Their are several CW tutorial programs that you can download for free. Plus
the ARRL transmissions.

Bill, N5NOB

Good questions, RHF, but I think you answered them all. G

The thing about the @ sign, there was no option for that special character. And
it does look kind of like an A inside a C.

I do think WWW should have a more convenient form. I suppose when it was sent
in a certain context, a single W would be understood. Maybe a W3... Unless
one's call sign begins with that. G

Bill, K5BY

MK,

But... [IF] "W W W" (.-- .-- .--) were transformer by the ITU into a
PROSIGN for the "World Wide Web" then it would be "www" (.--.--.--) .

That is the nature of Prosigns ( I Think ? )


Bill [K5BY],

I did not visualize the "a" within a "C" for the [ @ ].

But now that it has been pointed out the Prosign "AC" (.--.-.)

Does make a lot of sense now - So (.--.-.) for [ @ ] it is.

..

~ RHF
..
..
= = = (Mark Keith)
= = = wrote in message . com...
(RHF) wrote in message


2. I would think that the "DOT" (Period) would simply be the
* CW "Period" (.-.-.-) {6}
* Vice Spelling Out "DOT" in CW as (-.. --- -) {9}

I would use .-.-.- if it were me doing it... Same as it's written.


3. Question: How is the [World Wide Web] Anagram "WWW" sent ?
? Simply as "W W W" (.-- .-- .--) the three separate Letters.
? Or simply as "www" (.--.--.--) a compress 'www' Prosign.

.-- .-- .-- Shouldn't ever run together normal letters...


MK
..

"WShoots1" wrote in message
...

[snip]


I do think WWW should have a more convenient form. I suppose when it
was sent
in a certain context, a single W would be understood. Maybe a W3...
Unless
one's call sign begins with that. G

Bill, K5BY

How about 3W, then? There won't be any conflict with 3WE, now that
they're WTAM again.

Frank Dresser

In article ,
"Henry Kolesnik" wrote:

Anyone got any good frequencies aside from the ham bands that send good CW?
I'm tyring to get my code speed up after years dormancy.
tnx
han wd5jfr



20 years ago, sonny, ya could've listened to any number of maritime CW
stations from all corners of the globe. Not today, unfortunately.

Dave

If you want to get your code speed up, you're probably best listening in
the ham bands.

Hams don't send perfect code, especially with straight keys (hell, we're
human like anyone else) -- and band conditions aren't necessarily optimum on
there -- QRM, QRS, etc. so if you can pull some signals out of the hash on
there and copy them, you will develop code speed better and faster than if
you listened to W1AW or some mechanical code sending system.


"Dave Moorman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Henry Kolesnik" wrote:

Anyone got any good frequencies aside from the ham bands that send good
CW?
I'm tyring to get my code speed up after years dormancy.
tnx
han wd5jfr



20 years ago, sonny, ya could've listened to any number of maritime CW
stations from all corners of the globe. Not today, unfortunately.

Dave

In article ,
says...
I have it, and it's neat and unique but I want to copy real information.

Check the ARRL website for their net schedules. There should be several
slow-speed traffic nets listed for HF. Monitor some of those and you
will have plenty of "real" practice.

--

-- //Steve//

Steve Silverwood, KB6OJS
Fountain Valley, CA
Email: