An alternative theory could be that he has a life and that upgrade
wasn't a priority.

The correct answer is, the CW wasnt the problem, the Theory was just as big a
problem. Would love to know how many time s he failed it .

On 05 Sep 2003 13:07:04 GMT, (WA8ULX) wrote:

An alternative theory could be that he has a life and that upgrade
wasn't a priority.

The correct answer is, the CW wasnt the problem, the Theory was just as big a
problem. Would love to know how many time s he failed it .

Why?

On 5 Sep 2003 05:30:04 GMT, "Dick Carroll;" wrote:



"S. Hanrahan" wrote:

On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 10:00:13 -0400, Bob Brock
wrote:

Why would you want to foil computer copy?

Because no law says you can't.

For you to do the test to
make sure that it works and then advocate it's use, you can't really
say that wasn't your intention.

What if it was? Nothing you can do about it but learn the code.

The guy is a lost cause. He doesn't even understrand that no testing ever need be done.
All it takes is a bit of understanding, which he clearlyh lacks.

You sound like a religous fanatic. Is that your intention or is it
natural? Am I now condemned to no-code hell for eternity? I'm sorry,
but if I could take your chidish commets seriously, I might actually
take a serious look at your position. However, from what I see right
now, you don't have a valid position to look at.

S. Hanrahan wrote in message . ..
On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 11:22:58 -0700, Jack Twilley
wrote:



It took me a little over 6 months to go from nothing to 20 WPM. I
passed the 20 WPM code before I took the General written exam.

When I "did" my Extra ya had to pass both the writtens and the code
test at the same sitting or wait a month and go back and do *all* of
it all over again. Dinosaur? Who ME?

w3rv

I was under the impression that Farnsworth was a type of spacing but
that the actual numbers weren't relevant -- only that the word speed
is often much less than the character speed. The test I took had a
word speed of five words per minute and a character speed of eighteen
words per minute. The practice files I'm building for my web site
have a word speed of five words per minute and a character speed of
twenty words per minute.

Stacey By the time one becomes proficient enough to copy Morse Code,
Stacey counting out the dits and dahs is moot at best.

In my limited experience, I learn more characters faster with
Farnsworth spacing, but I'm concerned that I'm building a lookup table
instead of reflexes. It's the difference between "dahdidah, hmm,
that's K, dahdah, hmm, that's M" and "dahdidah (K) dahdah (M)". I
learned eight or nine characters with Farnsworth spacing, but I can't
repeat the performance at full speed, so I fear that I'm learning
something that won't be useful if I continue to use Farnsworth
spacing.


Stick with the tried and proven Jack and just get on with the job like
tens if not hundreds of thousands of us have already done. There is no
point to reinventing the wheel.

I've sed it before I'll say it again: The W1AW code practice sessions
and getting on the air ASAP are the best methods out there for
learning the code. The 1AW sessions are reliable, they're not
repetitive and you can pace yourself without breaking a sweat
depending on your own set of learning curve variables. Yes it's
Farnsworth and 1AW Farnworth has obviously worked for decades. Now go
copy 1AW 5wpm sessions until you "get it".

I'm not sure I'd advise getting on the air with 5wpm these days but
getting on the air with 10wpm absolutely will accelerate your move up
the code learning curve. There is nothing which can simulate the
experience and stimulation one gets when snagging real CW QSOs early
in the code learning process. Nothing. Sweat, sweat, tremble, into the
deep end . . Been there, done it and it WORKS. The mix of 1AW and The
Deep End worked twice for me and I not only enjoyed all of it but also
got to 20wpm+ via logs full of actual QSOs to boot.

And CW contests are lousy code practice.



Jack.
- --

w3rv

"Brian" wrote in message
om...
It does not mandate
that the relative spacing meet any particular standard to be considered
Morse code.

So you say that Morse cannot be defined, yet the FCC demands you pass
an exam that has barred people from the medium and high frequencies.
It is whatever you want it to be.

Morse code is very clearly defined. Each letter, number, etc has a defined
combination of dots and dashes. There is no ambiguity whatsoever. For
normal conversational speeds (13wpm to 20wpm), the standard spacing allows
one to develop a natural, easy rhythm. For low speed operation (less than
13wpm), it is better to have the letter speed be at least 13 but spaces
between the letters. It's actually much easier to copy that way as you hear
the letter as a distinct sound rather than counting dashes and dots. On the
other hand, high speed ops may choose to change the ratio of the length of
dashes to dots as it may be clearer than the "standard" spacing.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

=2D----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

"Brian" =3D=3D Brian Kelly writes:

Jack In my limited experience, I learn more characters faster with
Jack Farnsworth spacing, but I'm concerned that I'm building a lookup
Jack table instead of reflexes. It's the difference between
Jack "dahdidah, hmm, that's K, dahdah, hmm, that's M" and "dahdidah
Jack (K) dahdah (M)". I learned eight or nine characters with
Jack Farnsworth spacing, but I can't repeat the performance at full
Jack speed, so I fear that I'm learning something that won't be
Jack useful if I continue to use Farnsworth spacing.

Brian Stick with the tried and proven Jack and just get on with the
Brian job like tens if not hundreds of thousands of us have already
Brian done. There is no point to reinventing the wheel.

One wonders what Mr. (or Ms.) Farnsworth would have said if someone
had told him something like that. There is point in reinventing the
wheel, if one believes they may have found something more efficient.
In this case, I'm not inventing anything -- I am facilitating the
learning of those who prefer full speed and Farnsworth spacing.

Brian I've sed it before I'll say it again: The W1AW code practice
Brian sessions and getting on the air ASAP are the best methods out
Brian there for learning the code. The 1AW sessions are reliable,
Brian they're not repetitive and you can pace yourself without
Brian breaking a sweat depending on your own set of learning curve
Brian variables. Yes it's Farnsworth and 1AW Farnworth has obviously
Brian worked for decades. Now go copy 1AW 5wpm sessions until you
Brian "get it".

I've said it before, but perhaps not in this location: my current
location does not permit reception of HF signals. I have tried for
months with multiple antenna setups and have not been successful. I
have very limited VHF reception -- broadcast FM and television
stations do not come in, but I can receive on 2m and 440MHz. I
thought it was bad when I didn't have an HF rig, but it's worse to
have one and not be able to receive anything.

Brian I'm not sure I'd advise getting on the air with 5wpm these days
Brian but getting on the air with 10wpm absolutely will accelerate
Brian your move up the code learning curve. There is nothing which
Brian can simulate the experience and stimulation one gets when
Brian snagging real CW QSOs early in the code learning
Brian process. Nothing. Sweat, sweat, tremble, into the deep end
Brian . . Been there, done it and it WORKS. The mix of 1AW and The
Brian Deep End worked twice for me and I not only enjoyed all of it
Brian but also got to 20wpm+ via logs full of actual QSOs to boot.

I'm glad it worked for you. I'm going for the tried and true Koch
method of learning the characters at full speed. It might take more
time for me to learn them all, but I'll know them, and that will be
exciting. I am currently exploring another method of code generating
that spits out words from characters that I already know since I'm a
little concerned that five-letter groups might shape my learning in a
way that won't help with real code. Other than that, though, I'm
pretty happy with what I've got.

Brian And CW contests are lousy code practice.

I agree with you on this. Hopefully by next Field Day I'll be able to
participate with CW, but I am concerned that my straight-key efforts
will be wasted on the memory keyers out there. Bah.

Jack.
=2D --=20
Jack Twilley
jmt at twilley dot org
http colon slash slash www dot twilley dot org slash tilde jmt slash
=2D----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQE/WR0nGPFSfAB/ezgRAnw9AJ9Q+MjBOBHMu3/4c2UqD28AVD0/bgCgwCYK
+CsToQwt+3eBYywf9GUcu0U=3D
=3Dan8p
=2D----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

"Brian" wrote in message
om...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
igy.com...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...

Actually, I believe there is an ITU-R Recommendation that specifies
the "International Morse Code" in typical ITU detail.


Operative word is recommendation, which is exactly what I said.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Yet the FCC demands that one passes an exam or be denied access.

Shouldn't they have a definition of what is being examined?

They have defined it as 5wpm. The details are left up to the NCVEC just
like the details of the writtens are left up to the NCVEC.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Bob Brock" wrote in message
...
On 5 Sep 2003 05:30:04 GMT, "Dick Carroll;" wrote:



"S. Hanrahan" wrote:

On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 10:00:13 -0400, Bob Brock
wrote:

Why would you want to foil computer copy?

Because no law says you can't.

For you to do the test to
make sure that it works and then advocate it's use, you can't really
say that wasn't your intention.

What if it was? Nothing you can do about it but learn the code.

The guy is a lost cause. He doesn't even understrand that no testing ever
need be done.
All it takes is a bit of understanding, which he clearlyh lacks.

You sound like a religous fanatic. Is that your intention or is it
natural? Am I now condemned to no-code hell for eternity? I'm sorry,
but if I could take your chidish commets seriously, I might actually
take a serious look at your position. However, from what I see right
now, you don't have a valid position to look at.


Well, you understand Dick quite perfectly... ; )

Kim W5TIT

=2D----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

"Dick" =3D=3D Dick Carroll; writes:

Jack I've said it before, but perhaps not in this location: my
Jack current location does not permit reception of HF signals. I
Jack have tried for months with multiple antenna setups and have not
Jack been successful.

Dick Where the heck are you, Jack? I've received HF from many
Dick locations, about everywhere I've ever been and tried it. Is it
Dick an radio noise environment problem or what? Unless you live in
Dick the middle of one of the BPL tryout area I can't imagine not
Dick being able to receive W1AW on one of the bands..

I'm in grid square CM88wa, between two very large hills which run for
several miles in a roughly north-south direction. My backyard is
twenty-five feet wide by nine feet deep and it is partially shared
with neighboring units. For political reasons, antennas have to be as
invisible as possible, so the highest I can get is six feet off the
ground and six feet from the house. I was able to construct a dipole
with twelve-foot legs, but I couldn't even get WWV, let alone an
amateur station. In addition, the electrical noise gives me a noise
floor of S7 -- some of which is my fault, as I've got six computers
running at any given time. Sometime this weekend I should make a
recording of what I hear on the bands so people can understand that
reception truly sucks at my house.

Dick Dick

Jack.
=2D --=20
Jack Twilley
jmt at twilley dot org
http colon slash slash www dot twilley dot org slash tilde jmt slash
=2D----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQE/WTNGGPFSfAB/ezgRAgneAJwNfhdRniL3vxgxoliupLVrlHbTGQCgvq15
8rGCa/dPlNywvoQBvQZtAlk=3D
=3D6kOg
=2D----END PGP SIGNATURE-----