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.