(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message ...
Subject: Doing Battle? Can't Resist Posting?
From: (William)
Date: 10/14/2004 5:34 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

Jim has stated that the throughput of a rtty system may be limited by
the typing speed of the operator. The example he used is that the
rtty operator might only be able to type 10wpm, thus rendering the
rtty a 10wpm machine.

I responded that the throughput of a CW system might be limited by the
Morse Code operator only knowing the code at 10wpm.

I wanted to know how that was different from his example. So far no
response.

No response because I don't read most of what "William" writes here. I
only saw this because it was quoted by Steve.

Besides, why should I answer "William's" questions when he won't
answer mine? Also, I've already answered the above question in another
post.

Even if the operator can type 120 WPM, if s/he can't be interrupted in the
midst of the string and asked for a repeat, as a good QSK CW operator can,
then
that error will exist until the end of the transmission and the error
resolved.

That's a side benefit.

Here's the plain facts:

The speed and accuracy of *any* mode that requires a human operator is
highly dependent upon that operator's skill. Doesn't matter if it's
done with a key, keyboard or microphone. If you have 10 wpm Morse
operators, you have (at best) a 10 wpm system. If you have 10 wpm
teletypists, you have (at best) a 10 wpm system regardless of what the
maximum speed of the system is rated. Same for voice.

That's just common sense.

The use of prerecorded storage can speed things up somewhat if, say, a
10 wpm teletypist is punching tape while receiving. But that takes the
systems out of real-time communications. One could prerecord Morse and
transmit it at high speed, as was done over 60 years ago, just as
well.

The basic fact is that Morse code is *not* the slowest mode available
to hams.

Assuming the interruption it to tell the transmitting station that it's
ALL garbled, your 60-100WPM teletype just became zero.

Yup.

Various forms of error detection and correction, checksums, ACK/NAK
and other methods can do a lot of that stuff automatically. At a cost
in speed, of course.

But that's not really the issue.

A bridge out in the middle of the Autobahn means everyone goes zero until
the bridge is replaced regardless of what the thoroughfare will otherwise
allow. Same thing.

Exactly!

Or:

The bridge is down to one lane in each direction, and the speed limit
is such that only 1/10 as many cars/hour get through as would normally
be able to use the bridge. The effective capacity of the road is then
reduced to 1/10 of normal (between the exits before and after the
blockage).


73 de Jim, N2EY

(N2EY) wrote in message . com...
(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message ...
Subject: Doing Battle? Can't Resist Posting?
From: (William)
Date: 10/14/2004 5:34 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

Jim has stated that the throughput of a rtty system may be limited by
the typing speed of the operator. The example he used is that the
rtty operator might only be able to type 10wpm, thus rendering the
rtty a 10wpm machine.

I responded that the throughput of a CW system might be limited by the
Morse Code operator only knowing the code at 10wpm.

I wanted to know how that was different from his example. So far no
response.

No response because I don't read most of what "William" writes here. I
only saw this because it was quoted by Steve.

Of course. Hi!

Besides, why should I answer "William's" questions when he won't
answer mine? Also, I've already answered the above question in another
post.

I didn't see it because I don't read most of what "Jim" posts.

Even if the operator can type 120 WPM, if s/he can't be interrupted in the
midst of the string and asked for a repeat, as a good QSK CW operator can,
then
that error will exist until the end of the transmission and the error
resolved.

That's a side benefit.

Assuming both ops have QSK. And there's nothing inherently wrong with
asking for "all again after xxx." SOP if you know what I mean.

Here's the plain facts:

The speed and accuracy of *any* mode that requires a human operator is
highly dependent upon that operator's skill. Doesn't matter if it's
done with a key, keyboard or microphone. If you have 10 wpm Morse
operators, you have (at best) a 10 wpm system. If you have 10 wpm
teletypists, you have (at best) a 10 wpm system regardless of what the
maximum speed of the system is rated. Same for voice.

That's just common sense.

But you chose to imply that the CW op was somehow better than rtty for
throughput. And you got called on it.

The use of prerecorded storage can speed things up somewhat if, say, a
10 wpm teletypist is punching tape while receiving. But that takes the
systems out of real-time communications. One could prerecord Morse and
transmit it at high speed, as was done over 60 years ago, just as
well.

Unless you have an Extra Class operator who vows to do his best to
make machine copy impossible. Ever heard of such stupidity?

The basic fact is that Morse code is *not* the slowest mode available
to hams.

It is among the very slowest, all else being equal.

Assuming the interruption it to tell the transmitting station that it's
ALL garbled, your 60-100WPM teletype just became zero.

Yup.

Ditto W0EX sent cw.

Various forms of error detection and correction, checksums, ACK/NAK
and other methods can do a lot of that stuff automatically. At a cost
in speed, of course.

But that's not really the issue.

Never is. CW is better than everything else. That is the issue.

A bridge out in the middle of the Autobahn means everyone goes zero until
the bridge is replaced regardless of what the thoroughfare will otherwise
allow. Same thing.

Exactly!

Ever heard of changing bands, or relaying?

Or:

The bridge is down to one lane in each direction, and the speed limit
is such that only 1/10 as many cars/hour get through as would normally
be able to use the bridge. The effective capacity of the road is then
reduced to 1/10 of normal (between the exits before and after the
blockage).


73 de Jim, N2EY

The only blockage are the eyes rolled back Morse Code elitists.

"William" wrote


Unless you have an Extra Class operator who vows to do his best to
make machine copy impossible. Ever heard of such stupidity?


I've never heard of that, but I have heard of skilled operators who
make no effort to send machine perfect code, and who in fact take some
pride in sending Morse with some personality.

There are a couple of reasons for this seemingly maverick behaviour.

Reason #1: Before the days of "electronic precision" in keying, Morse
was a manual art. An operators fist was a second "signature", and many
operators cultivated a distinctive style. This was especially true
where more than one operator shared a single call sign. You could tell
who was on watch at KFS by the fist of the operator.

Even with the advent of electronic keyers, some of this old preference
exists, and I must admit I get pretty bored with the
machine-perfect-sterile-without-personality Morse we hear today. It
sounds like robots talking to robots. If you ever heard the melodic
fist of pioneers like W4KFC, you would not have asked the question.
grin.

Reason #2: Under "less than ideal" conditions, a little overweighting
with emphasis on the DAH seems to make copy a bit easier.


73, de K0HB
didididahdiDAH
--
My name is Hans and I improved this message.

Subject: Doing Battle? Can't Resist Posting?
From: (N2EY)
Date: 10/18/2004 12:04 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...
Subject: Doing Battle? Can't Resist Posting?
From: (William)
Date: 10/14/2004 5:34 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

Jim has stated that the throughput of a rtty system may be limited by
the typing speed of the operator. The example he used is that the
rtty operator might only be able to type 10wpm, thus rendering the
rtty a 10wpm machine.

I responded that the throughput of a CW system might be limited by the
Morse Code operator only knowing the code at 10wpm.

I wanted to know how that was different from his example. So far no
response.

No response because I don't read most of what "William" writes here. I
only saw this because it was quoted by Steve.

Besides, why should I answer "William's" questions when he won't
answer mine? Also, I've already answered the above question in another
post.

Absolutely.

Brain has "chastised" me over "not being able to resist" responding to
posts, yet his posts on this forum outnumber mine. By a considerable
percentage.

Also, he's tried to alledge that I (and others who are "on the other side,
which is just about everyone) "don't have a life" beyond RRAP...Yet there's
been several occassions wherein family, work, volunteer activites, etc have
"kept me away" from the NG, and when I did return, there was a post from the
Gonadless One making some smart alec comment about not responding to him in
what HE considers a timely manner.

He has taken the lessons of his master to heart: "Do As I Say, Not Do As
I Do".

73

Steve, K4YZ

Subject: Doing Battle? Can't Resist Posting?
From: (William)
Date: 10/18/2004 7:25 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(N2EY) wrote in message
.com...

Even if the operator can type 120 WPM, if s/he can't be interrupted in
the
midst of the string and asked for a repeat, as a good QSK CW operator
can,
then
that error will exist until the end of the transmission and the error
resolved.

That's a side benefit.

Assuming both ops have QSK. And there's nothing inherently wrong with
asking for "all again after xxx." SOP if you know what I mean.

I dare say we know better than you do, Brain.

And if you ARE operating QSK, you don't have to ask "all after"...You can
stop them and get a "fill" right then and there.

(People who USE "QSK" know this...)

Here's the plain facts:

The speed and accuracy of *any* mode that requires a human operator is
highly dependent upon that operator's skill. Doesn't matter if it's
done with a key, keyboard or microphone. If you have 10 wpm Morse
operators, you have (at best) a 10 wpm system. If you have 10 wpm
teletypists, you have (at best) a 10 wpm system regardless of what the
maximum speed of the system is rated. Same for voice.

That's just common sense.

But you chose to imply that the CW op was somehow better than rtty for
throughput. And you got called on it.

"...got called on it"...?!?!

In some circumstances CW WILL get through and with greater accuracy than
RTTY.

This has already been demonstrated.

The use of prerecorded storage can speed things up somewhat if, say, a
10 wpm teletypist is punching tape while receiving. But that takes the
systems out of real-time communications. One could prerecord Morse and
transmit it at high speed, as was done over 60 years ago, just as
well.

Unless you have an Extra Class operator who vows to do his best to
make machine copy impossible. Ever heard of such stupidity?

Only from somone stupid enough to make the suggestion.

Ooooooooooooooooooppps! That was YOU, Brain! 'Magine that!

The basic fact is that Morse code is *not* the slowest mode available
to hams.

It is among the very slowest, all else being equal.

What do YOU know about "being equal"...?!?!

A good CW net can clear 10-15 messages while the SSB net is still in roll
call.

I know...I've been there.

Assuming the interruption it to tell the transmitting station that
it's
ALL garbled, your 60-100WPM teletype just became zero.

Yup.

Ditto W0EX sent cw.

Various forms of error detection and correction, checksums, ACK/NAK
and other methods can do a lot of that stuff automatically. At a cost
in speed, of course.

But that's not really the issue.

Never is. CW is better than everything else. That is the issue.

That's the "issue" only to you and Lennie.

The rest of us with some practical experience in such issues KNOW better.

A bridge out in the middle of the Autobahn means everyone goes zero
until
the bridge is replaced regardless of what the thoroughfare will otherwise
allow. Same thing.

Exactly!

Ever heard of changing bands, or relaying?

OK.

You're taking traffic from someone on 40 meter RTTY. The band sucks.

You just missed practically everything he sent. He finally QRT's.

How are you going to tell him to QSY if RTTY isn't working? Use an even
WIDER bandwidth mode on a band that's already crappy?

Or:

The bridge is down to one lane in each direction, and the speed limit
is such that only 1/10 as many cars/hour get through as would normally
be able to use the bridge. The effective capacity of the road is then
reduced to 1/10 of normal (between the exits before and after the
blockage).


73 de Jim, N2EY

The only blockage are the eyes rolled back Morse Code elitists.

The only "blockage" is in your lower bowel that allows all that BS to back
up to your eyes, Brain...You really are the epitome of "idiot".

Steve, K4YZ

"KØHB" wrote in message k.net...
"William" wrote


Unless you have an Extra Class operator who vows to do his best to
make machine copy impossible. Ever heard of such stupidity?


I've never heard of that, but I have heard of skilled operators who
make no effort to send machine perfect code, and who in fact take some
pride in sending Morse with some personality.

There are a couple of reasons for this seemingly maverick behaviour.

Reason #1: Before the days of "electronic precision" in keying, Morse
was a manual art. An operators fist was a second "signature", and many
operators cultivated a distinctive style. This was especially true
where more than one operator shared a single call sign. You could tell
who was on watch at KFS by the fist of the operator.

The need or desire to develop a distinctive style because of a shared
call sign should not have had much play in the amateur service where
each operator is assigned a unique call sign.

If you wish to speak of other services morse code use, then there are
other venues for that.

Even with the advent of electronic keyers, some of this old preference
exists, and I must admit I get pretty bored with the
machine-perfect-sterile-without-personality Morse we hear today. It
sounds like robots talking to robots. If you ever heard the melodic
fist of pioneers like W4KFC, you would not have asked the question.
grin.

Wunnerful.

Reason #2: Under "less than ideal" conditions, a little overweighting
with emphasis on the DAH seems to make copy a bit easier.

Perhaps.

73, de K0HB
didididahdiDAH

Yet Dick stated that his mission was to make his fist uncopyable to
no-code Technicians with a machine reader.

bb

Subject: Doing Battle? Can't Resist Posting?
From: (William)
Date: 10/19/2004 5:17 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

"KØHB" wrote in message
nk.net...
"William" wrote


Unless you have an Extra Class operator who vows to do his best to
make machine copy impossible. Ever heard of such stupidity?


I've never heard of that, but I have heard of skilled operators who
make no effort to send machine perfect code, and who in fact take some
pride in sending Morse with some personality.

There are a couple of reasons for this seemingly maverick behaviour.

Reason #1: Before the days of "electronic precision" in keying, Morse
was a manual art. An operators fist was a second "signature", and many
operators cultivated a distinctive style. This was especially true
where more than one operator shared a single call sign. You could tell
who was on watch at KFS by the fist of the operator.

The need or desire to develop a distinctive style because of a shared
call sign should not have had much play in the amateur service where
each operator is assigned a unique call sign.

If you wish to speak of other services morse code use, then there are
other venues for that.

BRAIN! Violating your own position on the discussion of other radio
service's practice and policies? Why just last week you were invokling this
"broadband" attitude about "radio" in order to accomodate your bunk-buddy
mentor, Lennie the Licenseless.

Have you since changed your position on the discussion of "radio" issues?

Even with the advent of electronic keyers, some of this old preference
exists, and I must admit I get pretty bored with the
machine-perfect-sterile-without-personality Morse we hear today. It
sounds like robots talking to robots. If you ever heard the melodic
fist of pioneers like W4KFC, you would not have asked the question.
grin.

Wunnerful.

Reason #2: Under "less than ideal" conditions, a little overweighting
with emphasis on the DAH seems to make copy a bit easier.

Perhaps.

No "perhaps" to it.

Those of us proficient in Morse Code techniques know this to be true.

Yet Dick stated that his mission was to make his fist uncopyable to
no-code Technicians with a machine reader.

OK.

Dick's no longer with us (73 es GL OM). YOUR point is...?!?!

Steve, K4YZ

--
My name is Hans and I improved this message.

"William" wrote

Yet Dick stated that his mission was to make his fist uncopyable to
no-code Technicians with a machine reader.


If Dick said that, it's probably too late to change his mind on the
matter.

73, de K0HB
--
My name is Hans and I improved this message.

William wrote:


Yet Dick stated that his mission was to make his fist uncopyable to
no-code Technicians with a machine reader.

c'mon now Brian. Dick isn't here to defend himself. SNIOTD.

- Mike KB3EIA -

In article , (Steve
Robeson K4CAP) writes:

Subject: Doing Battle? Can't Resist Posting?
From: (N2EY)
Date: 10/18/2004 12:04 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...
Subject: Doing Battle? Can't Resist Posting?
From: (William)
Date: 10/14/2004 5:34 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

Jim has stated that the throughput of a rtty system may be limited by
the typing speed of the operator. The example he used is that the
rtty operator might only be able to type 10wpm, thus rendering the
rtty a 10wpm machine.

I responded that the throughput of a CW system might be limited by the
Morse Code operator only knowing the code at 10wpm.

I wanted to know how that was different from his example. So far no
response.

No response because I don't read most of what "William" writes here. I
only saw this because it was quoted by Steve.

Besides, why should I answer "William's" questions when he won't
answer mine? Also, I've already answered the above question in another
post.

Absolutely.

Brain has "chastised" me over "not being able to resist" responding to
posts, yet his posts on this forum outnumber mine. By a considerable
percentage.

So why not resist?

Also, he's tried to alledge that I (and others who are "on the other
side,
which is just about everyone) "don't have a life" beyond RRAP...Yet there's
been several occassions wherein family, work, volunteer activites, etc have
"kept me away" from the NG, and when I did return, there was a post from the
Gonadless One making some smart alec comment about not responding to him in
what HE considers a timely manner.

He has taken the lessons of his master to heart: "Do As I Say, Not Do
As I Do".

Why not set a good example?

73 de Jim, N2EY