Len Anderson wrote:
In article .com,
writes:

In later "polar keying" telegraphy, the current was either flowing
in one direction or flowing in the opposite direction. Two
states.
However, such "polar keying" (originally "polarized keying"),
those
are implemented as TRINARY since there is the state where no
current is flowing in the loop . . .

Welp then that means CW is a tertiary mode. Given a slice of RF
spectrum space in which CW is being transmitted there are actually
three states: Key down, key up and the noise between up n' down. OYeah,
the noise matters as a "state".


Morse code is definitely BINARY. Binary does not refer to the
time or duration of maintaining either of two states.

None of that really matters to any policy discussions. It matters
greatly to those chat-roomers or morse-bloggers who MUST fill
space with all kinds of miscellaneous dreck subjects reveling in
the sanctity, efficacy, nobility . . .

Sweetums for God's sake it's drek . . as in "Drek mit Leber" . .

w3rv

Len Anderson wrote:

Two states. In any of the states of the United States and in all
the "airwaves" of the universe.

Sorry, old bean. I live in a tri-state area.

Dave K8MN

Can a person request to be tested by sending? My sending has always
outpaced my receiving!


99% of people are that way. The FCC found that nobody
ever failed a sending test if they passed a receiving
test. So they decided why bother with sending.

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

N2EY wrote:

In article ws.com, "Phil
Kane" writes:


On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 04:13:16 GMT, Doug McLaren wrote:


But to retort --

1) The FCC doesn't administer ham radio tests any more

Nothing in the Rules says that someone can't be called into an FCC
office and administered an individual test if the FCC deems it
necessary.


Bring 'em on! ;-)

2) The tests are generally receiving, not sending, and

Generally but not always. It's up to the examiner.


Yep. It is possible to pass Element 1 by *sending only*.


Can a person request to be tested by sending?

It is my understanding that such a test can be administered as an accomodation.
Same as someone might request a flashing light rather than audio tone, or a
pitch other than the usual 750 Hz.

My sending has always
outpaced my receiving!

Mine too.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , Michael Coslo
writes:

N2EY wrote:

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

wrote:

Michael Coslo wrote:

I felt kinda bad about being mean to Len,

When were you mean to Len, Mike?
Unless you count disagreeing with him and proving him wrong as "being
mean", you've been nothing but nice to him.

Well, he probably thinks so!

Whether he thinks at all is unknown. It's clear he has no shame, however,
considering how he behaves here and all the Godwin violations. He and "F%$@
$%#k" Dick Cheney must be buddies.

Mike Deignan had him pegged. Len's really ticked that somewhere, out there,
somebody is having fun with ham radio.

*Every Day*! If I'm not operating, I'm reading or surfing the web to
learn about it. And I venture in here for a little mud wrestling from
time to time too! 8^)

What *really* ticks him, I suppose, is people having fun with ham radio and
Morse Code...

so I'll try to meet him
halfway with a Morse code topic.

His definition of meeting halfway is that you agree with him 100%.

That is certainly possible...

It's self-evident...

So maybe we can ressurect this old one...

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

Depends how you define "binary".

One state equals "0" or "off".
The other state equals "1" or "on".

You have to define "state". If "key up" and "key down" are the states, it's
binary. Time isn't the factor you make it - look at how Baudot works.

Certainly. But Morse code, which was invented as a human translated
code, does not qualify to me as a 1 or 0 state.

Here is my rationale:

If the key is up, the radio is certainly not sending 0's.

Doesn't have to.

This brings up an interesting paradox...
If the lack of a signal is a 0 state, then when no signal is being
transmitted, you are receiving zeros until someone sends something.

That's right. And a string of zeroes is interpreted as lots of spaces.

I grant that a dit might be a 1.

If a dah is 3 1's, why do we not send 3 dits. I either hold the key down
longer or press the dah switch on my keyer. It sends out a longer pulse,
not 3 1's.

It sends three dits with no space between them.

Describing the signal as how many 1's a signal is, or how many 0's
indicate intercharacter or interword spacing is a method of translating
the varying length Morse code signals into digital format.

So?

The basic element is one dit length long. Three of them together in the one
state is a dah.

Let us look at the situation.

Is the Dit a "0"?

No.

Is the Dah a "1"?

No.

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?

Key up is "0". Key down is "1". Also known as "space" and "mark",
respectively.

Unfortunately, there are two separate "1" states, and the zero state is
not a constant thing.

Doesn't have to be. It's a time code.

There is the matter of time. A zero might me the space between letters,
or one half of a dit. It might also mean the space between words. All
different things.

No. The characters are built from the basic elements, which are key up and
key down, just like, say, Baudot RTTY.

That Morse code can be turned into binary is not at argument here. It
obviously can, just as images, emails and everything else we do on the
computer. Are they binary because someone has written a program to turn
them into strings of 1's and 0's?


Their basic transmission form is binary, same as Morse.

A non-binary code is one that has more than two *transmission* states, like
QPSK. Which is typically implemented as 0, 90, 180 and 270 degrees shift.
Four transmission states rather than two.

It isn't binary,

Depends on how you define "binary".

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

Different subject.

Not really. If you look at the string of 1's and 0's that Doug posted
as the binary result of my hypothetical CQ, is that something that you
would recognize as that CQ? That string IS binary.

I would recognize it easily.

Why does the - and . method of typing out the code convey the
information? the dashes and the spaces convey time information to the
person looking at them. I'm counting more than two states here.

It's not the simplest way, though. It shows the time differently.

It's not binary.

Most Morse operators with any skill (that excludes Len) process a
complete character as one "sound". "didahdidit" is recognized as "L",
in the same way that when you hear the word "cat", you think of the
animal. The Morse operator does not think in terms of dits and dahs any
more than a person thinks in terms of the consonant and vowel sounds
(phonemes) making up "cat".

Of course *really* skilled Morse ops hear entire words as units of
sound. And at some level, they begin to think in Morse, just as fluent
speakers of a language think in that language.
Of course Len wouldn't know about that...


The big question is: what does it matter if Morse is binary or not?

Of course not! I thought it might be something better to talk about
than whether Len thinks we're "jackboot thugs" tho'! 8^)

Who cares what Len thinks? I sure don't. His behavior here has caused most of
us to lose whatever respect we might have once had for him. His latest reply to
K8MN simply reinforces that once again.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Len Anderson wrote:

Now if you want to continue arguing this inapplicable
non-discussion,
please go to rec.nonsense.angels.dance.on.pin newsgroup and live
it up.

Morse code is NOT high technology. It was devised out of a need
to use very primitive electrical devices to communicate. Some 52
years after the first morse code was used, very primitive early
radio
technology used morse code to enable communication by radio.
[that was in 1896 and began the Mythology of Morse some 109
years ago, before the invention of the multi-element vacuum tube
and well before the first transistor]

Put the subject to rest. RIP.

And here, once again, we have Lennie dead-to-rights in yet another
"Do As I Say, Not Do As I Do" rant.

Lennie will be the first one to yell "You're not a moderator!",
yet he has absolutlely no reservation about telling anyone else to shut
up or to "take it elsewhere".

Never mind that Mike never made such accusations or suggestions to
Lennie.

His right to "freedom of speech" notwithstanding, Lennie has no
business here. He is not a licensed Amateur, has no practical
experience in Amateur Radio, and he frequently demonstrates
incompetence in matters of Amateur practice, policy and regulation.

In short, he's a putz.

73

Steve, K4YZ

In article ws.com,
"Phil Kane" wrote:

....

If it's who I think it is - someone who had a history of deciding
what other hams "needed" - he was a traffic handler and contester
who knew code very well. In that era the only FCC field folks who
were not required to be Morse-qualified were the clerical staff.


If I recall correctly the lady that did my test was a member of the
clerical staff.

From the above, has there been a change in the CW requirement for
field staff? I know when I was offered a Field Engineer job they were
happy I would not have to study CW (I turned it down, the idea of paying
my moving and transfer expenses rankled me)

--
--------------------------------------------------------
Personal e-mail is the n7bsn but at amsat.org
This posting address is a spam-trap and seldom read
RV and Camping FAQ can be found at
http://www.ralphandellen.us/rv

On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 08:13:22 -0800, Ralph E Lindberg wrote:

From the above, has there been a change in the CW requirement for
field staff? I know when I was offered a Field Engineer job they were
happy I would not have to study CW (I turned it down, the idea of paying
my moving and transfer expenses rankled me)

AFAIK the "technical agents" (used to be called engineers or
technicians) still have to qualify at a minimum of 20 wpm text and
16 wpm code groups. The non-technical agents (used to be called
Public Contact Specialists) and the clerical staff do not have to
be code-qualified although I know several who are code-qualified
from being licensed ham operators or once were monitoring station
technicians.

As far as relocation - when I hired on in 1967 they paid my
transportation and moving expenses cross-country. It may have
changed by the time that you were contacted.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

N2EY wrote:
In article , Michael Coslo
writes:


snippage for readability

Mike Deignan had him pegged. Len's really ticked that somewhere, out there,
somebody is having fun with ham radio.


*Every Day*! If I'm not operating, I'm reading or surfing the web to
learn about it. And I venture in here for a little mud wrestling from
time to time too! 8^)


What *really* ticks him, I suppose, is people having fun with ham radio and
Morse Code...

Such an odd thing to be so concerned about.......


so I'll try to meet him
halfway with a Morse code topic.



His definition of meeting halfway is that you agree with him 100%.


That is certainly possible...



It's self-evident...



So maybe we can ressurect this old one...


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



Depends how you define "binary".


One state equals "0" or "off".
The other state equals "1" or "on".

You have to define "state". If "key up" and "key down" are the states, it's
binary. Time isn't the factor you make it - look at how Baudot works.


Certainly. But Morse code, which was invented as a human translated
code, does not qualify to me as a 1 or 0 state.


Here is my rationale:


If the key is up, the radio is certainly not sending 0's.


Doesn't have to.


This brings up an interesting paradox...
If the lack of a signal is a 0 state, then when no signal is being
transmitted, you are receiving zeros until someone sends something.


That's right. And a string of zeroes is interpreted as lots of spaces.

And it means that information is being sent with no energy used in the
sending. Hence the paradox. Of course if we are dealing in quantum
matters, there is not as much paradox, except for why it is all 0's
instead of a 1 here and there.


I grant that a dit might be a 1.


If a dah is 3 1's, why do we not send 3 dits. I either hold the key down
longer or press the dah switch on my keyer. It sends out a longer pulse,
not 3 1's.


It sends three dits with no space between them.

Only after you decide that the signal is digital for the sake of
calling it a binary or digital signal. It isn't sent that way, and when
you listen, you don't think of it that way.

The only time you need to think of it that way is when you decide to do
something with a computer, and need to translate the Morse code signal
into something that the computer will understand.


Describing the signal as how many 1's a signal is, or how many 0's
indicate intercharacter or interword spacing is a method of translating
the varying length Morse code signals into digital format.


So?

The basic element is one dit length long. Three of them together in the one
state is a dah.

In the computer it is.

In the human brain it isn't. The human brain decodes the dits and dahs
and interletter and interword spaces quite differently. No 1's or 0's
required


Let us look at the situation.

Is the Dit a "0"?

No.

Is the Dah a "1"?

No.


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?

Key up is "0". Key down is "1". Also known as "space" and "mark",
respectively.


Unfortunately, there are two separate "1" states, and the zero state is
not a constant thing.

Doesn't have to be. It's a time code.

There is the matter of time. A zero might me the space between letters,
or one half of a dit. It might also mean the space between words. All
different things.


No. The characters are built from the basic elements, which are key up and
key down, just like, say, Baudot RTTY.


That Morse code can be turned into binary is not at argument here. It
obviously can, just as images, emails and everything else we do on the
computer. Are they binary because someone has written a program to turn
them into strings of 1's and 0's?


Their basic transmission form is binary, same as Morse.

A non-binary code is one that has more than two *transmission* states, like
QPSK. Which is typically implemented as 0, 90, 180 and 270 degrees shift.
Four transmission states rather than two.


It isn't binary,

Depends on how you define "binary".

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

Different subject.

Not really. If you look at the string of 1's and 0's that Doug posted
as the binary result of my hypothetical CQ, is that something that you
would recognize as that CQ? That string IS binary.

I would recognize it easily.


Why does the - and . method of typing out the code convey the
information? the dashes and the spaces convey time information to the
person looking at them. I'm counting more than two states here.



It's not the simplest way, though. It shows the time differently.



It's not binary.

Most Morse operators with any skill (that excludes Len) process a
complete character as one "sound". "didahdidit" is recognized as "L",
in the same way that when you hear the word "cat", you think of the
animal. The Morse operator does not think in terms of dits and dahs any
more than a person thinks in terms of the consonant and vowel sounds
(phonemes) making up "cat".

Of course *really* skilled Morse ops hear entire words as units of
sound. And at some level, they begin to think in Morse, just as fluent
speakers of a language think in that language.
Of course Len wouldn't know about that...


The big question is: what does it matter if Morse is binary or not?

Of course not! I thought it might be something better to talk about
than whether Len thinks we're "jackboot thugs" tho'! 8^)


Who cares what Len thinks? I sure don't.

I'm not terribly concerned much about his opinions either, although I
have some fun with him from time to time. As do you! 8^)

His behavior here has caused most of
us to lose whatever respect we might have once had for him. His latest reply to
K8MN simply reinforces that once again.

But my main purpose is to get a little traffic on the list that isn't
the bottom feeders type stuff. I enjoy the occasional good row that
develops. I wouldn't mind seeing that continue.

Note that almost everyone disagrees with me, the thread has been
largely civil discussion.

- Mike KB3EIA -

robert casey wrote:



Can a person request to be tested by sending? My sending has
always outpaced my receiving!


99% of people are that way. The FCC found that nobody
ever failed a sending test if they passed a receiving
test. So they decided why bother with sending.

I don't doubt it. Set me down with a written piece and I can send pretty
quickly - easily at the old Extra rate. When ad-libbing, I'm a bit
slower. Unfortunately I still fly a little behind the plane when
recieving! 8^(

- Mike KB3EIA -