In article ws.com,
Phil Kane wrote:

| C 10111010111
| 000
|
| In what world is "C" = dit-dah-dit-dah ??? Send that in an
| FCC-administered code test and fail.

Nice catch. I did pass element 1, but I never claimed to be good at
it. In any event, I'd thought I just cut and pasted his CQ string,
but obviously I made a mistake somewhere.

But to retort --

1) The FCC doesn't administer ham radio tests any more
2) The tests are generally receiving, not sending, and
3) You don't need 100% accuracy to pass



(Wow, something actually related to policy!)

--
Doug McLaren, , AD5RH
MONEY IS THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL! SEND $9.95 FOR MORE DETAILS!

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Dave wrote:
thats funny, the program i am writing represents it very nicely with
just
1's and 0's.

Looking at it that way, all things that can be put into a digital
program are digital, such as photographs, word processing, database, etc.

Let us put it to the test, Dave.
Write out a short sentence, or even a CQ de (your callsign) in binary
format, and let me read it right off the screen. If Morse code is
binary, it will be no problem.

This is a screen readable approximation of me calling CQ

.-.- --.- -.. . -.- -... ...-- . .. .- .--. ... . -.-

it is not binary.

11101011101001110111010111001110101001001110101110 01011101110111011100111001
11001110000
looks perfectly binary to me

to make it more readable try replacing 1 with - and 0 with spaces to get:
--- - --- - --- --- - --- --- - - - --- - --- - --- --- --- --- --- -
-- ---

Dave wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

Dave wrote:

thats funny, the program i am writing represents it very nicely with

just

1's and 0's.

Looking at it that way, all things that can be put into a digital
program are digital, such as photographs, word processing, database, etc.

Let us put it to the test, Dave.
Write out a short sentence, or even a CQ de (your callsign) in binary
format, and let me read it right off the screen. If Morse code is
binary, it will be no problem.

This is a screen readable approximation of me calling CQ

.-.- --.- -.. . -.- -... ...-- . .. .- .--. ... . -.-

it is not binary.


11101011101001110111010111001110101001001110101110 01011101110111011100111001
11001110000
looks perfectly binary to me

Now send *that* in a QSO. Using *only* a 0 state or a 1 state. 8^)


- Mike KB3EIA -

In article ,
Michael Coslo wrote:

| I hear lots of Hams declare that Morse code is a binary mode.
|
| It is most certainly not.

It most certainly is.
....
| Is the space between characters a "0"? and the Dih a "1"? Oh wait, what
| is the Dah then? Oh, and what about the space between words?

Try looking at it at a lower level -- stop looking at the dits and dahs.

Morse code is either on or off. 1 or 0. You're either emitting a
signal, or you're not -- there's no in between.

Looking up what binary means -- http://www.answers.com/binary --

bi na ry (b'n-r) pronunciation
adj.
1. Characterized by or consisting of two parts or components; twofold.

At the lowest level, there's only two components -- on or off, tone or
no tone. It certainly fits the definition.

Considering that `tone' = 1 and `no tone' = 0 ...

Longer periods of 1's = dahs
Shorter periods of 1's = dits
Short period of 0's = space between a dit or a dah.
Longer period of 0's = space between characters.
Even longer period of 0's = space between words.

It's not a particularly efficient binary code, but it *is*, at the
lowest level, binary -- there's only two states. It's certainly not
analog, or tinary, or ...

Now, to be fair, at a higher level, you could say it has four states
-- dit, dah, space between character, space between word. Which would
be quadrary (is that the right word? is it even a real word?) But
that doesn't mean it can't be binary at another level at the same
time.

| It isn't binary, and the way our noodles process it isn't binary.

I'm not sure that the way our brain processes it is relevant. RTTY is
binary (or do you disagree there too?) and yet our brain hardly
processes it's output in a binary manner.

| It's not binary.

If you say so. I doubt I've convinced you, but it's really all a
matter of how you look at it, and if you insist on looking at it in
only one way, nobody's going to convince you otherwise.

Why do I feel like I've just been trolled?

--
Doug McLaren, , AD5RH
What I want is all of the power and none of the responsibility.

Doug McLaren wrote:
In article ,
Michael Coslo wrote:

| I hear lots of Hams declare that Morse code is a binary mode.
|
| It is most certainly not.

It most certainly is.
...
| Is the space between characters a "0"? and the Dih a "1"? Oh wait, what
| is the Dah then? Oh, and what about the space between words?

Try looking at it at a lower level -- stop looking at the dits and dahs.

At a lower level, anything is digital when you look at it that way. A
photograph, digital audio, whatever.

If Morse code was really digital, there would be no need to have a lower
level

Morse code is either on or off. 1 or 0. You're either emitting a
signal, or you're not -- there's no in between.

Ahh, so the space between the dits and dahs means nothing? There is
definitely an "in between" It is how we determine what the words a

...... is that the number 5, or is it HE or is it SI, or IS or EH?

Looking up what binary means -- http://www.answers.com/binary --

bi na ry (b'n-r) pronunciation
adj.
1. Characterized by or consisting of two parts or components; twofold.

At the lowest level, there's only two components -- on or off, tone or
no tone. It certainly fits the definition.

Considering that `tone' = 1 and `no tone' = 0 ...

Longer periods of 1's = dahs
Shorter periods of 1's = dits
Short period of 0's = space between a dit or a dah.
Longer period of 0's = space between characters.
Even longer period of 0's = space between words.

You have just described more than two states.

It's not a particularly efficient binary code, but it *is*, at the
lowest level, binary -- there's only two states. It's certainly not
analog, or tinary, or ...

Disagree. It isn't analog for sure, but with only a 1 and a zero, it
cant be described. Trying to describe it with 1's and 0's means that you
have to translate it. That longer dah, is not a 1. It cannot be the same
thing as the short dit. If both of them are 1's, the analogy fails

Now, to be fair, at a higher level, you could say it has four states
-- dit, dah, space between character, space between word. Which would
be quadrary (is that the right word? is it even a real word?) But
that doesn't mean it can't be binary at another level at the same
time.

| It isn't binary, and the way our noodles process it isn't binary.

I'm not sure that the way our brain processes it is relevant. RTTY is
binary (or do you disagree there too?) and yet our brain hardly
processes it's output in a binary manner.

| It's not binary.

If you say so. I doubt I've convinced you, but it's really all a
matter of how you look at it, and if you insist on looking at it in
only one way, nobody's going to convince you otherwise.

I'm saying that in order to have Morse code be binary, you have to
digitize it, so to speak. You have to have a clocking action, and a dah
has to either be something other than a "1" if the dit is considered a
"1". If it was truly digital, you wouldn't have to do any of that.

Why do I feel like I've just been trolled?

Isn't that what the group is about? here

- Mike KB3EIA -

In article ,
Michael Coslo wrote:

| At a lower level, anything is digital when you look at it that way. A
| photograph, digital audio, whatever.

Digital audio is digital if you look at it that way? Cute.

As for a photograph, a black and white photograph could be seen that
way -- after all, at the molecular level, a molecule of pigment is
either there or not there. It's quantized.

But no, not everything is digital. A specific sound isn't digital --
sure, you could approximate it with a digital stream, but ultimately
it's just an approximation, no matter how fast your digital stream is.

| If Morse code was really digital, there would be no need to have a
| lower level

Are you even thinking about what you're saying here?

If there's only one level, then a morse code signal would be just a
constant tone. It's hard to put much information into a constant,
unchanging tone. If you want to transmit some information, you're
going to need to have at least two states to choose from.

| Morse code is either on or off. 1 or 0. You're either emitting a
| signal, or you're not -- there's no in between.
|
| Ahh, so the space between the dits and dahs means nothing? There is
| definitely an "in between" It is how we determine what the words a

The space between the dits and dahs is `off' -- either 1, 3 or 7
zeros. The dits and dahs are `on', either one or three 1s.

Look at my other post where I converted your CQ call to a binary
representation of it.

| ..... is that the number 5, or is it HE or is it SI, or IS or EH?

If you feel that I claimed that the spaces are unimportant, then you
did not understand me very well. Spaces are represented by a number
of zeros, and dits and dahs by a number of ones. Binary.

| Longer periods of 1's = dahs
| Shorter periods of 1's = dits
| Short period of 0's = space between a dit or a dah.
| Longer period of 0's = space between characters.
| Even longer period of 0's = space between words.
|
| You have just described more than two states.

Sure -- I was trying to explain how it all boils down to two states.

RTTY usually carries information encoded with BAUDOT. (You do believe
that RTTY is digital, right? Even with that 1.5 baud stop bit?) Each
BAUDOT character is chosen by 5 bits -- that's 32 states, and then
there's the state of the shift, which gives you about 62 states (64 -
2, since two states don't matter.)

So RTTY/BAUDOT uses somewhere between 32 and 64 states. But you do
believe that that RTTY and BAUDOT are binary modulations or codes,
right?

| It's not a particularly efficient binary code, but it *is*, at the
| lowest level, binary -- there's only two states. It's certainly not
| analog, or tinary, or ...
|
| Disagree. It isn't analog for sure, but with only a 1 and a zero, it
| cant be described.

.... but I just did in my other post. It was a bit tedious, but hardly
impossible.

| Trying to describe it with 1's and 0's means that you
| have to translate it. That longer dah, is not a 1.

That is correct -- dah is not 1. It's three 1s in a row, followed by
at least one 0.

| It cannot be the same thing as the short dit. If both of them are
| 1's, the analogy fails

Sure. The short dit is just a single 1, followed by at least one 0.

| I'm saying that in order to have Morse code be binary, you have to
| digitize it, so to speak. You have to have a clocking action, and a dah
| has to either be something other than a "1" if the dit is considered a
| "1". If it was truly digital, you wouldn't have to do any of that.

Have you looked at your morse code key lately? It has two positions
-- on and off. That alone should be enough to let you realize that
it's binary.

Things like PSK31 and RTTY/BAUDOT aren't any different, except that
the computer does the translation down to the binary level rather than
your brain and your finger.

It could be argued that the human brain doesn't easily deal with
binary codes. Which would make sense -- many of us had a hard time
learning morse code, even at the slowest possible speed. Yet it's
only about 40 characters, which shouldn't be hard to memorize at all.

--
Doug McLaren, , AD5RH
"I found out why my car was humming. It had forgotten the words."

Doug McLaren wrote:

In article ,
Michael Coslo wrote:

| At a lower level, anything is digital when you look at it that way. A
| photograph, digital audio, whatever.

Digital audio is digital if you look at it that way? Cute.

Well, my XYL thinks I'm cute. 8^)

As for a photograph, a black and white photograph could be seen that
way -- after all, at the molecular level, a molecule of pigment is
either there or not there. It's quantized.

True enough.

But no, not everything is digital. A specific sound isn't digital --
sure, you could approximate it with a digital stream, but ultimately
it's just an approximation, no matter how fast your digital stream is.

| If Morse code was really digital, there would be no need to have a
| lower level

Are you even thinking about what you're saying here?

If there's only one level, then a morse code signal would be just a
constant tone. It's hard to put much information into a constant,
unchanging tone. If you want to transmit some information, you're
going to need to have at least two states to choose from.

| Morse code is either on or off. 1 or 0. You're either emitting a
| signal, or you're not -- there's no in between.
|
| Ahh, so the space between the dits and dahs means nothing? There is
| definitely an "in between" It is how we determine what the words a

The space between the dits and dahs is `off' -- either 1, 3 or 7
zeros. The dits and dahs are `on', either one or three 1s.

Look at my other post where I converted your CQ call to a binary
representation of it.

You converted. That is the core of the issue. I have no argument
with what you did or what others have done to take a input of Morse code
and convert it into a digital form.


| ..... is that the number 5, or is it HE or is it SI, or IS or EH?

If you feel that I claimed that the spaces are unimportant, then you
did not understand me very well. Spaces are represented by a number
of zeros, and dits and dahs by a number of ones. Binary.

I completely understand that the spaces are of equal importance to all
the other states.

| Longer periods of 1's = dahs
| Shorter periods of 1's = dits
| Short period of 0's = space between a dit or a dah.
| Longer period of 0's = space between characters.
| Even longer period of 0's = space between words.
|
| You have just described more than two states.

Sure -- I was trying to explain how it all boils down to two states.

Understood. But you have to write software to take that Morse code
signal and convert it or boil it down or whatever.

RTTY usually carries information encoded with BAUDOT. (You do believe
that RTTY is digital, right? Even with that 1.5 baud stop bit?) Each
BAUDOT character is chosen by 5 bits -- that's 32 states, and then
there's the state of the shift, which gives you about 62 states (64 -
2, since two states don't matter.)

So RTTY/BAUDOT uses somewhere between 32 and 64 states. But you do
believe that that RTTY and BAUDOT are binary modulations or codes,
right?

| It's not a particularly efficient binary code, but it *is*, at the
| lowest level, binary -- there's only two states. It's certainly not
| analog, or tinary, or ...
|
| Disagree. It isn't analog for sure, but with only a 1 and a zero, it
| cant be described.

... but I just did in my other post. It was a bit tedious, but hardly
impossible.

I wasn't precise there. You have to time the signal, and assign
multiple 1's and 0's to different parts of the sent signal.

| Trying to describe it with 1's and 0's means that you
| have to translate it. That longer dah, is not a 1.

That is correct -- dah is not 1. It's three 1s in a row, followed by
at least one 0.

So you convert a dah into 3 1's and a zero. This sounds more to me like
a conversion than anything else.


| It cannot be the same thing as the short dit. If both of them are
| 1's, the analogy fails

Sure. The short dit is just a single 1, followed by at least one 0.

A 1 and a 0. Like I said it's a conversion.

That it is not a difficult conversion is not the point.

| I'm saying that in order to have Morse code be binary, you have to
| digitize it, so to speak. You have to have a clocking action, and a dah
| has to either be something other than a "1" if the dit is considered a
| "1". If it was truly digital, you wouldn't have to do any of that.

Have you looked at your morse code key lately? It has two positions
-- on and off. That alone should be enough to let you realize that
it's binary.

Just a second ago. I have an Iambic key, so that kind of clouds the
issue. I have a key for dits, a key for dats, and nothing happens if I
don't touch either.

Things like PSK31 and RTTY/BAUDOT aren't any different, except that
the computer does the translation down to the binary level rather than
your brain and your finger.

It could be argued that the human brain doesn't easily deal with
binary codes. Which would make sense -- many of us had a hard time
learning morse code, even at the slowest possible speed. Yet it's
only about 40 characters, which shouldn't be hard to memorize at all.

I had a hard time due to deafness. My XYL would agree with you if you
said I don't listen very well! ;^)


- Mike KB3EIA -

"Michael Coslo" wrote in message
...
Doug McLaren wrote:
In article ,
Michael Coslo wrote:

| I hear lots of Hams declare that Morse code is a binary mode.
|
| It is most certainly not.

It most certainly is.
...
| Is the space between characters a "0"? and the Dih a "1"? Oh wait,
what
| is the Dah then? Oh, and what about the space between words?

Try looking at it at a lower level -- stop looking at the dits and dahs.

At a lower level, anything is digital when you look at it that way. A
photograph, digital audio, whatever.

If Morse code was really digital, there would be no need to have a lower
level

Morse code is either on or off. 1 or 0. You're either emitting a
signal, or you're not -- there's no in between.

Ahh, so the space between the dits and dahs means nothing? There is
definitely an "in between" It is how we determine what the words a

..... is that the number 5, or is it HE or is it SI, or IS or EH?

Looking up what binary means -- http://www.answers.com/binary --

bi na ry (b'n-r) pronunciation
adj.
1. Characterized by or consisting of two parts or components;
twofold.

At the lowest level, there's only two components -- on or off, tone or
no tone. It certainly fits the definition.

Considering that `tone' = 1 and `no tone' = 0 ...

Longer periods of 1's = dahs
Shorter periods of 1's = dits
Short period of 0's = space between a dit or a dah.
Longer period of 0's = space between characters.
Even longer period of 0's = space between words.

You have just described more than two states.

It's not a particularly efficient binary code, but it *is*, at the
lowest level, binary -- there's only two states. It's certainly not
analog, or tinary, or ...

Disagree. It isn't analog for sure, but with only a 1 and a zero, it
cant be described. Trying to describe it with 1's and 0's means that you
have to translate it. That longer dah, is not a 1. It cannot be the same
thing as the short dit. If both of them are 1's, the analogy fails

Now, to be fair, at a higher level, you could say it has four states
-- dit, dah, space between character, space between word. Which would
be quadrary (is that the right word? is it even a real word?) But
that doesn't mean it can't be binary at another level at the same
time.

| It isn't binary, and the way our noodles process it isn't binary.

I'm not sure that the way our brain processes it is relevant. RTTY is
binary (or do you disagree there too?) and yet our brain hardly
processes it's output in a binary manner.

| It's not binary.

If you say so. I doubt I've convinced you, but it's really all a
matter of how you look at it, and if you insist on looking at it in
only one way, nobody's going to convince you otherwise.

I'm saying that in order to have Morse code be binary, you have to
digitize it, so to speak. You have to have a clocking action, and a dah
has to either be something other than a "1" if the dit is considered a
"1". If it was truly digital, you wouldn't have to do any of that.

even the 'real' digital modes have a clocking action. how else do you know
when one character ends and another starts? the one big oddity of morse is
that the characters are unequal lengths so it is not easy to make a simple
clock mechanism to decode them like it is for baudot or ascii codes. then
of course another oddity is that it is often sent by hand (or at least it
used to be) so the timing varies even within a short message making it even
harder to decode mechanically. however hscw and very low speed or coherent
cw are normally machine encoded and decoded and rely on very exact timing.

Dave wrote:

"Michael Coslo" wrote in message
...

Doug McLaren wrote:

In article ,
Michael Coslo wrote:

| I hear lots of Hams declare that Morse code is a binary mode.
|
| It is most certainly not.

It most certainly is.
...
| Is the space between characters a "0"? and the Dih a "1"? Oh wait,

what

| is the Dah then? Oh, and what about the space between words?

Try looking at it at a lower level -- stop looking at the dits and dahs.

At a lower level, anything is digital when you look at it that way. A
photograph, digital audio, whatever.

If Morse code was really digital, there would be no need to have a lower
level


Morse code is either on or off. 1 or 0. You're either emitting a
signal, or you're not -- there's no in between.

Ahh, so the space between the dits and dahs means nothing? There is
definitely an "in between" It is how we determine what the words a

..... is that the number 5, or is it HE or is it SI, or IS or EH?


Looking up what binary means -- http://www.answers.com/binary --

bi na ry (b'n-r) pronunciation
adj.
1. Characterized by or consisting of two parts or components;

twofold.

At the lowest level, there's only two components -- on or off, tone or
no tone. It certainly fits the definition.

Considering that `tone' = 1 and `no tone' = 0 ...

Longer periods of 1's = dahs
Shorter periods of 1's = dits
Short period of 0's = space between a dit or a dah.
Longer period of 0's = space between characters.
Even longer period of 0's = space between words.

You have just described more than two states.


It's not a particularly efficient binary code, but it *is*, at the
lowest level, binary -- there's only two states. It's certainly not
analog, or tinary, or ...

Disagree. It isn't analog for sure, but with only a 1 and a zero, it
cant be described. Trying to describe it with 1's and 0's means that you
have to translate it. That longer dah, is not a 1. It cannot be the same
thing as the short dit. If both of them are 1's, the analogy fails


Now, to be fair, at a higher level, you could say it has four states
-- dit, dah, space between character, space between word. Which would
be quadrary (is that the right word? is it even a real word?) But
that doesn't mean it can't be binary at another level at the same
time.

| It isn't binary, and the way our noodles process it isn't binary.

I'm not sure that the way our brain processes it is relevant. RTTY is
binary (or do you disagree there too?) and yet our brain hardly
processes it's output in a binary manner.

| It's not binary.

If you say so. I doubt I've convinced you, but it's really all a
matter of how you look at it, and if you insist on looking at it in
only one way, nobody's going to convince you otherwise.

I'm saying that in order to have Morse code be binary, you have to
digitize it, so to speak. You have to have a clocking action, and a dah
has to either be something other than a "1" if the dit is considered a
"1". If it was truly digital, you wouldn't have to do any of that.


even the 'real' digital modes have a clocking action. how else do you know
when one character ends and another starts? the one big oddity of morse is
that the characters are unequal lengths so it is not easy to make a simple
clock mechanism to decode them like it is for baudot or ascii codes. then
of course another oddity is that it is often sent by hand (or at least it
used to be) so the timing varies even within a short message making it even
harder to decode mechanically. however hscw and very low speed or coherent
cw are normally machine encoded and decoded and rely on very exact timing.

I agree Dave. I'm a little familiar with the digital world. The
oddities of Morse that you mention are both the blessing and curse of
the mode. No argument on the ability to convert Morse to digital, and
while the machine sent stuff is not too hard to translate, it is amazing
what the human mind can do when recieving a signal from a person with a
bad fist.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Doug McLaren wrote:
In article ,
Michael Coslo wrote:

| I hear lots of Hams declare that Morse code is a binary mode.
|
| It is most certainly not.

It most certainly is.
...
| Is the space between characters a "0"? and the Dih a "1"? Oh wait,
what
| is the Dah then? Oh, and what about the space between words?

Try looking at it at a lower level -- stop looking at the dits and
dahs.

Morse code is either on or off. 1 or 0. You're either emitting a
signal, or you're not -- there's no in between.

Looking up what binary means -- http://www.answers.com/binary --

Look up what "Morse Code" means. If you can. The FCC no longer has a
definition.