RadioBanter - WPM to BPS calculation

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

- Moderated (https://www.radiobanter.com/moderated/)

- - WPM to BPS calculation (https://www.radiobanter.com/moderated/170948-wpm-bps-calculation.html)

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

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:
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