|
WPM to BPS calculation
Phil Kane wrote:
Klystron wrote: Thus, a pile of old, junkyard computers will do the job quite well and at an aggregate cost of $20 to $100 in total. Four such computers in a single box would be ideal for the way I run my ham data-modes (packet/PACTOR/APRS/BPSK31 setup - 24/7 each). Too bad we can't get that in a box the size of a toaster at a price that is less than $100. The 'box the size of a toaster' part is out, but could you settle for 4 old blade servers, 1U size each, in a rack mount? If so, find a surplus property auction in your area (large state university, government agency, etc.) and you will probably be able to pick up something along those lines. -- Klystron |
WPM to BPS calculation
|
WPM to BPS calculation
In article ,
Phil Kane wrote: Something must have changed (or been fixed) then - we made measurements about three years ago and there was about six seconds offset - an eternity for accurate time measurements. 340 nanoseconds we can tolerate. Six seconds we can't. It's changed. GPS and UTC now differ by 14 seconds, according to http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/gpstt.html. This is because GPS time does not include leap seconds. This 14 second difference is part of the GPS broadcast, so can easily be backed out of the GPS time data to produce UTC. Once corrected, the UTC values have the stated accuracy. Don't be confused by the latency of some GPS units in producing time/fix products. I've seen them produce fixes several seconds later. That's why the time is included in postition data, so you know when you were there. If you want time from your GPS, you need either the 1PPS pulse output or a unit with a known and predictable period from real time to character output. For many uses, simply assuming that the first character of the output string (NMEA) occurs at the time in the message is adequate, but that's not going to get you your 340ns accuracy. For example, I am using a Trimble Acutime to feed an home-brew time demon. Tests comparing system time from this demon to ntp stratum 1 servers gave a few millisecond difference. Good enough for me. |
WPM to BPS calculation
Phil Kane wrote:
On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 00:10:13 EDT, wrote: Each GPS sattelite has it's own on board atomic clock and the system can easily provide UTC with accuracy on the few microseconds level with an ultimate limit of +/- 340 nanoseconds using an appropriate receiver and hardware. Something must have changed (or been fixed) then - we made measurements about three years ago and there was about six seconds offset - an eternity for accurate time measurements. 340 nanoseconds we can tolerate. Six seconds we can't. -- The only thing that has changed since the first sattelite launched is that the accuracy degrading dither for civilian use was removed about 7 years ago. With the dither the time accuracy was in the range of tens of microseconds. Whereever you were getting your six seconds of error from, it wasn't from the GPS system. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
WPM to BPS calculation
Phil Kane wrote:
On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 18:13:01 EDT, AF6AY wrote: The only problem there is that it ALSO is a 'set-up' kind of 'test' (any touch-typist on a TTY would 'win') and has very little entertainment value. My secretary at March AFB (early 1960s) could and did type faster than the Model 28 could cut tape. It frustrated her no end. My cohort at the old U.S. Embassy in Guinea-Bissau and I could jam one up as well. Nothing like poking tape on numerous multi-page outgoing cables five or six days per week to build typing speed and technique. The 28's were set up so that we never saw what we typed appear on paper. If you really wanted to check your work, you'd have to gather up the perf tape and look at it. Those machines were replaced just after I left Bissau in late 1987. I took the very last State Department 28 in Africa out of service in Sierra Leone in 1990. We had to destroy the innards, but a colleague wanted the cabinet. He re-worked the thing and turned it into a bar in his living room. His wife arrived at post a couple of months later and the new bar was quickly relegated to the fellow's ham shack. During my early time at State, most places were using Teletype Model 40 equipment with the three 8" disk drives and the fastest, most rugged impact printer I'd ever seen. That stuff was gradually replaced by computer equipment in the 1987 to 1992 time frame. I ran a Model 15 in Cincy and also had a Model 33 for a while. I wanted a 28 with the 3-speed gear shift badly. W8JIN offered me one long after I'd begun using a Commodore C-64. I gave it about thirty seconds thought before rejecting it as too big and heavy. Len's point about touch typists winning a speed contest with Morse ops would depend entirely upon how fast the typist was. The second junior op I had in Bissau would have been lucky to do 30 wpm on a keyboard. With the teletype model 40 stuff, there was not any typing of cables at all. Secretaries typed the cable and they were fed into an OCR. The operator might have to correct a formatting error or the occasional misread character. With the advent of the classified LAN's and the computerized equipment, drafters would electronically release cable text and addressees to the communications center and the ops would send the messages. Incoming traffic was routed in the same way, mostly automatically. Anything not understood by the computer would route to a 'spill que' to be manually assigned action and info offices. Occasionally the Deputy Chief of Mission would telephone or e-mail a request that the action office for a given cable be changed. By then, part of our work involved keeping message router databases (the military addressees--especially Navy--could change frequently) up to date. The computerization was supposed to result in the paperless office. It didn't. The stuff was just printed somewhere other than in the comm center. Dave K8MN |
WPM to BPS calculation
On Mar 24, 5:10�pm, Klystron wrote:
wrote: Klystron wrote: Are you familiar with the Internet-based ntp system? Such a system requires connectivity to the internet. WWVB does not; just requires a receiver. A computer running ntpd can get metrology-grade time service from radio signals. ntpd can use radio only, Internet only or both. That is more complex and costly than a $50 wris****ch or wall clock, however. And it takes a lot more attention than simply keeping batteries in it. There is probably no purpose for which Morse can be used as a machine language where there isn't a choice of other, better suited languages available. Yes, there is: Any application where the sender or listener may be a human rather than a machine, and where an interface like a keyboard/screen isn't practical. I take it that you don't know what "machine language" is. Actually, I do. Humans are not supposed to be involved. Why not? If they are, it's not machine to machine communications. Why does it matter? Morse Code can be machine-to-machine, machine-to-human, human-to-machine, or human-to-human. That's a big plus. When you look at the development of the Internet, Linux and other free software, you have to wonder about the infrastructure behind it. How did it come about? There was no regulatory body. Actually there was and is. "The internet" as we know it could not exist without certain legislation that made it possible, and a huge commercial investment of communications infrastructure to support it. What we call "the internet" developed from ARPANET, which was a DoD thing, just like GPS. Swords into plowshares and all that. � �Utter hogwash. It wasn't developed from ARPANET? It started out as a network of Universities and a few defense contractors' laboratories. DoD funded, then. Maybe not directly, but still DoD funded. It wasn't a bunch of self-funded basement experimenters. Much of the funding came from the individual Universities. The contribution of the government (via the defense contractors) was not absolutely necessary. But it was there. Besides, after the Tappan worm incident, the networks were split into ARPAnet and DARPAnet (with a "D," as in defense). The public Internet is descended from the s mall slice of that pie. How does that make what I wrote "utter hogwash" in any way? There were no licenses. There were no "Elmers." Actually, there were, just not in the same form as in radio. The licenses were regulations; the Elmers were people who developed easier-to-use systems. � �Again, that is preposterous nonsense. Why? Was there no legislation needed to make the internet as we know it possible? Was there no one working to make it easier to use? Until recently, there wasn't even any formal schooling available, except on the sort of machinery that existed only within the Fortune 500. Early Internet users and developers had to read O'Reilly books and figure it out on their own. How do you define "recently"? I got started online in 1997, and "the internet" had only been publicly available for a few years at that point. � �The Internet opened to the general public in 1993 and 1 994. 14-15 years ago. So I got online 3 to 4 years after the beginning. At that time, there were essentially no courses at accredited Universities that covered UNIX, TCP/IP, the Internet or related topics. No courses in UNIX at all? You had to learn it on your own. The Universities mainly taught MVS and 360/370 architecture. That showed great initiative. It demonstrated the sort of determined, driven advancement of technology that was once seen in amateur radio. The internet was and is a commercial enterprise. Amateur radio was never such an enterprise, by its very nature. The Internet was not commercial in origin. When I first gained access, I had to sign an agreement not to use it for commercial purposes. Sending out for pizza via e-mail would have been a violation and would have resulted in account cancellation. But than, that was long ago. Spam hadn't been invented yet. And how long did that no-commercial-use restriction last? It was long gone in 1997. The infrastructure that is being wasted on Morse includes band segments that have, until recently, been reserved for its exclusive use. What band segments are those, specifically? In the USA, there have been no Morse-code-exclusive-use band segments (except on 6 and 2 meters) for many years. � �The CW bands were those band segments that excluded voi ce. But they have included data modes like RTTY for more than 46 years. Every Hz of them. You claimed: "infrastructure that is being wasted on Morse includes" band segments that have, until recently, been reserved for its exclusive use." Note the terms "is being wasted" and "until recently". But no such band segments (except 2.5% of 6 and 2 meters) have existed for at least 46 years. Not only that, but modes besides FSK RTTY have been common on the HF amateur bands since at least the early 1980s. Until fairly recently, there was no such thing as "data." Please define "fairly recently". 10 years? 20 years? 46 years? All of the non-voice parts of the bands have been open to data modes for decades. That hams didn't use them much 30-40 years ago wasn't because of Morse Code. There was some RTTY, but it was never a major issue. When? For many decades, the traffic in the HF ham bands was SSB voice or CW. Hams began using SSB voice in the early 1930s. It became more popular in the late 1940s and really took off in the late 1950s-early 1960s. But there was also AM voice, narrowband FM voice, RTTY, SSTV, and even some FAX. A pie chart would show a very small slice labeled "other." Perhaps, 30-40 years ago. Think about why that was. It wasn't because of Morse Code. It will be interesting to see what the marketplace does to code tapes and code keys. There are more keys on the market now than when I became a ham 40 years ago. What about code tapes? How much longer will they last? They've been largely replaced by Morse Code training software, like G4FON's. No need to buy tapes anymore, just download some free software and make your own. Or download files to your MP3 player or iPod. My guess is that those keys are sold only to replace other keys. My observation is that a considerable number are sold to new hams who want to *use* Morse Code on the air. Is that wrong? Should hams not learn, use or promote Morse Code anymore? I doubt that there are very many first time key buyers today. I know a couple. And since the usable life of a key is measured in decades, the need for replacements is pretty limited. And consider this: There are a considerable number of companies making CW-only or CW-centric low-power HF amateur transceivers. They are being sold in the tens of thousands. For example, a new company called Elecraft appeared in 1999 selling a CW-only QRP HF transceiver *kit* for a bit under $600. To date, more then 6000 have been sold, with minimal advertising. The company later produced other CW-only transceiver kits, and they have sold well with minimal advertising. I only know for certain of one country that had a no-code-test HF amateur radio license before 2003. There may be others, but not many. Japan has long had a nocodetest HF amateur license called the 4th class. But that license was and is limited to low power levels (10 watts) and to parts of the amateur bands which are worldwide exclusively allocated to amateurs. Japan's claim was that the treaty exists to prevent interference between users of different radio services and between users of the same radio service in different countries. � �So you admit that different countries interpreted their treaty obligations in different ways? I know that Japan used that logic to get around the ITU-R treaty requirement. Do you know of *any* other country (besides Japan) that had a nocodetest amateur radio license with HF privileges before 2003? Would you have preferred that FCC violate the treaty? Or create a license class similar to Japan's 4th class? �I'm not going to spend a lot of time doing your research for you, but there was more then one treaty and those treaties expired or were modified over a period of years. I have researched the subject. The treaty in question is the ITU-R treaty, to which the USA is a signatory. That's not just my opinion; it's what the FCC has repeatedly written in its Report and Orders. Before July 2003, in part S25.5, the ITU-R treaty required that all amateur licenses which grant privileges below 30 MHz had to have Morse Code tests. That requirement was made optional at WRC 2003. Signatory countries could retain Morse Code testing or eliminate it, as they chose. Some have chosen to reduce or eliminate it. Others have not. No-code HF licenses came about over time in a number of countries. How many countries besides Japan had them before July 2003? How many have them now? The US was either one of the last to drop code or was dead last to do so. Japan still requires Morse Code for First Class licenses. Canadians have the option of passing a Morse Code test or getting a higher score on the written exam. Most of the countries in the former Soviet Union still require Morse Code testing. In any event, here in the USA: - there has been a nocodetest amateur radio license for more than 17 years - all classes of amateur license have been available for just a 5 wpm test for 18 years with medical waiver, and for almost 8 years without such a waiver. - Morse Code testing has been completely gone for more than a year. Yet US amateurs continue to use the mode extensively. Some use it exclusively. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
WPM to BPS calculation
In article ,
Klystron wrote: Phil Kane wrote: Something must have changed (or been fixed) then - we made measurements about three years ago and there was about six seconds offset - an eternity for accurate time measurements. 340 nanoseconds we can tolerate. Six seconds we can't. Could "selective availability" have anything to do with that? No. |
WPM to BPS calculation
Klystron wrote:
Phil Kane wrote: Something must have changed (or been fixed) then - we made measurements about three years ago and there was about six seconds offset - an eternity for accurate time measurements. 340 nanoseconds we can tolerate. Six seconds we can't. Could "selective availability" have anything to do with that? It was turned off about 7 years ago and even then just put the ultimate accuracy in the low microsecond range. GPS has never been off by six seconds. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
WPM to BPS calculation
On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 18:10:15 EDT, Klystron wrote:
GPS can only be used where the satellites can be "seen" by the receiver. In or near the continental US, that is not an issue. It is a big issue in my comm room which is partially underground with concrete walls (what they call a "daylight basement" here) where neither WWVB nor GPS signals penetrate. I have not yet found an "atomic clock" (either digital or analog) that has an external antenna collection - they may exist but not at the consumer level. The consumer-grade clocks that I have sync well on the "upper" story but do not hold their accuracy for long. And to add insult to injury, the analog wall clock that I use by intent has a face with the marine "silent period" and "auto alarm" markings, a configuration well known to shipboard radio operators. For a $20 quartz clock it keeps time remarkably well, considering that I have to manually adjust it at "DST" time changes anyhow. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon e-mail: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net |
WPM to BPS calculation
On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 18:10:15 EDT, Klystron wrote:
What about code tapes? How much longer will they last? My guess is that those keys are sold only to replace other keys. I doubt that there are very many first time key buyers today. Within the last two years I bought a set of keyer paddles to complement the 60-year-old J-38 key that I refurbished. And I'm not a "Valiant Morseman" (tm - Len Anderson) by any means. "Out here" many of the teenagers who become new hams through one means or another take the CW classes that our radio club gives if for no other reason than it's a "thing" that many of their contemporaries who use cellphones for calls and texting can't do. One-upsmanship still lives. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon e-mail: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net |
WPM to BPS calculation
Phil Kane wrote:
Klystron wrote: I take it that you don't know what "machine language" is. Humans are not supposed to be involved. If they are, it's not machine to machine communications. Ham radio is supposed to be human-to-human communications, not machine-to-machine communications. He gave an example of Morse being used to encode transponder identification, thus proving the continuing need for Morse. I countered that transponder ID's are read by machines (the computers that drive video displays), not by humans and, therefore, any machine language would do. In fact, a REAL machine language would probably be better suited to the task. Please, let's not lose the context. -- Klystron |
WPM to BPS calculation
On Mar 24, 8:44 pm, Phil Kane wrote:
On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 18:10:15 EDT, Klystron wrote: I take it that you don't know what "machine language" is. Humans are not supposed to be involved. If they are, it's not machine to machine communications. Ham radio is supposed to be human-to-human communications, not machine-to-machine communications. according to whom? indeed I would say most of Ham use is Machine to human interestion wether by watching my R/C aircraft fly (as well as to to send my comands to it) as though I was on board or my interaction with the fairly lifely packet system that survives in this where I interact with with people but very often not in real time at all or looking at what recent didx aprs staion I can see as a guide t where I might be able to send a signal frankly phil you seem to over looking a lot of ham radio |
WPM to BPS calculation
Mark Kramer wrote:
In article , Phil Kane wrote: Something must have changed (or been fixed) then - we made measurements about three years ago and there was about six seconds offset - an eternity for accurate time measurements. 340 nanoseconds we can tolerate. Six seconds we can't. It's changed. GPS and UTC now differ by 14 seconds, according to http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/gpstt.html. This is because GPS time does not include leap seconds. If you read the whole thing, you find there are several differences betweeen the raw time and UTC. This 14 second difference is part of the GPS broadcast, so can easily be backed out of the GPS time data to produce UTC. Once corrected, the UTC values have the stated accuracy. All the offsets from UTC and their values are in the NAV message. Most receivers do that adjustment automaticaly as UTC is what most end users want. Now, if you have some receiver that outputs the raw uncorrected stuff or a home brew receiver without the corrections... That would be a case of RTFM. Don't be confused by the latency of some GPS units in producing time/fix products. I've seen them produce fixes several seconds later. That's why the time is included in postition data, so you know when you were there. If you want time from your GPS, you need either the 1PPS pulse output or a unit with a known and predictable period from real time to character output. For many uses, simply assuming that the first character of the output string (NMEA) occurs at the time in the message is adequate, but that's not going to get you your 340ns accuracy. Most cheap receivers are either optimized for position or time, not both, so it pays to read the spec sheet carefully. For example, I am using a Trimble Acutime to feed an home-brew time demon. Tests comparing system time from this demon to ntp stratum 1 servers gave a few millisecond difference. Good enough for me. That's one that has been optimized for time, so a good choice for your application. A bit of attention to details could get you into the microsecond range, but for the majority of people not necessary. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
WPM to BPS calculation
On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 23:32:10 EDT, Klystron wrote:
The 'box the size of a toaster' part is out, but could you settle for 4 old blade servers, 1U size each, in a rack mount? No rack mount space available, but it sounds good. My (step)son is the IT guy at a well-known audio test equipment manufacturer and has those sort of contacts. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon e-mail: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net |
WPM to BPS calculation
|
WPM to BPS calculation
Klystron wrote:
Phil Kane wrote: Klystron wrote: I take it that you don't know what "machine language" is. Humans are not supposed to be involved. If they are, it's not machine to machine communications. Ham radio is supposed to be human-to-human communications, not machine-to-machine communications. He gave an example of Morse being used to encode transponder identification, thus proving the continuing need for Morse. I countered that transponder ID's are read by machines (the computers that drive video displays), not by humans and, therefore, any machine language would do. In fact, a REAL machine language would probably be better suited to the task. Please, let's not lose the context. I missed that; what kind of transponders? Certainly not aircraft transponders as they have no morse id. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
WPM to BPS calculation
Phil Kane wrote:
On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 23:34:08 EDT, wrote: GPS provides a better frequency standard that WWV. "Standard frequencies" are defined in the International Radio Regulations of the ITU. On which Standard Frequency does the GPS system operate? Irrelevant to the issue. In any case, there have been several articles in the HAM press on moding surplus telco GPS time/frequency standands for HAM use. The usual output is 10 MHz with a lot better performance than anything a crystal can provide. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
WPM to BPS calculation
Phil Kane wrote:
My secretary at March AFB (early 1960s) could and did type faster than the Model 28 could cut tape. It frustrated her no end. I can send Morse Code a lot faster than I can text message on my cellphone. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
WPM to BPS calculation
On Mar 24, 6:13 pm, AF6AY wrote:
Paul Schleck posted on 24 Mar 08: AF6AY writes: According to this recent demonstration on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhsSgcsTMd4 Ahem...quibble mode on...that little bit on the Tonight Show was a 'setup' gig that employed two young local male actors as the (described) "text messaging experts" No, it wasn't. They were not actors. In the clip, the sending text messager is described by Jay Leno as "the country's fastest text messager" and his name is given as "Ben Cook". He says his record is sending a 160 character message in 57 seconds. Those facts can be verified by watching the clip. 160 characters in 57 seconds at 5 characters per word works out to approximately 33.68 wpm. 160 characters in 57 seconds at 6 characters per word (allowing for spaces between words) works out to approximately 28.07 wpm. The current Guinness Book of World Records for a 160 character message is 41 seconds. That works out to about 46.83 and 39.02 wpm for 5 and 6 characters-per-word, respectively. All are well below the world-record Morse Code speed, or the speed of skilled Morse Code operators. The 160 character message used in the text-message speed-record attempts is a standard message previously disclosed, so that all attempts use the same message. The Leno test used a message unknown to any of the participants. but the two hams (one of which would very soon become marketing director for Heil Sound) were real. That is the input I got directly from a reliable staffer on the Tonight Show. Whom you do not name, so his information cannot be verified independently. Took a few phone calls to get that information but it is an advantage of living inside the entertainment capital of the USA (aka Los Angeles, CA)...and the NBC western Hq is only about 5 miles south of my place, down Hollywood Way to Alameda and then east about a mile. What difference does that make? That whole bit was really a send-up on the popular fad of text messaging done by teeners and young adults. That bit is about as 'real documentary' as Leno's send-ups on the 'street interviews' with ordinary (apparently clueless) younger folk on various kinds of knowledge. In short, ONLY for gag purposes. Sorry, but I've got to call baloney on this one. The individual who appeared on the Tonight Show who sent the text message was actually Ben Cook, and not an actor. Ben held the world's record for fastest text messaging: If you say so, then it is so. No, it has been verified by several independent sources, including people who were actually there and part of the test. That 'recent demonstration' was over a year ago, was it not? Yes - what difference does that make? The video clip can be reviewed for confirmation. "The Tonight Show with Jay Leno" is an entertainment vehicle. It is not a documentary source of absolute facts. Yet the facts are clear: Neither the text message sender nor the Morse Code operators were actors, according to named people who were actually there. The two Morse code operators, Chip Margelli, K7JA, and Ken Miller, K6CTW, have attested to this being an actual contest with an actual, previously unknown, message to send, which was sent both by Morse code, and by text messaging. And there's no disputing that fast Morse code would always beat an SMS text message of the same length. I have corresponded with Mr. Margelli in his new position as Director of Marketing for Heil Sound...about Heil products, not about this alleged 'test' or 'contest' on the 'Leno show.' Yet you use the word "alleged" and imply he is wrong when he says the text-messager was not an actor. I have NO complaints about Mr. Margelli's nor Mr. Miller's capabilities with manual morse code communications. OK so far. I only have complaints about this entertainment gig being used as 'factual demonstration' of any comparison of manual morse code versus any other mode. Why? What are the complaints? What was not factual about the demonstration? Do you think that text messaging is faster than Morse Code done by skilled operators? The text-messaging sender has been identified as a record-holder named Ben Cook. The record text-messge speed is below that of skilled Morse Code operators, and the text-messager simply lost the speed race. Not just on the show, but in rehearsals. The two Morse Code operators, K7JA and K6CTW, have publicly and privately said it was a real test. Are they not telling the truth? Why should anyone believe your account of an unnamed ex-staffperson, and not believe two identified people who were actual participants? Two named witnesses would appear to trump one anonymous source. Therefore, your anonymous "reliable staffer" seems anything but. I cannot argue your statements or 'baloney' comments in this venue. Why not? What's wrong with "this venue"? My original source is now working for another show. No more access to Tonight show records is possible. If you or any other morse code mode champion say it was a 'real test,' then it must be a real test. What was wrong with the test? Given the evidence, why would any reasonable person say it was not a real test? As to the efficacy claim that manual morse code communications beats cellular telephone textual-only (by keypad) communications, I do not know of a single communications service or provider that uses 'text' (via cellphone) for two-way communications. Mine does. When I receive a text message, the cellphone display shows "reply" in the lower left corner. All I have to do is push the right button, type in my message, and push "send". The recipient can text me back, too. That's two-way communications. I've had long conversations via text messaging that way. It's slow but it works. Effective in noisy environments or when having a voice call is otherwise not the best choice. Text messaging is a useful communications tool. So is Morse Code. I use both. Of what point was this entertainment venue 'test' actually proving? It showed that old methods aren't necessarily slower or less useful than newer ones. In the first part of the clip, Jay Leno selects a young lady from the audience, talks to her a bit, and asks if she thinks Morse Code or text messaging is faster. The young lady says text messaging is faster. The audience agrees. Jay Leno then brings out the "country's fastest text messager" (not an actor) and the two Morse Code operators, introduces them, and explains the test. The audience and the young lady are confident that the new technology of text messaging will be faster than the old Morse Code. Yet when the test is actually run, Morse Code proves to be faster, and produces a hard-copy printout for verification. The world-record-holder could not beat a couple of amateurs going at a fraction of the Morse Code record speed. Not only is the bit entertaining, it proves the point of newer not always being faster. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
WPM to BPS calculation
wrote:
Yet when the test is actually run, Morse Code proves to be faster, and produces a hard-copy printout for verification. The world-record-holder could not beat a couple of amateurs going at a fraction of the Morse Code record speed. What serious CW operator cannot send Morse faster than he/she can text-message? I don't know of anyone including me. But give me a full sized keyboard and the situation changes. Not only is the bit entertaining, it proves the point of newer not always being faster. Given no previous experience and one hour of training for each mode, which would win? :-) -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
WPM to BPS calculation
"Klystron" wrote in message
[snip] : Wouldn't it make more sense to include WWV and WWVH : along with WWVB? Or even MSF... 73 Ivor G6URP |
WPM to BPS calculation
|
WPM to BPS calculation
On Mar 25, 3:15 pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote: The world-record-holder (in text messaging) could not beat a couple of amateurs going at a fraction of the Morse Code record speed. What serious CW operator cannot send Morse faster than he/she can text-message? I don't know of anyone including me. But give me a full sized keyboard and the situation changes. Of course! But what cell phone has a full sized keyboard? And if the Morse operators are allowed full sized Morse keyboards, the situation changes yet again. With a decent 10 speed bicycle I could win the Boston Marathon (as long as everybody else has to run). Not only is the bit entertaining, it proves the point of newer not always being faster. Given no previous experience and one hour of training for each mode, which would win? :-) Bwaahaahaa! ;-) Good one! 73 de Jim, N2EY |
WPM to BPS calculation
Ivor Jones wrote:
wrote in message : wrote: : On Mar 23, 9:53???pm, Klystron wrote: : ???Paul W. Schleck " wrote: : ??? ???Wouldn't it make more sense to include : WWV and WWVH along with WWVB? : : snip : : Such a system requires connectivity to the internet. : WWVB does not; just requires a receiver. : : As does a GPS based time sytem. : : Both WWVB and GPS require decoding of the time : information by something. : : Then, there is the : matter of GPS, which has a time capability that is : incidental to its navigation function. : : GPS can only be used where the satellites can be "seen" : by the receiver. : : Which is the entire planet. Those bits of it with an uninterrupted view of the sky, anyway. Doesn't work too well in my basement office. Or under the canopy of trees on the road outside my house. Neither do any of the traditional time and frequency stations without a working antenna. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
WPM to BPS calculation
wrote in message
[snip] : : GPS can only be used where the satellites can be : : "seen" by the receiver. : : : : Which is the entire planet. : : Those bits of it with an uninterrupted view of the sky, : anyway. Doesn't work too well in my basement office. Or : under the canopy of trees on the road outside my house. : : Neither do any of the traditional time and frequency : stations without a working antenna. True, but my internet-connected computers don't need a working antenna, they get their info from the ntp server :-) 73 Ivor G6URP |
WPM to BPS calculation
Ivor Jones wrote:
wrote in message [snip] : : GPS can only be used where the satellites can be : : "seen" by the receiver. : : : : Which is the entire planet. : : Those bits of it with an uninterrupted view of the sky, : anyway. Doesn't work too well in my basement office. Or : under the canopy of trees on the road outside my house. : : Neither do any of the traditional time and frequency : stations without a working antenna. True, but my internet-connected computers don't need a working antenna, they get their info from the ntp server :-) Where do you think most ntp servers get their time these days? -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
WPM to BPS calculation
|
WPM to BPS calculation
"Of course! But what cell phone has a full sized keyboard? IIRC I can generate and send text-messages using the Motorola Phone Tools computer software connected to my Motorola cellphone via a USB port, thereby using a full-size screen and keyboard to do so. I use that setup to edit my "call list" in the 'phone. So given a typist of comparable proficiency to the Morse operators ( meaning probably in the region of 80 - 100 wpm) it is most likely that the text message would win the race; depending on system delays, which again is not a fair comparison to face to face Morse. You could wait for hours, or days, or even years for the bands to open to a particular location!! It all goes to show that you must compare like with like. I am sure that the Morse operators would have also lost if they were forced to send extraneous letters as they cycled through to find the correct one, as the text'er had to. 73 Jeff |
WPM to BPS calculation
"Jeff" wrote:
So given a typist of comparable proficiency to the Morse operators ( meaning probably in the region of 80 - 100 wpm) it is most likely that the text message would win the race; depending on system delays, which again is not a fair comparison to face to face Morse. You could wait for hours, or days, or even years for the bands to open to a particular location!! It all goes to show that you must compare like with like. I am sure that the Morse operators would have also lost if they were forced to send extraneous letters as they cycled through to find the correct one, as the text'er had to. Ultimately, we need to treat these various modes as methods of sending text - no more and no less. Two methods that send the same text are competing modes, regardless of whether keyboards, a telephone keypad or a telegraph key is used to send it. A method that sends those blocks of text faster and with fewer errors is better. A slower, more error prone method is inferior. Not all encoding schemes are equal. Some, like ASCII, encode the entire alphabet, including upper and lower case. Others, like ISO-Latin-1, can encode even more characters. In general, the more inclusive encoding method is better. An encoding scheme that is easily adapted to error correction (parity, automatic re-send, etc.) is also considered better. So claiming that phones, data modes and Morse can't be compared because they are somehow "different" ignores the ultimate reason for their existence - text communication via radio. -- Klystron |
WPM to BPS calculation
Klystron wrote:
"Jeff" wrote: So given a typist of comparable proficiency to the Morse operators ( meaning probably in the region of 80 - 100 wpm) it is most likely that the text message would win the race; depending on system delays, which again is not a fair comparison to face to face Morse. You could wait for hours, or days, or even years for the bands to open to a particular location!! It all goes to show that you must compare like with like. I am sure that the Morse operators would have also lost if they were forced to send extraneous letters as they cycled through to find the correct one, as the text'er had to. Ultimately, we need to treat these various modes as methods of sending text - no more and no less. Two methods that send the same text are competing modes, regardless of whether keyboards, a telephone keypad or a telegraph key is used to send it. Respectfully I disagree. None of these methods compete with each other. They are just different applications of technology, some simpler, some more complex, and some quite strange (read feld-hell) Users can use whatever mode they are interested in, and are on equal footing. A method that sends those blocks of text faster and with fewer errors is better. A slower, more error prone method is inferior. Here is some difficulty when we try to apply your description to HF. It is difficult to get a high data rate via HF due to the relatively noisy conditions. An example is Digital SSTV vs analog SSTV. On the face of it, digital SSTV has it all over the old fashioned variety. No image size restrictions, digital accuracy, and the jpeg you send looks the same on the recipient's end. The problem is under certain conditions that exist fairly often, the analog SSTV picture is sent, looked at and stored, while the digital version never arrives, because noisy condx causr the receiving end to send a continual stream of "Retry please". NOw to apply this to text modes, this would make PSK31 inferior to PSK64, 128. and so on. But the psk31 text reads about the same speed, and takes up less bandwidth. - 73 de Mike N3LI - |
WPM to BPS calculation
On Mar 27, 3:28 pm, Klystron wrote:
Ultimately, we need to treat these various modes as methods of sending text - no more and no less. I disagree! Morse Code is more than simply a method of sending text. Two methods that send the same text are competing modes, regardless of whether keyboards, a telephone keypad or a telegraph key is used to send it. I disagree again! Lots of differences, for example, a simple telegraph key can be made in a few minutes with simple tools. Keyboards are a bit more work. A method that sends those blocks of text faster and with fewer errors is better. A slower, more error prone method is inferior. If the only factors considered are speed and accuracy, that's true. But there are other factors when it comes to things like amateur radio - bandwidth, required equipment, etc. Not all encoding schemes are equal. Some, like ASCII, encode the entire alphabet, including upper and lower case. Others, like ISO-Latin-1, can encode even more characters. In general, the more inclusive encoding method is better. An encoding scheme that is easily adapted to error correction (parity, automatic re-send, etc.) is also considered better. See above about what factors are considered. So claiming that phones, data modes and Morse can't be compared because they are somehow "different" ignores the ultimate reason for their existence - text communication via radio. One can compare all sorts of things, and have the results come out differently depending on the factors considered. Is rollerblading "better" than running because the same person can go faster and farther for the same effort? The real point of the Jay Leno clip was to show that the assumption of "newer is faster/better" turned out to be exactly wrong. The audience and the woman Leno talked to were *sure* the text-messager would win, yet Morse Code was faster. If all you want to do is send text from point A to point B, there are lots of good modes. But consider these factors: 1) Morse Code can be manually encoded and decoded by humans and machines. RTTY, ASCII, etc., cannot, at least in practical terms. (Yes, I once got to the point where I could usually recognize "RYRYRY" and "W3ABT" in 45.45 baud Baudot FSK, but have you ever met anyone who could have conversations that way?) 2) Morse Code can be done with audio or video - by watching a flashing light, text on a screen, or simply listening to it. Audio reception is a big advantage in situations where a visual display isn't practical. 3) Morse Code can be implemented with a bare minimum of simple equipment, or with complex equipment, or anything in between. There are lots more, that's just a sample. None of this proves the idea that all radio amateurs must use Morse Code, or must pass some sort of test on it, etc. That issue has been decided (at least in the USA). --- Should radio amateurs not *use* Morse Code any more? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
WPM to BPS calculation
|
WPM to BPS calculation
" Ultimately, we need to treat these various modes as methods of sending text - no more and no less. Two methods that send the same text are competing modes, regardless of whether keyboards, a telephone keypad or a telegraph key is used to send it. A method that sends those blocks of text faster and with fewer errors is better. A slower, more error prone method is inferior. Not all encoding schemes are equal. Some, like ASCII, encode the entire alphabet, including upper and lower case. Others, like ISO-Latin-1, can encode even more characters. In general, the more inclusive encoding method is better. An encoding scheme that is easily adapted to error correction (parity, automatic re-send, etc.) is also considered better. So claiming that phones, data modes and Morse can't be compared because they are somehow "different" ignores the ultimate reason for their existence - text communication via radio. Indeed, compare it with "text communication via radio" not with sending Morse across a table. Try the same test, but sending a message to ZL or VK, I am sure that the SMS message would win. The text message would have arrived long before the band opened and you tuned up your antenna. Jeff |
WPM to BPS calculation
In article ,
Klystron wrote: Ultimately, we need to treat these various modes as methods of sending text - no more and no less. Two methods that send the same text are competing modes, regardless of whether keyboards, a telephone keypad or a telegraph key is used to send it. A method that sends those blocks of text faster and with fewer errors is better. A slower, more error prone method is inferior. Not all encoding schemes are equal. Some, like ASCII, encode the entire alphabet, including upper and lower case. Others, like ISO-Latin-1, can encode even more characters. In general, the more inclusive encoding method is better. An encoding scheme that is easily adapted to error correction (parity, automatic re-send, etc.) is also considered better. I hope you'll pardon me when I ask "Which deity spoke to you and laid down those particular points of Absolute Truth?". What's all this "We need to" and "no more and no less" and "xxx is better" and "yyy is inferior" and "... is also considered better"? If you're willing to state those as _your_ personal opinions of the basis on which two partially-competing methods of encoding and communicating _should_ be compared (and that no other criteria need apply), I have no objection at all. I do, however, object in principle to the idea that these are the highest (or only) criteria, or that they're somehow sacred. And, I also object to the idea (which I think is implied by the tone of your other messages - please correct me if I'm wrong) that the choice of communication methods is somehow exclusive... that the fact that a method which is superior (by your criteria, perhaps) means that other methods that you find inferior should be wiped out or abandoned... or that people who prefer to use the other methods are somehow responsible for Holding Back The True Progress. My own perspective is that people may have *many* criteria for chosing a means of communication (by radio or otherwise). Bandwidth, or bandwidth*reliability is not the sole criterion that people use, in practice, nor do I think there's any reason that it should be. Life is full of tradeoffs between different criteria - information bandwidth per Hz of spectrum, robustness of encoding, suitability for multi-point communication, resistance to different sorts of interference, cost of equipment, availability of equipment, and so forth. I communicate with my wife by voice, by email, by telephone, by scribbling half-illegible notes on scraps of paper, and by bringing home flowers... different methods, for different types of information- passing under varying conditions. In commercial communications and public-safety, bandwidth (or payload) and reliability and cost all play a big factor. In military communications, reliability and security seem big, bandwidth is important, and cost (of equipment at least) tends to take a back seat. Ham radio is a much more diverse motivation-space. Some people optimize their operations as for public safety and commercial (the EMCOM folks), others for "most distance per watt" or "per dollar spent on the radio" (QRP folks, homebrewers, and other experimenters), others for portability, others for plain ordinary fun (according to their own definition of fun... for some folks, using single-frequency crystal-oscillator transmitters is just what gets their rocks off :-) There's plenty of room in ham radio for different modes of operation. Saying that we all *have* to abandon Morse (or SSB, or voice, or AM, or...) and strap computers to all of our rigs, in order to encourage experimentation and use with newer modes, is really missing the point... it's implicitly denying a large percentage of hams the right to explore those aspects of ham radio that *they* find interesting and worthwhile. If we were all being paid to do all of this stuff, then the people paying us would perhaps have the right to set our agendas. We aren't (and by the rules of the game, cannot be... at least, not here in the US) and so we get to set our own priorities, operating-mode and otherwise. [And, for the record - I operate CW only rarely, and have enjoyed experimenting with packet and the newer digital modes quite a bit.] -- Dave Platt AE6EO Friends of Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads! |
WPM to BPS calculation
Dave Platt wrote:
There's plenty of room in ham radio for different modes of operation. Not to mention other aspects not involving modes. My favorite aspect of ham radio is pretty much mode independent - experimenting with antennas. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
WPM to BPS calculation
Jeff wrote:
Indeed, compare it with "text communication via radio" not with sending Morse across a table. Try the same test, but sending a message to ZL or VK, I am sure that the SMS message would win. The text message would have arrived long before the band opened and you tuned up your antenna. But where's the fun and the challenge? If I want to do business with someone in Australia, I'll pick up the telephone and avail myself of the investment of billions of dollars in research money and construction cost for a worldwide communications infrastructure. If my only objective in this case is to communicate with a specific individual in Australia, right now, reliably, that's the way to do it. If I wait for a band opening and manage to snare some rare DX using only my modest radio equipment and my wits, that's a completely different goal. Comparing "communication" via ham radio and "communication" via sending a text message is a lot like comparing traveling over the ocean on a commercial airliner with doing it on your own sailboat. Yes, in both cases you are transported from point A to point B. But goals and priorities that determine "success" for these two endeavors are much different. I'm bemused by where this discussion of the Leno "Morse vs. Texting" segment has gone. I have to give Leno's writers credit for coming up with something entertaining and unique. It even gave ham radio a bit of publicity. But a literal comparison of the two items misses the point of ham radio as a hobby and avocation. 73, Steve KB9X |
WPM to BPS calculation
On Mar 28, 7:21 am, "Jeff" wrote:
Indeed, compare it with "text communication via radio" not with sending Morse across a table. Try the same test, but sending a message to ZL or VK , I am sure that the SMS message would win. That's not guaranteed at all. The text message would have arrived long before the band opened and you tuned up your antenna. You're assuming the band isn't open and the antenna needs tuning. That changes the conditions of the test. If the path from A to B is already set up and working, the Morse Code speed advantage may be even greater than it was on the Jay Leno show, because it only takes a fraction of a second for the direct radio signal to reach the Antipodes, but the text message will be relayed many times to go the same distance. KB9X, in another post, makes a valid comparison between riding on a jet airliner and piloting your own sailboat. Are sailboats "obsolete" because they're slower? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
WPM to BPS calculation
Indeed, compare it with "text communication via radio" not with sending Morse across a table. Try the same test, but sending a message to ZL or VK , I am sure that the SMS message would win. That's not guaranteed at all. The text message would have arrived long before the band opened and you tuned up your antenna. You're assuming the band isn't open and the antenna needs tuning. That changes the conditions of the test. If the path from A to B is already set up and working, the Morse Code speed advantage may be even greater than it was on the Jay Leno show, because it only takes a fraction of a second for the direct radio signal to reach the Antipodes, but the text message will be relayed many times to go the same distance. KB9X, in another post, makes a valid comparison between riding on a jet airliner and piloting your own sailboat. Are sailboats "obsolete" because they're slower? The test made an interesting piece of tv, but nothing more than that. All it proved is that mobile phones have a slower and clumsier way of inputting text than a proficient cw operator. Jeff |
WPM to BPS calculation
Jeff wrote:
Indeed, compare it with "text communication via radio" not with sending Morse across a table. Try the same test, but sending a message to ZL or VK, I am sure that the SMS message would win. The text message would have arrived long before the band opened and you tuned up your antenna. Let's not forget that the texters have their own limitations, such as being in range of an antenna, hopefully no power outages or disasters that cut off the service. But truly that wasn't the point of the demonstration anyhow. All other things being equal, texting is slower because of the physical aspect differences between the two. Voice would have beaten either OOK Morse or texting. But who cares about that really? It's all good. side trip.... I've alway thought that there are some interesting parallels between regular folks and Us Hams, with seemingly different impressions by the public. humor alert! Using an HT isn't cool, but Using a cell phone is. Using OOK texting isn't cool, but using cell phone texting is. My Suzuki Vitara with it's legal height Bugcatcher antenna isn't cool, but if I put a Penn State banner on it during football season I am waaaay kewl! Humor alert off I really need to post some pictures of the Vitara all set up. That 13+ foot antenna so completely overwhelms the thing that it almost becomes cool in it's own right. The only downside is that so many people want to come over to talk to me about it that I sometimes don't get to operate it as much. OTOH, I was talking to a Fish and Game officer who is going for his license now - 73 de Mike N3LI - |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:09 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com