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

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

From: on Sat, Oct 21 2006 4:01pm

wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
wrote:

according to him anyone not devoted to cw is a lowlfie
That's really sad.
...and pathetic. No one should have to go through life as a lowlfie.

(extraneous groups deleted)

So who do you think Slow Code is? Kelly? Coslo? Deignan?

I haven't the slightest idea.

Well, I know "Slow Code" is not me.

Beyond that, he could be anybody with a computer and an internet
connection. "Slow Code" could be Len Anderson, who has used at least
seven different screen names here - that we know of.

How many screen names have you used here - that you know of?

Jimmie will NEVER admit to using any pseudonyms. :-)

Jimmie is a proud amateur "serving his country in other ways"
such as playing with his radio hobby, spreading "international
good will" by working DX on HF with CW. :-)

"Slow Code" could be Brian Burke, N0IMD,

Slow Code could be Jim/N2EY, despite protests that it isn't him.

Not in Miccolis' petty prissy manner of "always being correct."
[i.e., thinking as Miccolis thinks...all else is "wrong"]

Miccolis already tried at least one pseudonym. That pesudo
STOPPED when confronted. [that's in the Google archives]
But, but, but...Miccolis (who never swears) swears "it wasn't
him!" AS IF. :-)

Ditto
Robesin, Coslo, Bruce, Dan, Larry Roll, or anyone else who "appears" to
be absent from RRAP.

Maybe it is Val Germann, frustrated that he can't get his
(code speed) up? :-)

Could even be KH2D after starting the Alzheimer's route...who
knows?

Maybe it is Lamont Cranston? "Who knows what evil lurks in
the hearts of No-Coders?" :-)

who has used a wide variety of screen names
here, ("billy beeper", "hot ham and cheese", to name just a few)
usually without including his name or callsign.

I understand that Brian Burke has received a whole lot less spam email
on his regular user account than when he posted here under his name and
call. I also understand that he let go of "Billy Beeper" at Han's
Brakob's request, as "Billy Beeper" was an invention of Hans, a
fictitious boy who feared evil No-Coders.

There's lots of fictitious BOYS in here fearing evil No-Coders.

Most of them use pseudonyms. No guts. No courage. No brains.

They hide behind their BFO-enabled beeping, afraid to stray
beyond the anonymity of their monotonic dots and dashes...and
dreams of glory and honor via morsemanship..."serving their
country in 'other' ways." :-)

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

Dee Flint wrote:
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.

And dismissed it.

As I said while it is the best that is available, it
is
still far below the capabilities of a human operator.

Correction. ...a few human operators.

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.

You would like to think that, but without efforts from folks like Carl,
Bill, Len, hans, myself and others, you would still be repeating such
myths, and would never make statements such as "Not all CW signals are
good."

You can thank us, but that's probably not very likely.

No one has said all CW signals are good.

And they aren't.

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.

And those who dismiss the software solution think all amateur operators
are superb morsemen.

In addition, I have repeatedly stated that each and every mode has its
advantages and disadvantages.

If you were to compare and contrast all existing modes, it think it is
likely that you would claim that CW is the best mode.

The extremists on each side don't want to
hear that.

Dee, N8UZE

Because of the efforts made to dismiss countless Morse Myths over the
years, you were just now able to state that not all CW signals are good
without 1x2 PCTAs pooh poohing such talk.

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

From: on Sat, Oct 21 2006 4:01pm

wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
wrote:

according to him anyone not devoted to cw is a lowlfie
That's really sad.
...and pathetic. No one should have to go through life as a lowlfie.

(extraneous groups deleted)

So who do you think Slow Code is? Kelly? Coslo? Deignan?

I haven't the slightest idea.

Well, I know "Slow Code" is not me.

Beyond that, he could be anybody with a computer and an internet
connection. "Slow Code" could be Len Anderson, who has used at least
seven different screen names here - that we know of.

How many screen names have you used here - that you know of?

Jimmie will NEVER admit to using any pseudonyms. :-)

Jimmie is a proud amateur "serving his country in other ways"
such as playing with his radio hobby, spreading "international
good will" by working DX on HF with CW. :-)

"Slow Code" could be Brian Burke, N0IMD,

Slow Code could be Jim/N2EY, despite protests that it isn't him.

Not in Miccolis' petty prissy manner of "always being correct."
[i.e., thinking as Miccolis thinks...all else is "wrong"]

Miccolis already tried at least one pseudonym. That pesudo
STOPPED when confronted. [that's in the Google archives]
But, but, but...Miccolis (who never swears) swears "it wasn't
him!" AS IF. :-)

Ditto
Robesin, Coslo, Bruce, Dan, Larry Roll, or anyone else who "appears" to
be absent from RRAP.

Maybe it is Val Germann, frustrated that he can't get his
(code speed) up? :-)

Could even be KH2D after starting the Alzheimer's route...who
knows?

Maybe it is Lamont Cranston? "Who knows what evil lurks in
the hearts of No-Coders?" :-)

who has used a wide variety of screen names
here, ("billy beeper", "hot ham and cheese", to name just a few)
usually without including his name or callsign.

I understand that Brian Burke has received a whole lot less spam email
on his regular user account than when he posted here under his name and
call. I also understand that he let go of "Billy Beeper" at Han's
Brakob's request, as "Billy Beeper" was an invention of Hans, a
fictitious boy who feared evil No-Coders.

There's lots of fictitious BOYS in here fearing evil No-Coders.

Most of them use pseudonyms. No guts. No courage. No brains.

They hide behind their BFO-enabled beeping, afraid to stray
beyond the anonymity of their monotonic dots and dashes...and
dreams of glory and honor via morsemanship..."serving their
country in 'other' ways." :-)