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

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

- Swap (https://www.radiobanter.com/swap/)

- - If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die? (https://www.radiobanter.com/swap/98643-if-you-had-use-cw-save-someones-life-would-person-die.html)

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

rom: on Thurs, Aug 24 2006 6:39 pm

wrote in message
oups.com...
From: on Wed, Aug 23 2006 7:46 pm
wrote:
From: on Tues, Aug 22 2006 7:14 pm
wrote:
From: on Mon, Aug 21 2006 6:30 pm
wrote:
From: an old friend on Mon, Aug 21 2006 3:16 pm
wrote:
From: on Sun, Aug 20 2006 2:57 pm

In all my visits to USAF bases I've never seen any CAP
personnel there, let alone some in a poopy suit. I've seen
several civilians on USAF bases, employed by the USAF, wearing
flight suits and clearly identified as to being civilian.

Saturdays. They bring the kids in for a tour and a meal at the chow
hall.

OK, that explains it. :-) If I was on-site for some company
business, I wouldn't be there on weekends. :-)

Oh, I don't know. After a hard day behind the microphone, he's got
that 1,000 yard stare.

That's also a symptom of anoxia...lack of oxygen used up in
his bragging of what he did that never was... :-)

Tsk, all that work he does in trying to bluff us. All he had to
do was present SOME sort of document proof or even a personal
snapshot taken while in that "hostile-action-filled" 18 year
"career" in the USMC. He hasn't done so after many years.

If he can't present a single item of 18 years of his life, it
is hard for the rest of us to believe anything he said.

I don't believe his bs.

Any rational, sane person can't believe his claims. Hopefully,
that is most of us reading some of the garbage going on in here
now.

I found it uproarious that Robeson tried to cover up his NOT
naming a single military radio that was operational during his
alleged 18-year "USMC career," claiming "all the information is
classified!" :-)

Absolute bull****. The names, ID, functions have all been in
public view...the 'Public' being the makers or those wanting to
get in on an RFQ (Request for Quote) being advertised by the
DoD. Even though I never operated (as a civilian) anything
more than an old ARC-27 or PRC-119 SINCGARS, all the military
radios operational between the times of those two are easily
recognizeable to me (well, the VRCs have lots of differences
between families but the same case and general form). The
operating manuals are NOT classified, just in limited
distribution. LOGSA the Logistics Supply Agency is busy making
CDs of all the printed manuals for darn near ALL military
equipment; it's a piece of cake to pop one of those CDs in an
ever-present military PC and read them. LOGSA has a website
and even civilians can download some of the older equipment's
manuals. LOGSA has some internal priority on what can be
downloaded (depending on the cookie generated by a non-military
PC). That was a tip I got from rec.radio.amateur.boatanchors
and rec.radio.amateur.homebrew. The nomenclatures and quick-
look facts are on a couple websites in a long, long, long list.
Even BAMA has some manuals for free download plus big link
lists for other sites that have them.

Robesin DID list some (questionable) nomenclatures for MARS
equipment once but NOTHING else. That kind of info can be
had from other hams' personal websites. MARS doesn't
normally talk about regular military tactical radio gear.
MARS doesn't normally use such. :-)

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

On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 02:12:14 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Al Klein wrote:
As I said in another post, try that in Turkish. Or Latvian. Or any
other language you don't know a single word of.

Sorry, you first challenged me to do that in Spanish.

David's choice was Spanish. My choice was a language one couldn't
understand. Pay attention.

I have proved beyond any doubt that I can do that.
Your need to suddenly change languages on me speaks
volumes.

About your lack of content, yes.

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

Al Klein wrote:
On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 02:12:14 GMT, Cecil Moore
wrote:

Al Klein wrote:
As I said in another post, try that in Turkish. Or Latvian. Or any
other language you don't know a single word of.

Sorry, you first challenged me to do that in Spanish.

David's choice was Spanish. My choice was a language one couldn't
understand. Pay attention.

I have proved beyond any doubt that I can do that.
Your need to suddenly change languages on me speaks
volumes.

About your lack of content, yes.
nope your efforts to keep chaning to rules

it is tranperant as see though as your cowardly nature

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

"Dee Flint" wrote in
:

"Dave Oldridge" wrote in message
. ..

[snip]

Now, today, we have such things a PSK31 to do much of the grunt work.
That will work as well as CW in most cases, I find.

Don't forget thought that solar flares and especially the aurora they
create induce a phase shift in signals and that wipes out PSK31.

True, I've never had much success during 2 metere aurora openings with
anything BUT CW. It ain't CW by the time it gets to the other end, but
it's still readable there.

--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667

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

Al Klein wrote in
:

On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 19:54:37 GMT, "Woody" wrote:

"Dave Oldridge" wrote in message
. 159...
For CW to be effective, both operators
must be competent. IF they are, they can often transcend barriers
of language that only digital modes can get over. In my own case,
the fact that I could read CW and read written Spanish a bit once
enabled me to render aid to a burning fishing boat. (There were
other more routine examples of where the language barrier was
crossed by CW--many messages I copied were not in English at all,
but were readable by their end recipients).

OK.... so by your own words, CW still didn't save a life... CW mixed
with bad Spanish passed a message. So now we'll have to add a Spanish
test. Thanks a lot.

I think you missed the point. Even if you didn't know "ola" from
"adios", you can copy Spanish in CW and hand it to the recipient, who
can read it. Try that with a mic.

As for the language thing.... I can copy voice language and hand it
off to another native just as easy and they'll figure it out too.
No CW necessary.

Really? You can write a spoken language you don't understand well
enough to be read by someone who understands it? Maybe. Maybe not.
In CW, you can.

I can do it (and have done so) using phonetics. But that's SLOWER than
CW.

--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667

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

On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 18:22:21 GMT, Dave Oldridge
wrote:

Al Klein wrote in
:

Really? You can write a spoken language you don't understand well
enough to be read by someone who understands it? Maybe. Maybe not.
In CW, you can.

I can do it (and have done so) using phonetics. But that's SLOWER than
CW.

You're preaching to the choir, Dave. I've had to handle foreign
language traffic phonetically by voice and by CW - and I much prefer
CW for that kind of work, even though I prefer voice for most
rag-chewing. As you say, needing it spelled out is quite slow.

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

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

Cecil Moore wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
As I said in another post, try that in Turkish. Or Latvian. Or any
other language you don't know a single word of.

Sorry, you first challenged me to do that in Spanish.
I have proved beyond any doubt that I can do that.
Your need to suddenly change languages on me speaks
volumes.

But in what language? ;)

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

And ever so slowly we creep up on the *actual* point....

pick a freq, pick a mode, pick a language, pick a moment in time.
*Nothing* is perfect and CW or no CW, it's about circumstance, not code.
Then again, you can back it up one more and acknowledge the foolishness of
the whole CW argument.
As it stands, hams are so crazy they somehow think they are the only hope
for mankind.
I pray that farce never becomes fact!

Everything has it's place.
Ham radio is a novelty. CW is a novelty within the same. That's all....
As long as there are 40wpm ops out there that can't program a radio, it's
just a bunch of
ding-dongs arguing amongst each other, looking like a bunch of ding-dongs.
And it goes both ways.... no reason to ditch CW but this "my tapper is
faster than your tapper"
stupidity is just phallic and pathetic. Which finally brings us to the
overall problem...
As usual, the last word in any hammy hashing is the same.
Control freaks needing to feel in control, and the subject matters not.
That's why these goofy threads carry on forever.

rb

"Dave Oldridge" wrote in message
9...
"Woody" wrote in news:1o2Hg.19713$Te.3938@trnddc07:

"Dave Oldridge" wrote in message
9...
"Woody" wrote in
news:%RJGg.27319$uV.13889@trnddc08:

Did someone drop you on your head at birth? The reason 50wpm can
save lives is probably a bit complex for you to get both your
functioning neurons around, but believe me, having done CW for a
living for some decades I do know that it can save lives. And if
you're faster than the average bear at it, you can tell someone on
the scene things they need to know all that much faster.

Possibly, because try as I might, I can't really remember much about
that day.... I had pyloric stenosis, if that counts?

So apparently YOUR answer to this question is that you couldn't send
your name if your own life depended on it.

Now that's true... I'd require a CW setup of some kind in order to
send my name; or anything else for that matter.
Or as previously pointed out, hack up a headphone jack and tippy tap
the wires together. Either way, I don't see my life depending on it at
any time, so I'll just let my CW skills continue to rust.
However; your argument does make me wonder how non-hams even have a
chance at life in this world... ??

Believe me, I get it. I don't think CW ought to be mandatory and it
isn't where I live. I do think people who intend to use it should
learn how to use it properly, though. For CW to be effective, both
operators must be competent. IF they are, they can often transcend
barriers of language that only digital modes can get over. In my own
case, the fact that I could read CW and read written Spanish a bit
once enabled me to render aid to a burning fishing boat. (There were
other more routine examples of where the language barrier was crossed
by CW--many messages I copied were not in English at all, but were
readable by their end recipients).

OK.... so by your own words, CW still didn't save a life... CW mixed
with bad Spanish passed a message. So now we'll have to add a Spanish
test. Thanks a lot.

My point is, my bad Spanish might not have recognized the word "fuego" if
it was spoken fast among a lot of other words. But on CW it came across
loud and clear.

As for the language thing.... I can copy voice language and hand it
off to another native just as easy and they'll figure it out too.
No CW necessary.

Except you'll be a lot slower because you'll need phonetic spellings for
everything. Believe me, I know. I've done this. For a living for many
years.

BTW, I noticed you conveniently left out the specific year in which
said burning boat was offshore with an obsolete CW outfit, and how
your CW expertise put out a fire.... but I'm guessing we're talking
many a year ago, so again, a moot point.

Not that long ago, really. Early 1990's if I remember.

Actually,
The boat thing in general is really killing me... If these numb-nuts
are offshore and not on the correct USCG freqs and/or unaware of how
to properly tune their radios in an emergency, then it isn't CW saving
lives, it's the grace of God that somebody happened to be on their
freq at that time. But again, what boats are out there with a CW
rig???? That's crazy, bubba. :-) rb

This was on 500khz (and 484). CW was the mode of operation on those
frequencies until well into the 90's. Cheap SSB radios were plentiful.
So were some SITOR lashups. But what finally killed it was INMARSAT.

So now, instead of getting nailed by solar flares on HF, you get nailed
by them on INMARSAT and have to wait 6 to 9 months for a new launch.
Meanwhile you're limping along on SSB using a phonetic alphabet to send
traffic at a SLOWER rate.

--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667