"Jim Hampton" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...
All,

I am a somewhat younger person (43 yrs) and I still see a use for CW.


1) Since it has the narrowest bandwidth of any mode, you can squeeze
it in between massive amounts of QRM on the 40 meter band and still
manage to get heard.

2) Again, since it has the narrowest bandwidth of any mode, you can
get more kilometers per watt out of the signal... basically you get
reach the furtherest across the world with it.

3) It is the only digital mode that does not require computer
machinery to interpret.

4) It the mode that requiring the simplest of equipment to implement.
Worst case, one could use crystal oscillator and a crystal receiver to
make a contact one state away. Try that with SSB or packet!

To me, CW is to communication as a lightsaber is to combat: both are
archaic, elegant, and extremely effective ways of getting your point
made. There might not be Jedi in this galaxy, but in my mind CW
operation is the next best thing.

The Eternal Squire



CW is not the narrowest bandwidth mode; currently, psk-31 is. With
something like a 32 Hz bandwidth, cw pales in comparison with its' 100 to
200 Hz bandwidth.


However CW is the lowest power consumption mode. All the other digital
modes require a computer and monitor. The latter two combined can require
250watts to 350 watts even before adding in the transmitter requirements.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Dee Flint" wrote in message
...

"Jim Hampton" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...
All,

I am a somewhat younger person (43 yrs) and I still see a use for CW.


1) Since it has the narrowest bandwidth of any mode, you can squeeze
it in between massive amounts of QRM on the 40 meter band and still
manage to get heard.

2) Again, since it has the narrowest bandwidth of any mode, you can
get more kilometers per watt out of the signal... basically you get
reach the furtherest across the world with it.

3) It is the only digital mode that does not require computer
machinery to interpret.

4) It the mode that requiring the simplest of equipment to implement.
Worst case, one could use crystal oscillator and a crystal receiver to
make a contact one state away. Try that with SSB or packet!

To me, CW is to communication as a lightsaber is to combat: both are
archaic, elegant, and extremely effective ways of getting your point
made. There might not be Jedi in this galaxy, but in my mind CW
operation is the next best thing.

The Eternal Squire



CW is not the narrowest bandwidth mode; currently, psk-31 is. With
something like a 32 Hz bandwidth, cw pales in comparison with its' 100
to
200 Hz bandwidth.


However CW is the lowest power consumption mode. All the other digital
modes require a computer and monitor. The latter two combined can require
250watts to 350 watts even before adding in the transmitter requirements.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE




An excellent point, Dee

Of course, if your computer is a Cray .....
Just plug into your nearest substation LOL.

A good point and well taken. Then again, RTTY does not necessarily require
a computer. Anyone have a model 28 ASR? ))


73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA

"Jim Hampton" wrote in message
...

"Dee Flint" wrote in message
...

"Jim Hampton" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...
All,

I am a somewhat younger person (43 yrs) and I still see a use for CW.


1) Since it has the narrowest bandwidth of any mode, you can squeeze
it in between massive amounts of QRM on the 40 meter band and still
manage to get heard.

2) Again, since it has the narrowest bandwidth of any mode, you can
get more kilometers per watt out of the signal... basically you get
reach the furtherest across the world with it.

3) It is the only digital mode that does not require computer
machinery to interpret.

4) It the mode that requiring the simplest of equipment to implement.
Worst case, one could use crystal oscillator and a crystal receiver to
make a contact one state away. Try that with SSB or packet!

To me, CW is to communication as a lightsaber is to combat: both are
archaic, elegant, and extremely effective ways of getting your point
made. There might not be Jedi in this galaxy, but in my mind CW
operation is the next best thing.

The Eternal Squire



CW is not the narrowest bandwidth mode; currently, psk-31 is. With
something like a 32 Hz bandwidth, cw pales in comparison with its' 100
to
200 Hz bandwidth.


However CW is the lowest power consumption mode. All the other digital
modes require a computer and monitor. The latter two combined can
require
250watts to 350 watts even before adding in the transmitter requirements.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE




An excellent point, Dee

Of course, if your computer is a Cray .....
Just plug into your nearest substation LOL.

A good point and well taken. Then again, RTTY does not necessarily
require
a computer. Anyone have a model 28 ASR? ))


73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA


Curiosity prompts me to ask how much power that drew?

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

wrote in message
oups.com...
All,

I am a somewhat younger person (43 yrs) and I still see a use for CW.

(SNIP of arguments as to USE)

To me, CW is to communication as a lightsaber is to combat: both are
archaic, elegant, and extremely effective ways of getting your point
made. There might not be Jedi in this galaxy, but in my mind CW
operation is the next best thing.

The Eternal Squire

The current rules chnange does NOT prohibit you or anyone else
from USING morse code. The rules, if changed as per NPRM 05-235,
only ends the code test. Anyone now or in the future will still
be able to learn and use morse code to their heart's content.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

Obi-wannabe, a "lightsaber" is a FICTIONAL thing out of the
imaginary world of George Lucas' creativity. It does NOT
exist. Neither do "Jedi Knights." Such is FICTION.

Don't tell me you are going to drag out the 1996 movie
"Independence Day" as a "documentary?!?" :-)

Oh come on, don't you know a metaphor when you see one?
A little escapism is good for the human soul.

The Eternal Squire

From: Dee Flint on Aug 30, 7:00 pm

"Jim Hampton" wrote in message
wrote in message

CW is not the narrowest bandwidth mode; currently, psk-31 is. With
something like a 32 Hz bandwidth, cw pales in comparison with its' 100 to
200 Hz bandwidth.

However CW is the lowest power consumption mode. All the other digital
modes require a computer and monitor.

Tsk, tsk, BAD engineer! Go sit in the corner cubicle with Wally.

No, "all the other digital modes" do NOT need a full-on PC.

It is COMMON to use a full-on PC because that is the SIMPLEST
solution to implementing such mode...and because so few
manufacturers have designed and made stand-alone equipment
for some digital modes.

One example that was withdrawn from kit production was the
DZ Engineering "PSKube," a stand-alone PSK31 transceiver. Full
manual and details, photos, are available at the DZ website.

The latter two combined can require
250watts to 350 watts even before adding in the transmitter requirements.

Tsk, tsk, tsk! Why not figure in the entire HOUSE that holds
the radio? :-)

Back in 1947 or so, ENIAC was crunching numbers using around 50
thousand tubes (give or take) and gulping KWe like a small
housing project. In 2000, my little HP 32S II pocket programmable
calculator was loaded with three small Lithium-ion battery cells
and allowed me to crunch numbers FASTER than ENIAC, with MORE
PRECISION than ENIAC, with FAR MORE RELIABILITY than ENIAC, and
had MORE BUILT-IN FUNCTIONS for calculation than was even dreamed
of for ENIAC. Ya know what? It still has those SAME BATTERIES!
Even after seeing a lot of use, it still has the juice.

Go take apart an AMTOR peripheral coupler, analyze its innards,
and report back on power consumption. A modern one, not one of
the first using discrete transistors. Ain't no 100 Watt power
consumption or even close to it. My ancient HP 722 inkjet printer
takes only a few Watts on standby, hardly more than that to print
text at a reasonable rate; it has an in-line-cord 'wall wart' style
power supply unit that doesn't get warm in-use.

I grant you that an electronic display takes some Watts. I don't
immediately recall the power demand on my Samsung 712n flat-panel
display but just from feeling the top vents, it can't be more than
50 Watts. It's a year old and as bright as ever, fine
distortionless detail, a "17-inch" size flat-panel. That display
COULD simultaneously show all the details of an operating HF
transceiver as well as the text into and out of an AMTOR box
(or any of the 'TORs). Of course that needs the computer box
itself which DOES take some Watts...but the box power demand has
dropped considerably since 1981 in addition to increasing its
functioning waayyyyyy above the original 4 MHz clock first Boca
Raton boxes. The HP box I've got now is lazily doing all this
word processing, running SETI@home data unit in the background,
running diagnostics on itself, all seemingly simultaneous. It
can do much more, and does with AVIs or MPEGs and other things.

Might I suggest an even ittier-bittier power demand "CW" unit,
doesn't even need a hardware receiver, just the optical wetware
and perhaps a telescope (zero power demand). Connect a manual
code key in place of a white-LED flashlight switch and "blip"
away as fast as you can in morse code. No problem, the LED
light can follow all amateur Data on-off switching. Excellent
efficiency in Lumens/Watt, better than a transistorized Class
C amplifier. Of course, the frequency is ABOVE the maximum
ITU frequency allocation of 300 GHz and therefore doesn't need
any license of any kind! Of course, daylight operation isn't
too swift for "DX." :-)

bit bit

Oh come on, don't you know a metaphor when you see one?
A little escapism is good for the human soul.

Metaphors be with you Obi-wannabe.

"Escapism" is wonderful for the movies. In radio-electronics
things ain't fantasy. I learned that long, long ago, on Terra
not far away.

Electrons, fields, and waves behave by THEIR rules, not human ones.
You learn THEIR rules and work with those, then you've got a chance
to make them do your bidding. Believe in THAT, not magic or the
moom-pitchas.

Have you memorized the rectangular-form complex number arithmetic
yet?

"Jim Hampton" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...
All,

I am a somewhat younger person (43 yrs) and I still see a use for CW.


1) Since it has the narrowest bandwidth of any mode, you can squeeze
it in between massive amounts of QRM on the 40 meter band and still
manage to get heard.

2) Again, since it has the narrowest bandwidth of any mode, you can
get more kilometers per watt out of the signal... basically you get
reach the furtherest across the world with it.

3) It is the only digital mode that does not require computer
machinery to interpret.

4) It the mode that requiring the simplest of equipment to implement.
Worst case, one could use crystal oscillator and a crystal receiver to
make a contact one state away. Try that with SSB or packet!

To me, CW is to communication as a lightsaber is to combat: both are
archaic, elegant, and extremely effective ways of getting your point
made. There might not be Jedi in this galaxy, but in my mind CW
operation is the next best thing.

The Eternal Squire



CW is not the narrowest bandwidth mode; currently, psk-31 is. With
something like a 32 Hz bandwidth, cw pales in comparison with its' 100 to
200 Hz bandwidth.

That said, it is easy to grab a key (or keyer) and have an intelligent
conversation (yes, the cw gang can and does rag-chew) with simple
equipment.
It should be noted that PSK takes its' cue from CW in that it is a
variable-length encoded mode. Like CW, the most common characters are the
shortest (and CW is worthless? Folks learned and built upon the earlier
mode).

PSK-31 can send/receiver far faster than the best cw operator can
send/receive. However, there are some folks that argue that keyboards are
obsolete. I suspect they simply want no tests LOL.

CW can be a most effective way of communicating your message. One guy on
a
local repeater was screaming "cw forever". Fortunately, the repeater
owner
was in the group so ..... int f2? And .... 40 words per minute mcw was
sent
over the repeater. The owner had no problem. I had no problem. Yes, I
can
stir the pot a bit LOL

The guy pushing for cw only? My point was made ))

And either one can really play havoc with the truckers!

J


73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA

"Dee Flint" wrote in message
...

"Jim Hampton" wrote in message
...

"Dee Flint" wrote in message
...

"Jim Hampton" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...
All,

I am a somewhat younger person (43 yrs) and I still see a use for
CW.


1) Since it has the narrowest bandwidth of any mode, you can
squeeze
it in between massive amounts of QRM on the 40 meter band and still
manage to get heard.

2) Again, since it has the narrowest bandwidth of any mode, you can
get more kilometers per watt out of the signal... basically you get
reach the furtherest across the world with it.

3) It is the only digital mode that does not require computer
machinery to interpret.

4) It the mode that requiring the simplest of equipment to
implement.
Worst case, one could use crystal oscillator and a crystal receiver
to
make a contact one state away. Try that with SSB or packet!

To me, CW is to communication as a lightsaber is to combat: both
are
archaic, elegant, and extremely effective ways of getting your point
made. There might not be Jedi in this galaxy, but in my mind CW
operation is the next best thing.

The Eternal Squire



CW is not the narrowest bandwidth mode; currently, psk-31 is. With
something like a 32 Hz bandwidth, cw pales in comparison with its'
100
to
200 Hz bandwidth.


However CW is the lowest power consumption mode. All the other digital
modes require a computer and monitor. The latter two combined can
require
250watts to 350 watts even before adding in the transmitter
requirements.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE




An excellent point, Dee

Of course, if your computer is a Cray .....
Just plug into your nearest substation LOL.

A good point and well taken. Then again, RTTY does not necessarily
require
a computer. Anyone have a model 28 ASR? ))


73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA


Curiosity prompts me to ask how much power that drew?

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


Hello, Dee

I have no idea, but they certainly were large and made quite a bit of racket


73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA