Scott Dorsey wrote:
wrote:
My greatest fear is that the FCC will totally do away with code in it's
testing requirements, which will logically lead to a mass spectrum
reassignment to make more room for voice and we will likely loose our
valuable spectrum space in the process. But once the last license goes
to SK what's to stop the FCC from giving it all away?

Well, one of the nice things about code is that you don't _need_ very
much bandwidth. And with modern DSP you should be able to make IF filters
even narrower than my old R-390... should be possible to cram hundreds of
carriers into the space of one SSB channel.

So true, and low bandwidth helps CW get though when SSB would be
impossible. However, don't forget that CW can be done quite nicely with
a cheap computer, some simple cables and some free software without
learning it. I suppose that one could argue that a human ear can hear
what a computer can't, but I'd be willing to argue that point in favor
of the computer.

I'll be willing to bet that there won't be much improvement over CW in
the raw "get the message though under bad conditions" power with the
new digital modes using the same bandwidth as CW. Simple is
under-rated in my book.

As an operating mode CW is alive and well and likely to stay, however
it will be computer driven more and more as the art dies off and new
blood is not required to learn it as well as the old.

Change is neither good or bad, it's just change.

-= Bob =-

"Leroy" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 12:32:22 -0700, bob_deep wrote:
I sometimes listen in on 10 meters but don't hear much there. A bit of CW
every now and then, but not much of anything, usually. Maybe I'm listening
at the wrong times? Or is it mostly vacant and just freebanders buying the
10 meter rigs?


Has much to do with where we are in the sunspot cycle. A couple or three
years from now
10 meters will start to be much busier. It's my misfortune I got my upgrade
to General a year before the dead bottom of the cycle. At the age of 74 I'm
just hoping to be around long enough
to see what the high point in the cycle sounds like.(G)

Harold
KD5SAK

"Leroy" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 12:32:22 -0700, bob_deep wrote:


[SNIP]


I was under the impression that CW would get through under worse
conditions and/or with lower power requirements than other modes.


Yes that can be true. They speak of PSK as being low power but that is only
low transmit power. It takes more power to generate a 25w PSK signal than a
100watt CW signal. Computers draw a lot of power.

Does no one run "flea power" anymore?


There are a lot of QRP (low power) hobbyists.

I sometimes listen in on 10 meters but don't hear much there. A bit of CW
every now and then, but not much of anything, usually. Maybe I'm listening
at the wrong times? Or is it mostly vacant and just freebanders buying the
10 meter rigs?



Bad point in the sunspot cycle for 10 meters. It does open occasionally but
not like it does at the peak of the sunspot cycle. Right now it is not open
every day (although it may be open for a while each week). And the time of
day it is open tends to be when people are working, doing errands after
work, etc.

Dee, N8UZE

wrote in message
ps.com...

Scott Dorsey wrote:
wrote:
My greatest fear is that the FCC will totally do away with code in it's
testing requirements, which will logically lead to a mass spectrum
reassignment to make more room for voice and we will likely loose our
valuable spectrum space in the process. But once the last license goes
to SK what's to stop the FCC from giving it all away?

Well, one of the nice things about code is that you don't _need_ very
much bandwidth. And with modern DSP you should be able to make IF
filters
even narrower than my old R-390... should be possible to cram hundreds of
carriers into the space of one SSB channel.

So true, and low bandwidth helps CW get though when SSB would be
impossible. However, don't forget that CW can be done quite nicely with
a cheap computer, some simple cables and some free software without
learning it. I suppose that one could argue that a human ear can hear
what a computer can't, but I'd be willing to argue that point in favor
of the computer.


Actually, you would lose such an argument. There are many hams who have
proven that they can decipher better than the computer. The computer
hardware or software requires the following characteristics in the received
transmission to work:

1. A strong signal
2. No distortion on the signal such as occurs from aurora, meteor scatter,
etc.
3. The code sent is nearly equal in quality to that sent by a computer.
Some one using paddles may achieve that but if they are sending with a
manual key or bug, that is highly unlikely.

I have frequently been able to copy better than the computer and my code
skills are quite modest. The only time it beats me is when the code meets
the above three criteria and is too fast for me to copy.

I'll be willing to bet that there won't be much improvement over CW in
the raw "get the message though under bad conditions" power with the
new digital modes using the same bandwidth as CW. Simple is
under-rated in my book.


I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here. Did you leave something
out?

As an operating mode CW is alive and well and likely to stay, however
it will be computer driven more and more as the art dies off and new
blood is not required to learn it as well as the old.

Change is neither good or bad, it's just change.


While change is neither good or bad, sometimes the results of change can be
undesireable.

Dee, N8UZE

From: Dee Flint on Wed, Sep 27 2006 4:32 pm

wrote in message

Scott Dorsey wrote:
wrote:
My greatest fear is that the FCC will totally do away with code in it's
testing requirements, which will logically lead to a mass spectrum
reassignment to make more room for voice and we will likely loose our
valuable spectrum space in the process. But once the last license goes
to SK what's to stop the FCC from giving it all away?

Well, one of the nice things about code is that you don't _need_ very
much bandwidth. And with modern DSP you should be able to make IF
filters
even narrower than my old R-390... should be possible to cram hundreds of
carriers into the space of one SSB channel.

The old R-390 was designed to work with 12 KHz SSB. Cram
as much as you can...:-)

Even so, at 300 Hz bandwidth per OOK CW there would be
room only for 40 of them in 12 KHz bandwidth. :-)


So true, and low bandwidth helps CW get though when SSB would be
impossible. However, don't forget that CW can be done quite nicely with
a cheap computer, some simple cables and some free software without
learning it. I suppose that one could argue that a human ear can hear
what a computer can't, but I'd be willing to argue that point in favor
of the computer.

Actually, you would lose such an argument. There are many hams who have
proven that they can decipher better than the computer. The computer
hardware or software requires the following characteristics in the received
transmission to work:

Dee, your judgement is based solely on available "morse
decoder" equipment. Hardly state-of-the-art and not
optimized for anything but strong signals with little
distortion. Relatively cheap equipments on the market.

One reason for not bothering with true state-of-the-art
computer-aided decoding is that there isn't any ROI, no
"return on investment" of trying to make such a thing.

I have seen/heard one "intellectual exercise" by a
programmer that DOES work well under distortion, weak
signals, noise, etc. [there was some discussion about
that in here a few years ago] That wasn't done for
money-making purposes, just to see if it could be done
with modern PC platforms. With a bit more work it could
do quite well in terrible signal environments.

That there's so little opening in the market is under-
standable when you consider that NO other radio service
but amateur bothers with OOK CW for communications.
Well, not quite. The millions of keyless automotive
key fobs now in use in the USA use OOK CW. But, that
data rate is well above human comprehension. Some of
the garage door openers and other remote 'security'
transmitters also use OOK CW in a similar fashion.

Now I grant you that those key fob transmitters can't
"work DX on HF with CW" but then the ham rigs can't
unlock automobiles either. :-)


I have frequently been able to copy better than the computer and my code
skills are quite modest. The only time it beats me is when the code meets
the above three criteria and is too fast for me to copy.

You mean you actually USE one of those cheap morse
decoders? [ tsk, tsk... ] :-)


I'll be willing to bet that there won't be much improvement over CW in
the raw "get the message though under bad conditions" power with the
new digital modes using the same bandwidth as CW. Simple is
under-rated in my book.

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here. Did you leave something
out?

Only his last sentence is a bit vague. However, "simple"
is what comprises the now-available-on-the-market decoders,
all relativly cheap compared to what the COULD be.


As an operating mode CW is alive and well and likely to stay, however
it will be computer driven more and more as the art dies off and new
blood is not required to learn it as well as the old.

Change is neither good or bad, it's just change.

While change is neither good or bad, sometimes the results of change can be
undesireable.

"Undesireable" for whom? A minority of amateur radio hobbyists
of today or the future of amateur radio?

Are you thinking that "the needs of the few outweigh the needs
of the many?" That's not egalitarian just quite selfish.

If the FCC eliminates the manual telegraphy test from US amateur
radio license testing, it will NOT take away YOUR privileges of
amateur radio operation. At worst it may cause you some
emotional upset. [the FCC is not concerned with the emotional
mental health of citizens, just regulation of US civil radio]

Is there something "stopping" any new amateur licensee from
taking up manual morse code skills now? I don't think so.
There doesn't seem to be anything in last year's NPRM about
"prohibition against radiotelegraphy." That NPRM only involves
the manual telegraphy test for GETTING INTO amateur radio.
Every single allocated mode in US amateur radio is OPTIONAL
for any licensee to use within the defined scope of their
license class. The only two bands where the FCC allocates
ONLY "CW" is in 6 and 2 meter bands; no-code-test Technicians
can use radiotelegraphy there. In fact, the FCC allocates
manual radiotelegraphy on nearly EVERY amateur band, the full
band not just some slices. If manual radiotelegraphy is so
good-glorious-glamorous, why aren't more radio amateurs
embracing it now? Just WHY do you feel compelled to argue
for the retention of that manual telegraphy test and the
retrograde "glamour" of it to hold back amateur radio?

"Leroy" wrote in message
news
I was under the impression that CW would get through under worse
conditions and/or with lower power requirements than other modes.

Various digital modes do better under low SNR conditions than CW, but they do
require a computer at both ends to perform the encoding and decoding -- some
people don't like that fact, that you seemingly need "more equipment" to work
such modes than you do with CW. It's a bit of a red herring, however, in that
these days pretty much every single amateur radio being sold commercially has
a processor (computer) in it anyway, and while some are strictly for "control"
(not modulation/demodulation), the percentage that does have raw number
crunching power increases every day, and within a decade it's a fair bet that
over 90% of all commerical amateur radios will use DSP techniques for
modulation and demodulation. (Cell phone went to DSPs somewhere between 5-10
years ago now...)

Does no one run "flea power" anymore?

Absolutely they do, and it's a really cool part of the hobby... but for every
100 amateurs, I would guess that the number running QRP on a regular basis is
about 1.

---Joel

"Joel Kolstad" wrote in message
...
"Leroy" wrote in message
news Absolutely they do, and it's a really cool part of the hobby... but for
every 100 amateurs, I would guess that the number running QRP on a regular
basis is about 1.

---Joel


My sole experience with QRP was accidental. I had reduced power to 5 watts
to tune to a different band (17 meters) and forgot to turn the power back
up. As a result I found myself speaking to a Swiss ham form my southern
Oklahoma shack with 5 watts and getting a reasonably good signal report. I
realize that for real QRPers 5 watts is high power, but for me it was an
unusual pleasure. Moreso because bad weather had me using an indoor dipole
mounted on the wifes sewing room ceiling (about nine feet above the earth).

Harold
KD5SAK

kd5sak wrote:

Has much to do with where we are in the sunspot cycle. A couple or three
years from now
10 meters will start to be much busier. It's my misfortune I got my upgrade
to General a year before the dead bottom of the cycle. At the age of 74 I'm
just hoping to be around long enough
to see what the high point in the cycle sounds like.(G)

Man, do anything you can to stick around. It's going to be good, and 10M
FM is just more fun than anything. Get a PRC-8 and take lots of vitamin C.
I predict that this next peak is going to be a really good one, at least as
good as '78 was.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
I'd be willing to argue that point in favor
of the computer.


Actually, you would lose such an argument.

I don't think so, at least under most common operating conditions.

There are many hams who have
proven that they can decipher better than the computer. The computer
hardware or software requires the following characteristics in the received
transmission to work:

1. A strong signal

Signal to noise ratio would be important, to be sure, however with the
proper application of some limited computing power I'm sure one could
construct a detector that would work with seriously low SNR. It is
amazing what DSP's can do now days..

2. No distortion on the signal such as occurs from aurora, meteor scatter,
etc.

Again, I've seen spectral displays that clearly show CW transmissions
that could *not* be heard.

3. The code sent is nearly equal in quality to that sent by a computer.
Some one using paddles may achieve that but if they are sending with a
manual key or bug, that is highly unlikely.

Sending code is not in question. Surely a computer is able to open and
close the keying faster than a transmitter can possibly transmit.
Also, remember that the faster you key, the higher bandwidth your
signal will require and the higher the SNR will theoretically need to
be for it to be decoded at the receiving end.

I have frequently been able to copy better than the computer and my code
skills are quite modest. The only time it beats me is when the code meets
the above three criteria and is too fast for me to copy.

I would contend that the software you are using is not utilizing the
inputted signal at it's full potential. I've seen audio processing
techniques that could pull out inaudible signals that where more
complicated than CW would be.

I would also ask if you where copying random characters or where you
able to "fill in the gaps" by using the context? The latter would be a
very different problem for a computer to solve.

I'll be willing to bet that there won't be much improvement over CW in
the raw "get the message though under bad conditions" power with the
new digital modes using the same bandwidth as CW. Simple is
under-rated in my book.


I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here. Did you leave something
out?


I'm saying that if you pick any digital mode, restrict the bandwidth to
that of the CW signal with the same data rate, keep the SNR the same
with the same error rates, CW will be about as good as you can get.
Not bad for an operating mode that has been around as long as CW.

wrote in message
oups.com...

Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
I'd be willing to argue that point in favor
of the computer.


Actually, you would lose such an argument.

I don't think so, at least under most common operating conditions.


Define "common operating conditions".

For a contester, common operating conditions often include murderous QRM.
Yet contesting is common. I've always maintained that one can construct
various scenarios such that there is one where the particular mode under
discussion is "the best".

For ragchewers, common operating conditions often include manually sent CW.

There are many hams who have
proven that they can decipher better than the computer. The computer
hardware or software requires the following characteristics in the
received
transmission to work:

1. A strong signal

Signal to noise ratio would be important, to be sure, however with the
proper application of some limited computing power I'm sure one could
construct a detector that would work with seriously low SNR. It is
amazing what DSP's can do now days..


Yes and there are some very fine software programs already available. But
even so they fail before the "EAR" fails, assuming a trained and experienced
operator.

2. No distortion on the signal such as occurs from aurora, meteor
scatter,
etc.

Again, I've seen spectral displays that clearly show CW transmissions
that could *not* be heard.


So I've seen displays of many types of signals that cannot be heard. That
is an entirely different issue from distortion. When the auroras start
playing, PSK (as an example) is so distorted that no matter how strong the
signal, the computer cannot decipher it. If a CW signal is distorted but
loud enough to hear, the human ear/brain combo can still decipher.

3. The code sent is nearly equal in quality to that sent by a computer.
Some one using paddles may achieve that but if they are sending with a
manual key or bug, that is highly unlikely.

Sending code is not in question. Surely a computer is able to open and
close the keying faster than a transmitter can possibly transmit.
Also, remember that the faster you key, the higher bandwidth your
signal will require and the higher the SNR will theoretically need to
be for it to be decoded at the receiving end.


Receiving is the issue. If the received code was manually sent, the
computer often fails.

I have frequently been able to copy better than the computer and my code
skills are quite modest. The only time it beats me is when the code
meets
the above three criteria and is too fast for me to copy.

I would contend that the software you are using is not utilizing the
inputted signal at it's full potential. I've seen audio processing
techniques that could pull out inaudible signals that where more
complicated than CW would be.


I''ve tested everyone I could find. I'm one of those people who gets
pleasure out of trying all the new gadgets & software I can find and afford.
I've also seen inaudible signals pulled out of all kinds. That's quite
feasible when the bands are in good shape. Add a little thunderstorm
activity, geomagnetic disturbances, solar flares, etc and the machine can't
decipher them. It's not a matter of signal strength but a matter of signal
quality.

I would also ask if you where copying random characters or where you
able to "fill in the gaps" by using the context? The latter would be a
very different problem for a computer to solve.


Yes it is a different matter. Humans definitely have the edge on "fill in
the gaps".

I'll be willing to bet that there won't be much improvement over CW in
the raw "get the message though under bad conditions" power with the
new digital modes using the same bandwidth as CW. Simple is
under-rated in my book.


I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here. Did you leave
something
out?


I'm saying that if you pick any digital mode, restrict the bandwidth to
that of the CW signal with the same data rate, keep the SNR the same
with the same error rates, CW will be about as good as you can get.
Not bad for an operating mode that has been around as long as CW.


Ok, I understand. Actually many digital modes are, by their nature,
narrower than CW already. You would have to open up the filter to get to
the same bandwidth. Again the key item is quality of signal. For example,
aurora induces phase shifts on PSK (phase shift keying) and makes it
undecipherable. It also induces phase shifts in voice and CW. It gives the
voice & CW signals a buzzy, raspy sound. Yet you can often understand voice
when PSK is undecipherable. CW, when there is a phase shift, sounds like a
series of buzzes but can still be copied if you are used to it.

And yes CW does a fine job and will continue to be advantageous under
certain conditions.

Dee, N8UZE