What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

"Dr.Ace" wrote in
:


"Thats Right_ 20wpm" wrote in message
...
Slow Code is the kind of guy that everybodys hates on the air. He is
the Jammer because no one listens to him.


Probably because he doesn't have an amateur radio license .
Ace - WH2T




Tnx, 73, good luck in the contest.

SC

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

"Dr.Ace" wrote in
:

"john" wrote in message
...
Slow Code is a disgrace to Amateur Radio!

I doubt that SC even has a call sign .
Ace - WH2T


Tnx, 73, Good luck in the contest.

SC

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

wrote in message
ups.com...


[snip]



The late Dick Carrol/W0EX prided himself on being able to send code so
poorly that even a computer code reader couldn't copy him. This was in
order to prevent unworthy No-Code Technicians from eavesdropping on
him.


That was plain stupid. There's no need to try to send deliberately bad
code. Only the finest operators can send code well enough with a hand key
that a computer can copy it anyway. Only exceptionally good operators can
send well enough with a bug that a computer can copy it. Only very good
operators can send well enough with paddles that computers can copy it.
Basically a computer is good at copying computer generated code.

BTW, all the other Pro-Code Extras were good with it, coming up with
cool, old-timey sounding excuses for such bad behavoir. "Banana Boat
Swing" and "unique fist" were heard. A ham needn't try to produce CW
that meets the Morse Code specification for dots, dashes,
inter-dot/dash spacing, inter-character spacing, and inter-word spacing.


The "Banana Boat Swing" and "unique fist" existed long, long before
computers came along. These were simply operators with poor sending skills.
And they are a pain in the ear and brain to copy. I usually move on rather
than respond to them.

Dee, N8UZE

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

"Chris" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 20:14:03 -0400, Dee Flint
wrote:

... Only the finest operators can send code well enough with a hand key
that a computer can copy it anyway. Only exceptionally good operators
can
send well enough with a bug that a computer can copy it. Only very good
operators can send well enough with paddles that computers can copy it.
Basically a computer is good at copying computer generated code.

That may have been true in the 80's, back when people were just
getting started on the problem of copying CW with a personal computer,
but the algorithms have improved greatly since then, and they are now
quite good at copying manually generated Morse code. Even the area
where humans excelled - copying CW in the presence of QRM and QRN - is
now handled quite well by most modern algorithms. Currently, the most
popular program seems to be CwGet - a Windows program which Breakin
Magazine rates very highly. With gigahertz microprocessors and
built-in A/D converters, the modern PC is more than up to the task of
dealing with computations that were once only practical on mainframes.


I've tried CWGet and it doesn't copy the signals that I want to copy. It
still is subject to problems with QRN, QRM, QSB, and less than perfect
fists. It can't copy any of the signals distorted by aurora. So while it
is the best of the available programs, it still falls far short of a good
human operator. And I'm speaking from experience with the program. It's
not up to the task that I want it to do.


You can sit and struggle with trying to train yourself to receive 20
wpm Morse, or you can download and install CwGet and start copying the
high speed CW nets immediately. There's no longer any real need for a
human to be in the decoding loop, a sure sign of just how
anachronistic human-decoded CW really is. Samuel Morse originally
designed his code to be copied by machine, so in reality we're only
catching up with what he intended to do way back in the 1800's.

Already tried it. As I said while it is the best that is available, it is
still far below the capabilities of a human operator. I've tried it under a
wide range of conditions and CWGet still needs a pretty good signal to
function.

Dee, N8UZE

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

Dee Flint wrote:
"Chris" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 20:14:03 -0400, Dee Flint
wrote:

... Only the finest operators can send code well enough with a hand key
that a computer can copy it anyway. Only exceptionally good operators
can
send well enough with a bug that a computer can copy it. Only very good
operators can send well enough with paddles that computers can copy it.
Basically a computer is good at copying computer generated code.

That may have been true in the 80's, back when people were just
getting started on the problem of copying CW with a personal computer,
but the algorithms have improved greatly since then, and they are now
quite good at copying manually generated Morse code. Even the area
where humans excelled - copying CW in the presence of QRM and QRN - is
now handled quite well by most modern algorithms. Currently, the most
popular program seems to be CwGet - a Windows program which Breakin
Magazine rates very highly. With gigahertz microprocessors and
built-in A/D converters, the modern PC is more than up to the task of
dealing with computations that were once only practical on mainframes.


I've tried CWGet and it doesn't copy the signals that I want to copy. It
still is subject to problems with QRN, QRM, QSB, and less than perfect
fists. It can't copy any of the signals distorted by aurora. So while it
is the best of the available programs, it still falls far short of a good
human operator. And I'm speaking from experience with the program. It's
not up to the task that I want it to do.


You can sit and struggle with trying to train yourself to receive 20
wpm Morse, or you can download and install CwGet and start copying the
high speed CW nets immediately. There's no longer any real need for a
human to be in the decoding loop, a sure sign of just how
anachronistic human-decoded CW really is. Samuel Morse originally
designed his code to be copied by machine, so in reality we're only
catching up with what he intended to do way back in the 1800's.

Already tried it. As I said while it is the best that is available, it is
still far below the capabilities of a human operator. I've tried it under a
wide range of conditions and CWGet still needs a pretty good signal to
function.

Dee, N8UZE

Morse Myth #119: All CW signals are good signals (Its the corollary of
Morse Myth #1: CW always gets through).

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

Slow Code wrote:
wrote in

The late Dick Carrol/W0EX prided himself on being able to send code so
poorly that even a computer code reader couldn't copy him. This was in
order to prevent unworthy No-Code Technicians from eavesdropping on
him.

BTW, all the other Pro-Code Extras were good with it, coming up with
cool, old-timey sounding excuses for such bad behavoir. "Banana Boat
Swing" and "unique fist" were heard. A ham needn't try to produce CW
that meets the Morse Code specification for dots, dashes,
inter-dot/dash spacing, inter-character spacing, and inter-word spacing.

I miss W0EX.

SC

In a way, so do I.

I wished he wouldn't get so upset and accept that he wasn't going to
change my mind.

At least a difference of opinion with Dick didn't make someone a liar.

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

Slow Code wrote:

Improving your skills doesn't make you a better operator? Sheeesh.

Mike, skill. Singular. There is no skill test for any other mode.

You can still have your microphone, but you should have to pass a code
test before you're allowed to use it. I like 5 WPM for Tech, 13 for
General, and 20wpm for Extra, but then, I'm not lazy.

SC

You may not be lazy, but you're fully prepared to kill off amateur
radio with archaic requirements. I guess if you can't have the amateur
radio the way you want it, to hell with it all.

What is the ARRL's thought on having good amateurs?
 

wrote in message
ups.com...

Dee Flint wrote:
"Chris" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 20:14:03 -0400, Dee Flint
wrote:

... Only the finest operators can send code well enough with a hand
key
that a computer can copy it anyway. Only exceptionally good operators
can
send well enough with a bug that a computer can copy it. Only very
good
operators can send well enough with paddles that computers can copy
it.
Basically a computer is good at copying computer generated code.

That may have been true in the 80's, back when people were just
getting started on the problem of copying CW with a personal computer,
but the algorithms have improved greatly since then, and they are now
quite good at copying manually generated Morse code. Even the area
where humans excelled - copying CW in the presence of QRM and QRN - is
now handled quite well by most modern algorithms. Currently, the most
popular program seems to be CwGet - a Windows program which Breakin
Magazine rates very highly. With gigahertz microprocessors and
built-in A/D converters, the modern PC is more than up to the task of
dealing with computations that were once only practical on mainframes.


I've tried CWGet and it doesn't copy the signals that I want to copy. It
still is subject to problems with QRN, QRM, QSB, and less than perfect
fists. It can't copy any of the signals distorted by aurora. So while
it
is the best of the available programs, it still falls far short of a good
human operator. And I'm speaking from experience with the program. It's
not up to the task that I want it to do.


You can sit and struggle with trying to train yourself to receive 20
wpm Morse, or you can download and install CwGet and start copying the
high speed CW nets immediately. There's no longer any real need for a
human to be in the decoding loop, a sure sign of just how
anachronistic human-decoded CW really is. Samuel Morse originally
designed his code to be copied by machine, so in reality we're only
catching up with what he intended to do way back in the 1800's.

Already tried it. As I said while it is the best that is available, it
is
still far below the capabilities of a human operator. I've tried it
under a
wide range of conditions and CWGet still needs a pretty good signal to
function.

Dee, N8UZE

Morse Myth #119: All CW signals are good signals (Its the corollary of
Morse Myth #1: CW always gets through).



Unrelated to my comments.

No one has said all CW signals are good. If they were always good, CWGet
would always work, which it doesn't. The ones who tout the software
solution are those who wish that it would always work.

In addition, I have repeatedly stated that each and every mode has its
advantages and disadvantages. The extremists on each side don't want to
hear that.

Dee, N8UZE