N2EY wrote:

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:


N2EY wrote:


In article et, robert

casey

writes:



Besides, if something is digital, why would you have to try so hard to
make it computer compatible?


Telling "S" from "O" is hard if you don't already
know from looking at other characters what the speed
must be.



No, it's easy.



"S" is one time unit on, one time unit off, one time unit on, one time unit
off, one time unit on. Then at least three time units off.



"O" is three time units on, one time unit off, three time units on, one
time
unit off, three time units on. Then at least three time units off.


The only true ambiguity is between "E" and "T" sent all by themselves.
Unless
you know the speed from some other source, there's no way to tell them
apart.



Something easy for the brain but hard for
computers to do when the sender varies his speed.

Naw, just requires a bit more software.

hehe, software weenies say that a lot. Problem is not too many believe
them any more....


And let's not forget Farnsworth. This will confuse matters a bit.


Not at all. Farnsworth spacing only affects the space between letters/numbers,
not the space between dits and dahs. Hence any properly-designed decoder -
hardware, software or wetware - will deal with it easily.

like I said...


I
have seen CWGet confuse S for O until it "settles in".


Then CWGet needs some work. A human operator with basic skills will not make
that mistake. dididit doesn't sound anything like dahdahdah.


My guess is that Farnsworth Morse might be involved.


Naw, just a software problem.

Some times "just" can be quite a problem


But it is odd that a binary method requires all that software. ;^)

Who said it was binary?

Quite a few people it would seem.

But I think I have the confusion figured out. What is happening is that
people are starting by defining Morse code as a 2 state on and off
system, and trying to offer proof of that by suddenly changing that to a
base 2 system.


Something like that. Of course a binary system can deal with a lot more numbers
than 0 and 1.

Depends on the definition, hehe...


Can anyone offer a proof that does not switch between the two definitions?

Depends on your definitions.

My other post noted the different definitions. I'll let you check that
out before posting more.

It's like saying a balloon reaches an altitude of 100,000 feet. You have to
also say "above what?"

Above sea level. In most cases, that should be a given.

I cannot accept Morse as a two part on and off system because there are
more than two parts, as is made clear when people try to switch to base 2.


It's about time.

- Mike KB3EIA -