side. So the "1" or "0" bit rate is about 12 times the WPM rate. 5 WPM would be 60 bits a minute, or 1 bit/sec. 20 WPM would be 4 bits/sec. Rather slow compared to other machine readable/sendable digital modes, but Morse can be read by ear and requires only simple equipment. Big selling point back in the vacuum tube radio era, but not so much today with high tech radio equipment. |
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! Mike Deignan had him pegged. Len's really ticked that somewhere, out there, somebody is having fun with ham radio. 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. 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? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
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! Mike Deignan had him pegged. Len's really ticked that somewhere, out there, somebody is having fun with ham radio. 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. 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? . . . finally . . of course not. But you already knew that . . 73 de Jim, N2EY w3rv |
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. 2) The tests are generally receiving, not sending, and Generally but not always. It's up to the examiner. 3) You don't need 100% accuracy to pass You've never taken a test that I administered... ggg The ultimate is to record what the applicant sent and then have the applicant copy it back.... -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
bb wrote:
wrote: Key up is "0". Key down is "1". Also known as "space" and "mark", respectively. 73 de Jim, N2EY Odd, the old definition of Morse Code didn't use the terms "0" and "1", nor "mark" and "space." All the timing was in terms of the length of a single "dit." As far as I know, Morse code did not "become digital" until some people wanted to make it look as if it was more advanced than it is. Until then it was as you describe. - Mike KB3EIA - |
Doug McLaren wrote: In article , Mike Coslo wrote: | 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. Your key is either up or down. There is no in between. That alone is enough to say `binary'. no more than the switch on my furnace makes my furnace digital. As for `two seperate 1 states', it's just that one is one 1 state, and the other is 3 1 states in a row. Right, it is translated. | 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. It's the number of zeros in a row that signifies that. In the translation. I don't read morse code that way while I'm listening. The computer "listens" that way. | 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. An image or file on your computer is already binary, pretty much by definition. But the image you see out your window is not -- it's analog, and while you can approximate this image with a binary stream, you can never match it exactly. | 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? If you played it audibly, yes, you would notice it as a perfectly timed morse code CQ (my mistake with the C not withstanding.) Visually, it's not the format that people are used to seeing, so they don't recognize it at first. Not surprising. | 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. Of course, Morse code is sent as a intermittent tone, RF carrier, or light. It's *not* sent with strings of periods, dashes and spaces -- that's just a simple way of writing it on paper. When you look at the tone, carrier or light, the item is either there, or it's not. Two states. Binary. This is not something that can be rationally denied. Two states of different length. The radio does not send 0's. It simply sits there waiting for the key so it can send a carrier of differing lengths of time. However, groups of these two states are combined into five states -- dit, dah, intra-character spaces, intra-word spaces and intra-sentence spaces. This can't really be denied either, and this is how people generally think of Morse code -- dits and dahs. This is where the argument lies -- the `I see two states -- binary!' people look at the first part -- the carrier itself. The `It's not binary! It's dits and dahs and spaces' people are looking at what the combinations of the binary states give them, and that's how humans generally view it.. Both views are correct, so a claim that one view is wrong is incorrect. Morse code gives you a way of turning a series of binary states (on or off) into text. ASCII, EBCDIC, BAUDOT, UTF-8 and oodles of others do the same thing. Morse code is just as `binary' as they are, but it just happens to be more suited to human use. Ultimately, it's a pointless argument, because whatever Morse code is and is not, people use it, and they agree on what sequences indicate what letters (of course, this wasn't always the case, but that's another story), and that's pretty much all that's needed for it to work, and so on that note I'll attempt to remove myself from the discussion. - Mike KB3EIA - |
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! 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^) 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. 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. 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. 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. 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^) - Mike KB3EIA - |
In article ,
Michael Coslo wrote: | Odd, the old definition of Morse Code didn't use the terms "0" and "1", | nor "mark" and "space." All the timing was in terms of the length of a | single "dit." | | As far as I know, Morse code did not "become digital" until some people | wanted to make it look as if it was more advanced than it is. Until then | it was as you describe. You're confusing your terms now. Digital and binary are related, but not the same. This defintion of `digital data' http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?...87736&method=6 definately fits Morse code, both at the `on' and `off' level and at the `dit' `dah' `short space' `medium space' `long space' level. Digital also means `having to do with fingers', and Morse code is usually sent using one's fingers ... Of course, the terms digital and binary didn't really become commonly used until computers did. Considering that Morse code was born in 1832 or so, it's not surprising that people weren't thinking of it in computer terms for a while. Ultimately, terms are getting confused all over the place. The terms CW and Morse code are used interchangably, when it's really more accurate to say that CW is to Morse code as RTTY is to Baudot. But ultimately it doesn't matter, because however you define it, people use it to talk to each other and it works. -- Doug McLaren, , AD5RH This is a test of the emergency .signature program. This is only a test. |
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. An FCC field guy (that you know of) decided that a wife of a friend of mine needed to be retested on 5WPM code. At the time (early 70's) the FCC test office rarely if ever did 5WPM, and the examner had to dig up a 5WPM paper tape (with punched holes). Seems the tape was bad and the machine sent trash instead of code, but the examiner himself didn't know code and decided that she couldn't copy code and failed her. "Broken tape machine, yeah sureeee....." If the tape were played backwards (a code machine my father used used two spools, a supply reel and take up reel) it would produce some copyable characters (A for N) and others would be trash. Someone forgets to rewind a tape, and later someone else plays it for a test. Sounds like code to someone who doesn't know code. |
On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 22:52:42 GMT, robert casey wrote:
An FCC field guy (that you know of) decided that a wife of a friend of mine needed to be retested on 5WPM code. At the time (early 70's) the FCC test office rarely if ever did 5WPM, and the examner had to dig up a 5WPM paper tape (with punched holes). Seems the tape was bad and the machine sent trash instead of code, but the examiner himself didn't know code and decided that she couldn't copy code and failed her. "Broken tape machine, yeah sureeee....." 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. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
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*. 3) You don't need 100% accuracy to pass You've never taken a test that I administered... ggg The ultimate is to record what the applicant sent and then have the applicant copy it back.... -- Too easy.... 73 de Jim, N2EY |
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? - Mike KB3EIA - |
robert casey wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote: I felt kinda bad about being mean to Len, so I'll try to meet him halfway with a Morse code topic. 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. Let us look at the situation. Is the Dit a "0"? Is the Dah a "1"? 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? It's a form of pulse width modulation. Now you're getting there! - Mike KB3EIA - |
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? My sending has always outpaced my receiving! - Mike KB3EIA - |
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 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. Put the subject to rest. RIP. - Mike KB3EIA - |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:29 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com