If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
 

I thought Id mention that one of the things that was overlooked in the
Titantic disccusion is the CW was not invovled it was spark gap used in
that Morse encoded spark


Actually that is not correct.
Within the original meaning of CW, the Titanic used a CW transmitter.
It was not a spark transmitter, the rf energy was produced by an alternator
which provided 'continuous' rf power, hence CW. The output was not a damped
wave that a spark transmitter would produce, but an interrupted 'continuous
wave' (from the alternator).

Regards
Jeff

Morris Code -plus- Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission -and-Semaphore Signals ? Do They Defining Amateur Radio ?
 

Like your link says, it's MORSE code, as in Samuel F. B. Morse. Who's
Morris?

Scott


RHF wrote:

SC,

Morris Code -plus- Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission
-and- Semaphore Signals ? Do They Defining Amateur Radio ?
- - - The Times They Are A Changing !

While I can admire and respect an Amateur {HAM} Radio Operator
for Mastering Morris Code (CW).

Morris Code in and of itself does not define the Amateur Radio Service.


Morris Code
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morse_code

Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission 'process' in
and of itself does not define the Amateur Radio Service.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuous_wave

The Amateur Radio Service is Greater than both Morris Code
and Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission - IMHO ~ RHF

Boy Scout Merit Badge Requirements - "RADIO"
http://www.meritbadge.com/mb/093.htm
At one time when I was a very young boy nd a Boy Scout
I Learned to Send and Receive Morris Code at about 5WPM
-but- Then I also learned to use Flags to Send Hand-Flag
"Semaphore" Signals Too !
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semaphore_(communication)
Neither the ability to use Morris Code or the Semaphone
Flags to Communicate 'defined' Being A Boy Scout.


just an old boy scout at heart ~ RHF
.
.
. .

Slow Code wrote:

(Fred McKenzie) wrote in
:


In article , "Alun L.
Palmer" wrote:


Assuming some weird contrived scenario where I had the equipment to
send CW but not phone, it would depend what frequencies it worked on.

I think this is the nature of the premise on which the original post was
based.

Compare it to a similar situation, where a film camera user is debating
a digital camera user:

"If you came upon a drowning man, and you had to choose whether to save
him or photograph his demise, what kind of film would you use?"


Getting rid of CW is like choosing the kind of film.

Ham radio is drowning and the anti-code hams want us to think tossing it
bricks will make it float better. Dumbing things down is never an
improvement.

SC

Morris Code -plus- Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission -and-Semaphore Signals ? Do They Defining Amateur Radio ?
 

David G. Nagel wrote:
Actually the Code that Sam developed is completely unlike the code we
use on radio. What is tested for is the "International Morse Code"
Sam's code was click based and radio is beep based.

Sam's original equipment used ink and scrolling paper to
record the dots and dashes because he didn't think an
ordinary human being could distinguish between the sound
of the dots and the sound of the dashes. He was wrong.
Human operators quickly discovered that they could distinguish
the difference between the down clicks and up clicks and
therefore distinguish the dots from the dashes.

It is true that Sam's "American" Morse was different from
"International" Morse in about a dozen characters but both
used dots and dashes. Still, more characters were alike
than were different.

The term "lid" may have originated from newbie Morse operators
laying a lid on top of the relay receiver to make it easier to
distinguish the dots from the dashes.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Morris Code -plus- Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission -and- Semaphore Signals ? Do They Defining Amateur Radio ?
 

Cecil Moore wrote:
David G. Nagel wrote:
Actually the Code that Sam developed is completely unlike the code we
use on radio. What is tested for is the "International Morse Code"
Sam's code was click based and radio is beep based.

Sam's original equipment used ink and scrolling paper to
record the dots and dashes because he didn't think an
ordinary human being could distinguish between the sound
of the dots and the sound of the dashes. He was wrong.
Human operators quickly discovered that they could distinguish
the difference between the down clicks and up clicks and
therefore distinguish the dots from the dashes.
oridinary humans HMM is it realy proven that ordinary human can do it
by ear Cecil or merely proven that enough to man the telagraphs of the
day could do so?

If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
 

On 18 Jul 2006 15:07:01 -0700, "an old freind"
wrote:

a thread related not

I thought Id mention that one of the things that was overlooked in the
Titantic disccusion is the CW was not invovled it was spark gap used in
that Morse encoded spark

For the duration of a dash, spark is CW. Maybe slightly damped, but
still CW.

Morris Code -plus- Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission -and- Semaphore Signals ? Do They Defining Amateur Radio ?
 

On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 10:48:14 +0000, Scott
wrote:

Like your link says, it's MORSE code, as in Samuel F. B. Morse. Who's
Morris?

Morris is also known as C. W. Katt.

Morse Code -plus- Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission -and- Semaphore Signals ? Do They Defining Amateur Radio ?
 

Telamon wrote in
:

He is a Troll that creates endless cross posted threads about CW to
radio listening and scanner news groups.


SWL's should learn CW too.

You never know when you might stumple across a station in distress sending
an SOS and you might be the only one that hears it and can get help.

But it seems all SWL's want to do is sit around like blobs all day long
and tell themselves their cheap plastic Etons and Grundigs sound good.
They don't want radio skills if it takes a little work to learn them.

I'm guessing that's why Telamon hates CW and ham radio as well. Laziness.

SC

Morse Code -plus- Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission -and- Semaphore Signals ? Do They Defining Amateur Radio ?
 

Slow Code wrote:
Telamon wrote in
:

He is a Troll that creates endless cross posted threads about CW to
radio listening and scanner news groups.


SWL's should learn CW too.

You never know when you might stumple across a station in distress sending
an SOS and you might be the only one that hears it and can get help.
who would be sbe equiped to send such an SOS SC? you want to imporve
the toene of NG

get off your ass and stop troling looking for a fight

bless you and grant new mental health to you

soon

Morse Code -plus- Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission -and-Semaphore Signals ? Do They Defining Amateur Radio ?
 

Slow Code wrote:
SWL's should learn CW too.
You never know when you might stumple across a station in distress sending
an SOS and you might be the only one that hears it and can get help.

SWL's normally listen to AM stations.
How would they hear a CW station?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Morse Code -plus- Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission -and-Semaphore Signals ? Do They Defining Amateur Radio ?
 

an old freind wrote:

CW gets through no matter what AM FM XM TV IBOC no matter the mode cw
gets trough even without a tranmitter for that vital signal SOS


You have, what we call in the midwest, a MORON CHIP problem.

The part of your brain that keeps you from being a total moron, is broken.

tom
K0TAR