N2EY wrote:

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:


N2EY wrote:


In article et, robert

casey

writes:



Besides, if something is digital, why would you have to try so hard to
make it computer compatible?


Telling "S" from "O" is hard if you don't already
know from looking at other characters what the speed
must be.



No, it's easy.



"S" is one time unit on, one time unit off, one time unit on, one time unit
off, one time unit on. Then at least three time units off.



"O" is three time units on, one time unit off, three time units on, one
time
unit off, three time units on. Then at least three time units off.


The only true ambiguity is between "E" and "T" sent all by themselves.
Unless
you know the speed from some other source, there's no way to tell them
apart.



Something easy for the brain but hard for
computers to do when the sender varies his speed.

Naw, just requires a bit more software.

hehe, software weenies say that a lot. Problem is not too many believe
them any more....


And let's not forget Farnsworth. This will confuse matters a bit.


Not at all. Farnsworth spacing only affects the space between letters/numbers,
not the space between dits and dahs. Hence any properly-designed decoder -
hardware, software or wetware - will deal with it easily.

like I said...


I
have seen CWGet confuse S for O until it "settles in".


Then CWGet needs some work. A human operator with basic skills will not make
that mistake. dididit doesn't sound anything like dahdahdah.


My guess is that Farnsworth Morse might be involved.


Naw, just a software problem.

Some times "just" can be quite a problem


But it is odd that a binary method requires all that software. ;^)

Who said it was binary?

Quite a few people it would seem.

But I think I have the confusion figured out. What is happening is that
people are starting by defining Morse code as a 2 state on and off
system, and trying to offer proof of that by suddenly changing that to a
base 2 system.


Something like that. Of course a binary system can deal with a lot more numbers
than 0 and 1.

Depends on the definition, hehe...


Can anyone offer a proof that does not switch between the two definitions?

Depends on your definitions.

My other post noted the different definitions. I'll let you check that
out before posting more.

It's like saying a balloon reaches an altitude of 100,000 feet. You have to
also say "above what?"

Above sea level. In most cases, that should be a given.

I cannot accept Morse as a two part on and off system because there are
more than two parts, as is made clear when people try to switch to base 2.


It's about time.

- Mike KB3EIA -

In article .com, "bb"
writes:

Len Anderson wrote:
In article .com,
"bb"
writes:

Mike Coslo wrote:

That is why when we try to make Morse code computer compatible,

We?

Coslonaut is a ham for all hams, all seasons. He is high tech.

He may be high tech, but code didn't make him that way.

But, but, but...he is a PCTA extra!

Aren't those PCTA extras the pioneering leaders of ham high-tech?

W0EX did not, RIP. He specifically stated that he would send Morse
Code so that computer readers (manned by unworthy no-code Technicians)
could not copy his messages.

Besides, if something is digital, why would you have to try so hard to
make it computer compatible?

It's the only way the coslonaut can become "high-tech?"

Then he's heading down a dead end street. Hopefully he finds something
else, like amateur near space exploration.

"On the threshold of space!"

roll up gain on stirring, emotional background music :-)

After all, he is reaching for the threshold of space via surplus helium
balloons carrying amateur radio. [pioneering work, important
"science"]

Bingo! This is the very same tack that all of the research
universities use to get grant money. They propose to re-study
something that has been studied previously. They get the grant money,
hire a handful of chinese and indian post-grads. They redo the study,
find exactly the same results, then always state that more research is
necessary.

And the government falls for it.

Ah...but it is SCIENCE! :-)


Try the null hypothesis. Are you saying the silent periods are
valueless?

Coslonaut has gone way too far into reducto ad absurdum regions.
By introducing variables unrelated to the basic principle of
operation, he can expand his definition into a number of dimensions
greater than the number of particles in the entire universe! :-)

Yep. What if the Navy and Coast Guard had dismissed all of those
"silent periods" while on radio watch?

But, the use of "intercarrier lack of pulse time" is false. The "inter"
means 'within.' In on-off keying "CW" there is NO carrier to be
"within." The off time is short, long, or of infinite variation in
duration. It's a use of "high-tech bafflegab" for a low-tech subject.

But, but, but....

Len, they're master of it. In one breath, Miccolis says that Morse
Code is ones and zeroes, marks and spaces, then in the next breath,
he's back to the correct definition. A master of deception.

Miccolis is a mighty macho moreseman, very high tech, built
his own vacuum tube transmitter in the 1990s, pioneering work
that was! Used "recycled" parts. Didn't cost any more than $100!


Morse code is a very primitive form of technology 161 years ago
when it first began (as representation of numbers, just numbers).
A few years after the first Morse-Vail Telegraphy debut in 1844,
the representation of English alphabet and some punctuation was
added to the "code." [there is still a dispute of whether or not
co-inventor Alfred Vail actually came up with the addition of the
alphabet, but that is another subject...such is neither proved nor
disproved] Morse code is still a very primitive form of representation
of the western language alphabet, numbers and punctuation,
regardless of the technology level of the equipment used to
communicate in that mode.

Some of these guys were there. They might know Vails actual role...

Heh heh heh. I'm sure they think they were... :-)

However, there IS a website for the Vail Family and much discussion
of what Alfred did insofar as the Morse-Vail Telegraph. The Vail
family bankrolled Sam while he tried (and failed) to improve the inking
system that was the first method of reception - a thin pen marking on
paper. No beeps until good old Reggie Fessenden built the first "BFO"
using a low-power spark thing...his "heterodyne detector." Ed A.
and his SUPERheterodyne didn't show up until 1918.

Coslonaut might just think that off times have great value...as in
the old hoary expression "silence is golden." If so, he should gilt
himself and be silent, quit trying to make a primitive method into
high technology.

Now, now, now, Len. The off times must be important. It's the only
way the ARRL can explain away how they can send a supposedly "Morse
Code Exam" at 13-15 WPM and still claim it meets the FCC's 5WPM rate.

I still find it strange that the FCC maintains a morse code test for
amateur privileges below 30 MHz some 161 years after the first
Morse-Vail Telegraph system started up.

And if these guys silenced themselves, then where will we ever get gems
like, "...A morse code exam would be a deterrent to morse code use.
N2EY"

Hi, hi!

Well, I can well imagine that the ARRL would collect all those "gems"
in a book for sale on-line (shipping charges extra). Prolly $19.95 at
100 pages. Profit maker. Collectors' item.

I gotta love the hairy and hoary old slogan, "Morse gets through when
nothing else will!" That one's been around longer than I have, I think.

Next to that is the "reason" for maintaining that code test "so that
American hams can talk to foreign hams in the 'universal language'
of morse code!" Like all U.S. amateurs are "supposed" to talk to
foreigners instead of the 700+ thousand licensees on U.S. soil?

Oh, yeah, and the ARRL never ever lobbied for anything in regards to
morse code and it was "entirely" the FCC's fault in dropping the
maximum rate to 5 WPM (allegedly 5, but aperiodic to 15 for
individual characters). ARRL is NEVER at fault...it's always the
fault of someone else. League and morsemen can do no wrong.

Did dit.



"Why is the word 'abbreviation' so long?" - anon. question