From: "John Smith" on Tues 2 Aug 2005 20:29

b.b.:

They are not "sending code so poorly that a pimply-faced No-Code Tech with a
code reader..." can't read it, they are attempting to send so badly that a
computer running software coded by one both CW and computer savvy has set up--I
suspect they think themselves smarter than the computer... maybe... grin

Indeed, a very good programmer would inject "nuances" into the way the app
translated his keyboard code to morse, making it virtually impossible for them
to tell they were copying automaton generated code, at a very respectable
speed! grin

I would think it would be a game, an enjoyable one...

John, that discussion took place in here a few years ago, my
remarking on what I'd seen, lent my Icom HF receiver for an
air test, on an ADAPTIVE decoder for morse. It was written
by a professional programmer as an intellectual exercise for
his own benefit, just wondering if it could be done. The
ADAPTIVE part was in automatically adjusting to the differences
in weighting of dits and dahs, their combination resulting in
a word rate equivalent. The ADAPTIVE part took most of the
source code...the translation of morse characters to ASCII for
immediate display was a small, small part of the source, just
a small look-up table in effect. It was done on a medium-old
clock rate PC but would be a snap to work at a 2 GHz clock.

To reverse the process, to add weighting to dits and dahs, even
to having different weighting for different characters, is a
snap with a random number routine. That wasn't done, but is
viable without much alteration of the source.

The PCTA extras in here will have NONE of such things! They
will attempt to THRASH anyone in a monumental display of deus
ex machina worthy of the most devout Luddite. shrug

don dit

Len:

Yep, that is one way alright, and produces good results, there are others,
some better.

Adaptive learning by the program is the key, and the program must learn
what the senders' length of a di to a dah is, and the breath of the width
he is spanning of each the di and the dah.

The amateur abbreviations are in a table, and the dictionary from a spell
checker can be borrowed to check decoded morse words against which are not
abbreviations.

You are right, a high speed machine affords you time to do
abundant error checking--and here is where you gain close to 100% accuracy
from, final fall back is the ear and the mind, to correct any mistakes the
program cannot, yet, handle...

All words which do not match the table of abbreviations or the dictionary
have a copy of that word thrown into an error file, along with di's
represented by periods and dah's represented by underscores or hyphens, of
the word thought to be an error. This error file can be studied later and
the program "tweaked" to handle such errors in the future.

However, what interests me most is your knowledge on the subject, you most
certainly have a good grasp of the logic necessary to begin to put one
together.

Perhaps you have programmed and played with such yourself? Perhaps you
have a relative or friend in the field?

John

On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 22:23:57 -0700, LenAnderson wrote:

From: "John Smith" on Tues 2 Aug 2005 20:29

b.b.:

They are not "sending code so poorly that a pimply-faced No-Code Tech with a
code reader..." can't read it, they are attempting to send so badly that a
computer running software coded by one both CW and computer savvy has set up--I
suspect they think themselves smarter than the computer... maybe... grin

Indeed, a very good programmer would inject "nuances" into the way the app
translated his keyboard code to morse, making it virtually impossible for them
to tell they were copying automaton generated code, at a very respectable
speed! grin

I would think it would be a game, an enjoyable one...

John, that discussion took place in here a few years ago, my
remarking on what I'd seen, lent my Icom HF receiver for an
air test, on an ADAPTIVE decoder for morse. It was written
by a professional programmer as an intellectual exercise for
his own benefit, just wondering if it could be done. The
ADAPTIVE part was in automatically adjusting to the differences
in weighting of dits and dahs, their combination resulting in
a word rate equivalent. The ADAPTIVE part took most of the
source code...the translation of morse characters to ASCII for
immediate display was a small, small part of the source, just
a small look-up table in effect. It was done on a medium-old
clock rate PC but would be a snap to work at a 2 GHz clock.

To reverse the process, to add weighting to dits and dahs, even
to having different weighting for different characters, is a
snap with a random number routine. That wasn't done, but is
viable without much alteration of the source.

The PCTA extras in here will have NONE of such things! They
will attempt to THRASH anyone in a monumental display of deus
ex machina worthy of the most devout Luddite. shrug

don dit

What you folks are describing is just a form of RTTY using Morse Code
as the
encoding method, rather than ASCII or Baudot or some other scheme.

Of course it can be done, and has been done. Why it would be done is
another
issue. It is certainly not a "better way".

Consider a bicycle. If another wheel is added, the rider doesn't need
to worry about falling over, so the skill required to ride it is
greatly reduced.
Add a small gasoline engine and a suitable transmission, and
pedaling becomes much easier. A simple cover will protect the rider
from rain
and other inclement weather.

Eventually you wind up with a small, three-wheeled automobile that
could win
the Tour de France. Except it's not a bicycle anymore, and its rider
isn't
a cyclist by any stretch of the imagination.

Or consider the piano. Pianos and similar keyboard instruments have
been around
for hundreds of years. It takes considerable skill and practice to play
them, and
reading sheet music is a skill of its own.

With modern computers and software, however, one can simply have a
machine that
scans in the sheet music and turns it into a "performance" - without
all those
lessons, practice, etc.

There are many such analogies. But they are lost on some people - those
who
Shaw described as "knowing the price of everything and the value of
nothing."



John Smith wrote:
Len:

Yep, that is one way alright, and produces good results, there are others,
some better.

Adaptive learning by the program is the key, and the program must learn
what the senders' length of a di to a dah is, and the breath of the width
he is spanning of each the di and the dah.

The amateur abbreviations are in a table, and the dictionary from a spell
checker can be borrowed to check decoded morse words against which are not
abbreviations.

You are right, a high speed machine affords you time to do
abundant error checking--and here is where you gain close to 100% accuracy
from, final fall back is the ear and the mind, to correct any mistakes the
program cannot, yet, handle...

All words which do not match the table of abbreviations or the dictionary
have a copy of that word thrown into an error file, along with di's
represented by periods and dah's represented by underscores or hyphens, of
the word thought to be an error. This error file can be studied later and
the program "tweaked" to handle such errors in the future.

However, what interests me most is your knowledge on the subject, you most
certainly have a good grasp of the logic necessary to begin to put one
together.

Perhaps you have programmed and played with such yourself? Perhaps you
have a relative or friend in the field?

John

On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 22:23:57 -0700, LenAnderson wrote:

From: "John Smith" on Tues 2 Aug 2005 20:29

b.b.:

They are not "sending code so poorly that a pimply-faced No-Code Tech with a
code reader..." can't read it, they are attempting to send so badly that a
computer running software coded by one both CW and computer savvy has set up--I
suspect they think themselves smarter than the computer... maybe... grin

Indeed, a very good programmer would inject "nuances" into the way the app
translated his keyboard code to morse, making it virtually impossible for them
to tell they were copying automaton generated code, at a very respectable
speed! grin

I would think it would be a game, an enjoyable one...

John, that discussion took place in here a few years ago, my
remarking on what I'd seen, lent my Icom HF receiver for an
air test, on an ADAPTIVE decoder for morse. It was written
by a professional programmer as an intellectual exercise for
his own benefit, just wondering if it could be done. The
ADAPTIVE part was in automatically adjusting to the differences
in weighting of dits and dahs, their combination resulting in
a word rate equivalent. The ADAPTIVE part took most of the
source code...the translation of morse characters to ASCII for
immediate display was a small, small part of the source, just
a small look-up table in effect. It was done on a medium-old
clock rate PC but would be a snap to work at a 2 GHz clock.

To reverse the process, to add weighting to dits and dahs, even
to having different weighting for different characters, is a
snap with a random number routine. That wasn't done, but is
viable without much alteration of the source.

The PCTA extras in here will have NONE of such things! They
will attempt to THRASH anyone in a monumental display of deus
ex machina worthy of the most devout Luddite. shrug

don dit

wrote:
What you folks are describing is just a form of RTTY using Morse Code
as the
encoding method, rather than ASCII or Baudot or some other scheme.

indeed we are

Of course it can be done, and has been done. Why it would be done is
another
issue. It is certainly not a "better way".

that does depend on the goal, and the operator. Personaly I find the
idea of the manual morse and compter morse interacting the only
redeeming virtue of the mode (please I know you disagree but go along
for a minute) That someone could use the simple assembly of the QRP rig
to reach out to a station like mine reading fby machine and sending it
back the same way. It is one the few occasion I can realy see much use
in the mode during an emergency gives the user the low signal abilities
of RTTY or PSK 31 but allowing the station in the affected area to
despense with a PC

Thus it is 'better" in some ways, indeed I am a much better operator of
computer morse than manual and it would make my staion a bteer station
by your standards (more modes more abilities)

so where your beef?


it is not your cup of tea sure fine


Consider a bicycle. If another wheel is added, the rider doesn't need
to worry about falling over, so the skill required to ride it is
greatly reduced.
Add a small gasoline engine and a suitable transmission, and
pedaling becomes much easier. A simple cover will protect the rider
from rain
and other inclement weather.

Eventually you wind up with a small, three-wheeled automobile that
could win
the Tour de France. Except it's not a bicycle anymore, and its rider
isn't
a cyclist by any stretch of the imagination.

Or consider the piano. Pianos and similar keyboard instruments have
been around
for hundreds of years. It takes considerable skill and practice to play
them, and
reading sheet music is a skill of its own.

With modern computers and software, however, one can simply have a
machine that
scans in the sheet music and turns it into a "performance" - without
all those
lessons, practice, etc.

all depends on what you want, to listen or to play

There are many such analogies. But they are lost on some people - those
who
Shaw described as "knowing the price of everything and the value of
nothing."



John Smith wrote:
Len:

Yep, that is one way alright, and produces good results, there are others,
some better.

Adaptive learning by the program is the key, and the program must learn
what the senders' length of a di to a dah is, and the breath of the width
he is spanning of each the di and the dah.

The amateur abbreviations are in a table, and the dictionary from a spell
checker can be borrowed to check decoded morse words against which are not
abbreviations.

You are right, a high speed machine affords you time to do
abundant error checking--and here is where you gain close to 100% accuracy
from, final fall back is the ear and the mind, to correct any mistakes the
program cannot, yet, handle...

All words which do not match the table of abbreviations or the dictionary
have a copy of that word thrown into an error file, along with di's
represented by periods and dah's represented by underscores or hyphens, of
the word thought to be an error. This error file can be studied later and
the program "tweaked" to handle such errors in the future.

However, what interests me most is your knowledge on the subject, you most
certainly have a good grasp of the logic necessary to begin to put one
together.

Perhaps you have programmed and played with such yourself? Perhaps you
have a relative or friend in the field?

John

On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 22:23:57 -0700, LenAnderson wrote:

From: "John Smith" on Tues 2 Aug 2005 20:29

b.b.:

They are not "sending code so poorly that a pimply-faced No-Code Tech with a
code reader..." can't read it, they are attempting to send so badly that a
computer running software coded by one both CW and computer savvy has set up--I
suspect they think themselves smarter than the computer... maybe... grin

Indeed, a very good programmer would inject "nuances" into the way the app
translated his keyboard code to morse, making it virtually impossible for them
to tell they were copying automaton generated code, at a very respectable
speed! grin

I would think it would be a game, an enjoyable one...

John, that discussion took place in here a few years ago, my
remarking on what I'd seen, lent my Icom HF receiver for an
air test, on an ADAPTIVE decoder for morse. It was written
by a professional programmer as an intellectual exercise for
his own benefit, just wondering if it could be done. The
ADAPTIVE part was in automatically adjusting to the differences
in weighting of dits and dahs, their combination resulting in
a word rate equivalent. The ADAPTIVE part took most of the
source code...the translation of morse characters to ASCII for
immediate display was a small, small part of the source, just
a small look-up table in effect. It was done on a medium-old
clock rate PC but would be a snap to work at a 2 GHz clock.

To reverse the process, to add weighting to dits and dahs, even
to having different weighting for different characters, is a
snap with a random number routine. That wasn't done, but is
viable without much alteration of the source.

The PCTA extras in here will have NONE of such things! They
will attempt to THRASH anyone in a monumental display of deus
ex machina worthy of the most devout Luddite. shrug

don dit

Len:

It is not even close...

The end of all that design in computer hardware and software, when
efficient and up-to-date, would be impossible for a human operator to send
let alone receive without hardware and software... RTTY is as dead as CW...

John

On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 10:22:01 -0700, an old friend wrote:


wrote:
What you folks are describing is just a form of RTTY using Morse Code
as the
encoding method, rather than ASCII or Baudot or some other scheme.

indeed we are

Of course it can be done, and has been done. Why it would be done is
another
issue. It is certainly not a "better way".

that does depend on the goal, and the operator. Personaly I find the
idea of the manual morse and compter morse interacting the only
redeeming virtue of the mode (please I know you disagree but go along
for a minute) That someone could use the simple assembly of the QRP rig
to reach out to a station like mine reading fby machine and sending it
back the same way. It is one the few occasion I can realy see much use
in the mode during an emergency gives the user the low signal abilities
of RTTY or PSK 31 but allowing the station in the affected area to
despense with a PC

Thus it is 'better" in some ways, indeed I am a much better operator of
computer morse than manual and it would make my staion a bteer station
by your standards (more modes more abilities)

so where your beef?


it is not your cup of tea sure fine


Consider a bicycle. If another wheel is added, the rider doesn't need
to worry about falling over, so the skill required to ride it is
greatly reduced.
Add a small gasoline engine and a suitable transmission, and
pedaling becomes much easier. A simple cover will protect the rider
from rain
and other inclement weather.

Eventually you wind up with a small, three-wheeled automobile that
could win
the Tour de France. Except it's not a bicycle anymore, and its rider
isn't
a cyclist by any stretch of the imagination.

Or consider the piano. Pianos and similar keyboard instruments have
been around
for hundreds of years. It takes considerable skill and practice to play
them, and
reading sheet music is a skill of its own.

With modern computers and software, however, one can simply have a
machine that
scans in the sheet music and turns it into a "performance" - without
all those
lessons, practice, etc.

all depends on what you want, to listen or to play

There are many such analogies. But they are lost on some people - those
who
Shaw described as "knowing the price of everything and the value of
nothing."



John Smith wrote:
Len:

Yep, that is one way alright, and produces good results, there are others,
some better.

Adaptive learning by the program is the key, and the program must learn
what the senders' length of a di to a dah is, and the breath of the width
he is spanning of each the di and the dah.

The amateur abbreviations are in a table, and the dictionary from a spell
checker can be borrowed to check decoded morse words against which are not
abbreviations.

You are right, a high speed machine affords you time to do
abundant error checking--and here is where you gain close to 100% accuracy
from, final fall back is the ear and the mind, to correct any mistakes the
program cannot, yet, handle...

All words which do not match the table of abbreviations or the dictionary
have a copy of that word thrown into an error file, along with di's
represented by periods and dah's represented by underscores or hyphens, of
the word thought to be an error. This error file can be studied later and
the program "tweaked" to handle such errors in the future.

However, what interests me most is your knowledge on the subject, you most
certainly have a good grasp of the logic necessary to begin to put one
together.

Perhaps you have programmed and played with such yourself? Perhaps you
have a relative or friend in the field?

John

On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 22:23:57 -0700, LenAnderson wrote:

From: "John Smith" on Tues 2 Aug 2005 20:29

b.b.:

They are not "sending code so poorly that a pimply-faced No-Code Tech with a
code reader..." can't read it, they are attempting to send so badly that a
computer running software coded by one both CW and computer savvy has set up--I
suspect they think themselves smarter than the computer... maybe... grin

Indeed, a very good programmer would inject "nuances" into the way the app
translated his keyboard code to morse, making it virtually impossible for them
to tell they were copying automaton generated code, at a very respectable
speed! grin

I would think it would be a game, an enjoyable one...

John, that discussion took place in here a few years ago, my
remarking on what I'd seen, lent my Icom HF receiver for an
air test, on an ADAPTIVE decoder for morse. It was written
by a professional programmer as an intellectual exercise for
his own benefit, just wondering if it could be done. The
ADAPTIVE part was in automatically adjusting to the differences
in weighting of dits and dahs, their combination resulting in
a word rate equivalent. The ADAPTIVE part took most of the
source code...the translation of morse characters to ASCII for
immediate display was a small, small part of the source, just
a small look-up table in effect. It was done on a medium-old
clock rate PC but would be a snap to work at a 2 GHz clock.

To reverse the process, to add weighting to dits and dahs, even
to having different weighting for different characters, is a
snap with a random number routine. That wasn't done, but is
viable without much alteration of the source.

The PCTA extras in here will have NONE of such things! They
will attempt to THRASH anyone in a monumental display of deus
ex machina worthy of the most devout Luddite. shrug

don dit

"John Smith" wrote in message
news
Len:

It is not even close...

The end of all that design in computer hardware and software, when
efficient and up-to-date, would be impossible for a human operator to send
let alone receive without hardware and software... RTTY is as dead as
CW...

John

On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 10:22:01 -0700, an old friend wrote:


Every mode has its advantages and disadvantages. Neither RTTY nor CW is
dead. One just has more choices than in the past.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee:

Some would argue Latin is not dead, churches and doctors still use it...

It is dead, both cw and morse, some may live to see the proof, some
may not have long enough. This is the digital age.

Here in this newsgroup you can find many who try to form religious
doctrine over out dated specs, faqs and past limitations of the net. This
type of behavior is seen in many groups of individuals, the "control
freaks" are here on the web too.

There is a real cult which has formed around CW, they have their
church, high priests, hierarchy and devoted following, you might refer to
them as "CW Groupies" if CW was the name of a rock band.

The data transmission protocols which could be used on amateur radio as we
speak here are mind numbing. However, phone and cw do server hobby uses
here. But, data transmission of binaries, graphics, movies, etc. are not
suited to either. Two bursts of encrypted/compressed packets happening a
a blink of an eye can fill your screen with enough text to keep you
reading for two minutes. Or, an IM protocol could be employed in "text
chat" with one freq serving as a party line and only grabbing packets they
are interested in... possibilities are endless...

No, no one would pause at a simple cw reader, you would allow two machines
to chat together, no human needs to tap a key, it is far below what the
human mind was meant to do, it is akin to pounding on a skin covered drum,
however, if MadMax ever happens, I will grant you it may have a use,
"God" forbid that ever occurs... but then, if it does, there will be tons
of CB radios out there which will be pressed into use... they will be
able to be found in almost any diesel truck on the highway, and base
stations in the smallest of towns, alternators removed from cars and
driven by small gas engines off lawn mowers, etc.

I don't think there is going to be that many hams with a key in their hand
saving the human race... and you will not likely know the heroes until
the event happens... the greatest plans of mice and men...and all that...

But, hey, the dreams of men are what keeps them going, and there is always
only a problem when they attempt to force their dreams on
others--especially when the dreams become decades old... become brittle
and turn to dust in the face of harsh reality...

John


John

On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 17:47:53 -0400, Dee Flint wrote:


"John Smith" wrote in message
news
Len:

It is not even close...

The end of all that design in computer hardware and software, when
efficient and up-to-date, would be impossible for a human operator to send
let alone receive without hardware and software... RTTY is as dead as
CW...

John

On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 10:22:01 -0700, an old friend wrote:


Every mode has its advantages and disadvantages. Neither RTTY nor CW is
dead. One just has more choices than in the past.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

an old friend wrote:
wrote:
What you folks are describing is just a form of RTTY using Morse Code
as the encoding method, rather than ASCII or Baudot or some other scheme.

indeed we are

Glad you agree

Of course it can be done, and has been done. Why it would be done is
another issue. It is certainly not a "better way".

that does depend on the goal, and the operator.

True enough.

Personaly I find the
idea of the manual morse and compter morse interacting the only
redeeming virtue of the mode (please I know you disagree but go along
for a minute)

It's just *one* good thing about Morse Code (the ease and flexibility
of
human-machine interface. There are many more good things (redeeming
virtues?) of Morse Code.

That someone could use the simple assembly of the QRP rig
to reach out to a station like mine reading fby machine and sending it
back the same way.

One more tool in the toolbox.

It is one the few occasion I can realy see much use
in the mode during an emergency gives the user the low signal abilities
of RTTY or PSK 31 but allowing the station in the affected area to
despense with a PC

If the operators know Morse Code, there's no reason for a PC at either
station.

Thus it is 'better" in some ways, indeed I am a much better operator of
computer morse than manual and it would make my staion a bteer station
by your standards (more modes more abilities)

In that regard, it is "better". But it is not universally "better",
just as an automobile is not universally "better" than a bicycle.

so where your beef?

The idea that machine operation is somehow universally better.

it is not your cup of tea sure fine

Consider a bicycle. If another wheel is added, the rider doesn't need
to worry about falling over, so the skill required to ride it is
greatly reduced.
Add a small gasoline engine and a suitable transmission, and
pedaling becomes much easier. A simple cover will protect the rider
from rain
and other inclement weather.

Eventually you wind up with a small, three-wheeled automobile that
could win
the Tour de France. Except it's not a bicycle anymore, and its rider
isn't
a cyclist by any stretch of the imagination.

Or consider the piano. Pianos and similar keyboard instruments have
been around
for hundreds of years. It takes considerable skill and practice to play
them, and
reading sheet music is a skill of its own.

With modern computers and software, however, one can simply have a
machine that
scans in the sheet music and turns it into a "performance" - without
all those
lessons, practice, etc.

all depends on what you want, to listen or to play

Point is, there's a big difference.

There are many such analogies. But they are lost on some people - those
who
Shaw described as "knowing the price of everything and the value of
nothing."



John Smith wrote:
Len:

Yep, that is one way alright, and produces good results, there are others,
some better.

Adaptive learning by the program is the key, and the program must learn
what the senders' length of a di to a dah is, and the breath of the width
he is spanning of each the di and the dah.

The amateur abbreviations are in a table, and the dictionary from a spell
checker can be borrowed to check decoded morse words against which are not
abbreviations.

You are right, a high speed machine affords you time to do
abundant error checking--and here is where you gain close to 100% accuracy
from, final fall back is the ear and the mind, to correct any mistakes the
program cannot, yet, handle...

All words which do not match the table of abbreviations or the dictionary
have a copy of that word thrown into an error file, along with di's
represented by periods and dah's represented by underscores or hyphens, of
the word thought to be an error. This error file can be studied later and
the program "tweaked" to handle such errors in the future.

However, what interests me most is your knowledge on the subject, you most
certainly have a good grasp of the logic necessary to begin to put one
together.

Perhaps you have programmed and played with such yourself? Perhaps you
have a relative or friend in the field?

John

On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 22:23:57 -0700, LenAnderson wrote:

From: "John Smith" on Tues 2 Aug 2005 20:29

b.b.:

They are not "sending code so poorly that a pimply-faced No-Code Tech with a
code reader..." can't read it, they are attempting to send so badly that a
computer running software coded by one both CW and computer savvy has set up--I
suspect they think themselves smarter than the computer... maybe... grin

Indeed, a very good programmer would inject "nuances" into the way the app
translated his keyboard code to morse, making it virtually impossible for them
to tell they were copying automaton generated code, at a very respectable
speed! grin

I would think it would be a game, an enjoyable one...

John, that discussion took place in here a few years ago, my
remarking on what I'd seen, lent my Icom HF receiver for an
air test, on an ADAPTIVE decoder for morse. It was written
by a professional programmer as an intellectual exercise for
his own benefit, just wondering if it could be done. The
ADAPTIVE part was in automatically adjusting to the differences
in weighting of dits and dahs, their combination resulting in
a word rate equivalent. The ADAPTIVE part took most of the
source code...the translation of morse characters to ASCII for
immediate display was a small, small part of the source, just
a small look-up table in effect. It was done on a medium-old
clock rate PC but would be a snap to work at a 2 GHz clock.

To reverse the process, to add weighting to dits and dahs, even
to having different weighting for different characters, is a
snap with a random number routine. That wasn't done, but is
viable without much alteration of the source.

The PCTA extras in here will have NONE of such things! They
will attempt to THRASH anyone in a monumental display of deus
ex machina worthy of the most devout Luddite. shrug

don dit

wrote:
an old friend wrote:
wrote:
What you folks are describing is just a form of RTTY using Morse Code
as the encoding method, rather than ASCII or Baudot or some other scheme.

indeed we are

Glad you agree

Of course it can be done, and has been done. Why it would be done is
another issue. It is certainly not a "better way".

that does depend on the goal, and the operator.

True enough.

Personaly I find the
idea of the manual morse and compter morse interacting the only
redeeming virtue of the mode (please I know you disagree but go along
for a minute)

It's just *one* good thing about Morse Code (the ease and flexibility
of
human-machine interface. There are many more good things (redeeming
virtues?) of Morse Code.

IYO

not in mine

it is a fact manual morse is quite useless to me and others


That someone could use the simple assembly of the QRP rig
to reach out to a station like mine reading fby machine and sending it
back the same way.

One more tool in the toolbox.

and yet you opose allowing me in the playing feild at all

My station is at least one if not several such tool but you don't wish
to allow it without ahvng that ONE tool


It is one the few occasion I can realy see much use
in the mode during an emergency gives the user the low signal abilities
of RTTY or PSK 31 but allowing the station in the affected area to
despense with a PC

If the operators know Morse Code, there's no reason for a PC at either
station.

agreed but so what

this doesn't justify keeping me from being there and using my sation to
help the pcles staion


Thus it is 'better" in some ways, indeed I am a much better operator of
computer morse than manual and it would make my staion a bteer station
by your standards (more modes more abilities)

In that regard, it is "better". But it is not universally "better",
just as an automobile is not universally "better" than a bicycle.

I have never said it was

it is your side that varies from stating or impling that Manaul is
always better which just isn't so


so where your beef?

The idea that machine operation is somehow universally better.

and my beef is your insitance that manual morse is always better


it is not your cup of tea sure fine

Consider a bicycle. If another wheel is added, the rider doesn't need
to worry about falling over, so the skill required to ride it is
greatly reduced.
Add a small gasoline engine and a suitable transmission, and
pedaling becomes much easier. A simple cover will protect the rider
from rain
and other inclement weather.

Eventually you wind up with a small, three-wheeled automobile that
could win
the Tour de France. Except it's not a bicycle anymore, and its rider
isn't
a cyclist by any stretch of the imagination.

Or consider the piano. Pianos and similar keyboard instruments have
been around
for hundreds of years. It takes considerable skill and practice to play
them, and
reading sheet music is a skill of its own.

With modern computers and software, however, one can simply have a
machine that
scans in the sheet music and turns it into a "performance" - without
all those
lessons, practice, etc.

break
all depends on what you want, to listen or to play

Point is, there's a big difference.

which by analogy is up to me. Id rather listen than play that tune

and what about Manual Morse justifies making ME play that tune?

an old friend wrote:
wrote:
an old friend wrote:
wrote:
What you folks are describing is just a form of RTTY using Morse Code
as the encoding method, rather than ASCII or Baudot or some other scheme.

indeed we are

Glad you agree

Of course it can be done, and has been done. Why it would be done is
another issue. It is certainly not a "better way".

that does depend on the goal, and the operator.

True enough.

Personaly I find the
idea of the manual morse and compter morse interacting the only
redeeming virtue of the mode (please I know you disagree but go along
for a minute)

It's just *one* good thing about Morse Code (the ease and flexibility
of
human-machine interface. There are many more good things (redeeming
virtues?) of Morse Code.

IYO

Not just my opinion. The good things about Morse Code are an
objective fact.

Of course that doesn't mean Morse Code *must* be tested, any
more than the good things about, say, a standard phonetic alphabet
means it must be tested.

not in mine

it is a fact manual morse is quite useless to me and others

If you have a mcahine that can interface with someone using manual
Morse Code, whom you otherwise could not contact at all, how can that
manula Morse Code be useless to you?

That someone could use the simple assembly of the QRP rig
to reach out to a station like mine reading fby machine and sending it
back the same way.

One more tool in the toolbox.

and yet you opose allowing me in the playing feild at all

That's simply not true!

All anyone has to do to get the license is to pass the required tests.

VEs are empowered to use all sorts of accomodations in the
tests (both written and Morse Code) if needed. In fact, a Morse
Code *sending* test can be substituted.

My station is at least one if not several such tool but you
don't wish to allow it without ahvng that ONE tool

I have no idea what you are trying to say.

It is one the few occasion I can realy see much use
in the mode during an emergency gives the user the low signal abilities
of RTTY or PSK 31 but allowing the station in the affected area to
despense with a PC

If the operators know Morse Code, there's no reason for a PC at either station.

agreed but so what

A tool that is with someone always is the most useful.

this doesn't justify keeping me from being there and using my
sation to help the pcles staion

No one is saying you cannot use a PC for Morse Code.

Thus it is 'better" in some ways, indeed I am a much better operator of
computer morse than manual and it would make my staion a bteer station
by your standards (more modes more abilities)

In that regard, it is "better". But it is not universally "better",
just as an automobile is not universally "better" than a bicycle.

I have never said it was

it is your side that varies from stating or impling that Manaul is always better which just isn't so

Where have *I* ever said Morse Code is always better?

so where your beef?

The idea that machine operation is somehow universally better.

and my beef is your insitance that manual morse is always better

*Where* have *I* said that?

it is not your cup of tea sure fine

Consider a bicycle. If another wheel is added, the rider doesn't need
to worry about falling over, so the skill required to ride it is
greatly reduced.
Add a small gasoline engine and a suitable transmission, and
pedaling becomes much easier. A simple cover will protect the rider
from rain
and other inclement weather.

Eventually you wind up with a small, three-wheeled automobile that
could win
the Tour de France. Except it's not a bicycle anymore, and its rider
isn't
a cyclist by any stretch of the imagination.

Or consider the piano. Pianos and similar keyboard instruments have
been around
for hundreds of years. It takes considerable skill and practice to play
them, and
reading sheet music is a skill of its own.

With modern computers and software, however, one can simply have a
machine that
scans in the sheet music and turns it into a "performance" - without
all those
lessons, practice, etc.

break
all depends on what you want, to listen or to play

Point is, there's a big difference.

which by analogy is up to me. Id rather listen than play that tune

and what about Manual Morse justifies making ME play that tune?

The same things about all the other things hams are required to learn.

--

Suppose you were given the following test:

You're sitting at a table with pencil and paper, and your choice of
speaker or headphones.

Through the headphones you hear a series of words spoken slowly and
clearly, spaced so there is one word every 2 seconds or so.

All you have to do is write down the first letter of each word.

The test always uses a standard phonetic alphabet, too.

So if you heard:

"Sierra....Tango.....Alpha.....Romeo.....Tango.... .....Whiskey.....India.....Tango.....Hotel"

you would write down

"START WITH..."

etc.

The test goes on for 5 minutes, but all you need is one minute correct
to pass the test.

Could you pass such a test? Is there anyone who can converse in
English, and who is literate in that language, who could not
pass such a test?



All the Morse Code test does is to replace the words with specific
sounds. Instead of "Sierra", for example, you would hear three short
beeps.

What is so impossible about that?

I could see that if someone had an auditory or cognition problem,
they might have trouble with both tests. But it seems incredible
that people who would have no trouble with the first claim the
second to be impossible, or even very difficult, for them.

Of course for some folks, "can't" actually means "won't" or
"don't want to".