"Koikus" wrote in
oups.com:



I want to give it those that can show the brains to ass a written
idealy an improved written test

you want to keep a frat house game in place

but you favor dishonesty

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



You just gave him another headache, Shame on you.

Sc

Slow Code wrote:
"Koikus" wrote in
oups.com:


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



You just gave him another headache, Shame on you.
not realy I did not listen to the "transmision"


Sc

SC,

Morris Code -plus- Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission
-and- Semaphore Signals ? Do They Defining Amateur Radio ?
- - - The Times They Are A Changing !

While I can admire and respect an Amateur {HAM} Radio Operator
for Mastering Morris Code (CW).

Morris Code in and of itself does not define the Amateur Radio Service.


Morris Code
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morse_code

Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission 'process' in
and of itself does not define the Amateur Radio Service.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuous_wave

The Amateur Radio Service is Greater than both Morris Code
and Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission - IMHO ~ RHF

Boy Scout Merit Badge Requirements - "RADIO"
http://www.meritbadge.com/mb/093.htm
At one time when I was a very young boy nd a Boy Scout
I Learned to Send and Receive Morris Code at about 5WPM
-but- Then I also learned to use Flags to Send Hand-Flag
"Semaphore" Signals Too !
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semaphore_(communication)
Neither the ability to use Morris Code or the Semaphone
Flags to Communicate 'defined' Being A Boy Scout.


just an old boy scout at heart ~ RHF

RHF wrote:
SC,

Morris Code
uh, it's Morse Code...after Samuel Morse who invented it

(and, of course, everyone knows Joshua T. Semaphore)

jawod wrote:

RHF wrote:

SC,

Morris Code

uh, it's Morse Code...after Samuel Morse who invented it

(and, of course, everyone knows Joshua T. Semaphore)


Actually the Code that Sam developed is completely unlike the code we
use on radio. What is tested for is the "International Morse Code"
Sam's code was click based and radio is beep based.

Dave WD9BDZ

jawod - Oops ! - You Are Right ~RHF

I thought Id mention that one of the things that was overlooked in the
Titantic disccusion is the CW was not invovled it was spark gap used in
that Morse encoded spark


Actually that is not correct.
Within the original meaning of CW, the Titanic used a CW transmitter.
It was not a spark transmitter, the rf energy was produced by an alternator
which provided 'continuous' rf power, hence CW. The output was not a damped
wave that a spark transmitter would produce, but an interrupted 'continuous
wave' (from the alternator).

Regards
Jeff

Like your link says, it's MORSE code, as in Samuel F. B. Morse. Who's
Morris?

Scott


RHF wrote:

SC,

Morris Code -plus- Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission
-and- Semaphore Signals ? Do They Defining Amateur Radio ?
- - - The Times They Are A Changing !

While I can admire and respect an Amateur {HAM} Radio Operator
for Mastering Morris Code (CW).

Morris Code in and of itself does not define the Amateur Radio Service.


Morris Code
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morse_code

Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission 'process' in
and of itself does not define the Amateur Radio Service.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuous_wave

The Amateur Radio Service is Greater than both Morris Code
and Continuous Wave (CW) Radio Transmission - IMHO ~ RHF

Boy Scout Merit Badge Requirements - "RADIO"
http://www.meritbadge.com/mb/093.htm
At one time when I was a very young boy nd a Boy Scout
I Learned to Send and Receive Morris Code at about 5WPM
-but- Then I also learned to use Flags to Send Hand-Flag
"Semaphore" Signals Too !
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semaphore_(communication)
Neither the ability to use Morris Code or the Semaphone
Flags to Communicate 'defined' Being A Boy Scout.


just an old boy scout at heart ~ RHF
.
.
. .

Slow Code wrote:

(Fred McKenzie) wrote in
:


In article , "Alun L.
Palmer" wrote:


Assuming some weird contrived scenario where I had the equipment to
send CW but not phone, it would depend what frequencies it worked on.

I think this is the nature of the premise on which the original post was
based.

Compare it to a similar situation, where a film camera user is debating
a digital camera user:

"If you came upon a drowning man, and you had to choose whether to save
him or photograph his demise, what kind of film would you use?"


Getting rid of CW is like choosing the kind of film.

Ham radio is drowning and the anti-code hams want us to think tossing it
bricks will make it float better. Dumbing things down is never an
improvement.

SC

David G. Nagel wrote:
Actually the Code that Sam developed is completely unlike the code we
use on radio. What is tested for is the "International Morse Code"
Sam's code was click based and radio is beep based.

Sam's original equipment used ink and scrolling paper to
record the dots and dashes because he didn't think an
ordinary human being could distinguish between the sound
of the dots and the sound of the dashes. He was wrong.
Human operators quickly discovered that they could distinguish
the difference between the down clicks and up clicks and
therefore distinguish the dots from the dashes.

It is true that Sam's "American" Morse was different from
"International" Morse in about a dozen characters but both
used dots and dashes. Still, more characters were alike
than were different.

The term "lid" may have originated from newbie Morse operators
laying a lid on top of the relay receiver to make it easier to
distinguish the dots from the dashes.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Cecil Moore wrote:
David G. Nagel wrote:
Actually the Code that Sam developed is completely unlike the code we
use on radio. What is tested for is the "International Morse Code"
Sam's code was click based and radio is beep based.

Sam's original equipment used ink and scrolling paper to
record the dots and dashes because he didn't think an
ordinary human being could distinguish between the sound
of the dots and the sound of the dashes. He was wrong.
Human operators quickly discovered that they could distinguish
the difference between the down clicks and up clicks and
therefore distinguish the dots from the dashes.
oridinary humans HMM is it realy proven that ordinary human can do it
by ear Cecil or merely proven that enough to man the telagraphs of the
day could do so?