Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article .net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes: "Len Over 21" wrote: "Dwight Stewart" writes: I haven't purchased a program like that recently, but surely they've gotten better over the years. Is that not the case? They have, but the mighty morsemen consider such to be desecrations of the will of the old radio gods. Well, I suspected the programs might have gotten at least somewhat better over the years. The author of the program I had wrote about trying to compensate for bad code by looking for patterns instead of focusing on each individual dot and dash as it was being sent. It is a trivial matter to do decisions on "longer" v. "shorter" once the on- time has been converted to a numerical value...which is easily done by a simple comparator gating a much higher repetitive pulse into a small (8-bit) binary counter. That forms a "width-to-digital" conversion. The count is then written into working memory and used by the main program. Once that is in place, the main program can do its "pattern checking" most anywhich way. The program also didn't use hard rules for dot, dash, and space, length, instead interpretating each as it went along. That part is the "adaptivity to rate" section. In an ordinary PC it is fairly easy to access the internal calendar clock for 100ths seconds time hacks (actually shorter if you know the calendar-clock software details). By comparing the overall "on" lengths it is possible to determine the bit rate per unit time and thus the equivalent WPM rate. Obviously, I don't know the details, but the program did do a pretty good job considering it was just a simple programming example included with an operating system. My only complaint was that it didn't send code like some of the other programs advertised, but I couldn't have used that back then anyway. The sending part is fairly straightforward involving the keyboard addressing a lookup table in memory and organizing the outgoing "on" and "off" times at whatever rate is desired. The interesting part of modifying that is to add some random variability to the "on" and "off" times, which is selectable to bias those if desired, and thus create the equivalent length-rate-bias "swing" of a human telegrapher! :-) Sending is much easier to do and duplicate than receiving. As I said much earlier to others in here, I've seen it done and looked at the source code, heard-seen it in action. The PCTA will not believe it since they don't WANT to believe it so any argument with them is an exercise in futility. :-) As I also said earlier, there just isn't any market for such a program since there is so little morse code communications being done in radio now as compared to a half century ago. LHA |
#42
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Brian" wrote in message om... "Dee D. Flint" wrote in message y.com... No they haven't. The two conditions you state are still problems and good reasons to learn to copy by ear. The human brain can sort it out when the computer cannot. Poorly sent and spaced code is also still a problem. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Seems like Morse Ops need to send better. Yes some of them need to pay a lot more attention to the quality of their sending. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
#43
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Dick Carroll wrote in message ...
Dee D. Flint wrote: "Brian" wrote in message om... "Dee D. Flint" wrote in message y.com... No they haven't. The two conditions you state are still problems and good reasons to learn to copy by ear. The human brain can sort it out when the computer cannot. Poorly sent and spaced code is also still a problem. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Seems like Morse Ops need to send better. Yes some of them need to pay a lot more attention to the quality of their sending. Why do you suppose N0IMD might find that to be a concern? Those of us who actually work CW usually can copy variety with no problems. His abilities are his own concern and his responsibility. Yet he trolls on. Lennie's understudy, for a fact. Dick, I can copy overmodulated phone signals. But just because I can copy them doesn't mean that they are acceptable in the ARS. Just as poorly sent (intentionally or otherwise) CW is not acceptable in the ARS. It's time for you to find some other unreasonable position to champion. This one is on its way to the Alpo factory. Comprende? |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Appalling... | Policy | |||
Appalling... | Policy | |||
Appalling... | General | |||
Appalling... | Policy | |||
Appalling... | Policy |