| |
PA2AGA > HDDIG 01.07.00 14:53l 255 Lines 7566 Bytes #-9416 (0) @ EU
BID : HD_2000_173D
Read: GUEST
Subj: HamDigitalDigest 2000/173D
Path: DB0AAB<DB0KFB<DB0ZKA<DB0SAA<DB0TTM<DB0FP<DB0SON<DB0ERF<DB0BRI<DB0SM<
PI8DAZ<PI8GCB<PI8HGL
Sent: 000701/0107Z @:PI8HGL.#ZH1.NLD.EU #:57089 [Den Haag] FBB $:HD_2000_173D
From: PA2AGA@PI8HGL.#ZH1.NLD.EU
To : HDDIG@EU
Date: Sat, 01 Jul 00 01:50:11 MET
Message-Id: <hd_2000_173D>
From: pa2aga@pe1mvx.ampr.org
To: hd_broadcast@pa2aga.ampr.org
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
On Fri, 23 Jun 2000 01:04:45 GMT, matt weber <mattheww50@home.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 18:12:01 GMT, dynastic@REMOVE_THIScwcom.net (JimD)
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 21:54:02 -0400, Ralph Mowery <rmowery@dialpoint.net>
wrote:
>>
>>>Real RTTY men talk in WPM or OPM. That would be 368 operations per
>>>minute for 60 WPM.
>>>I think bauds came in with the computer.
>>
>>Indeed. We used WPM in the RAF in the late '50s. The European
>>50-baud speed was 66.6 WPM.
>>
>Baud really is a telegraphy term, and it refers to a switching rate.
>Words per minute is confusing become most low speed TTY is 6 level,
>usually baudot, where as 100wpm and up is usually 8 level Ascii, which
>with the requisite start and stop bits is 110 baud.
>
> Baud does not necessarily mean bits per second. Technically 2400
>baud is as fast as a phone line will go, beyond that it is bits per
>second because it isn't a switch rate, the data is in fact transmitted
>by phase modulation. At 110baud, the data is sent by frequency shift
>keying.
Yes. I appreciate all that. With Baudot the extra half element in the
stop bit complicates it further.
--
Posted by G4RGA.
g4rga at thersgb.net
Rallies Info: http://website.lineone.net/~nordland
http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~amadeus
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 17:05:09 GMT
From: horseshoestew@my-deja.com
Subject: Forget HF & CW - Think Digital
In article <8ip3im$oh3$1@slb0.atl.mindspring.net>,
"Peter O. Brackett" <ab4bc@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Fool...
>
> CW is digital!
Wow - 20wpm, I'm SO impressed. And you write it down on a piece of
paper with a pencil, right? And you are at the mercy of Mr. Sun, who
just happens to be in an upbeat mood right now.
When you start to realize that reliable worldwide 100,000wpm transfer
rates are now available to just about everyone, you might start to
understand why CW is such an anachronism.
> Peter K1PO
Stewart - N0MHS
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 12:58:32 -0500
From: "Peter O. Brackett" <ab4bc@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Forget HF & CW - Think Digital
Stewart:
More foolishness. CW is digital, and a very good digital mode at that!
Only 20 wpm... Heck I myself can "run" at close to 45 wpm on both send and
receive, and well...
Who says that only human beings write down and send CW.
At high speeds [100 - 1000 wpm] most folks today are using computers to send
and receive CW. Have you not listened to them copied them on your computer?
CW is a great digital mode! It has many modern features and capabilites.
It has built in source coding [a.k.a. data compression]. The source code it
uses is a variable length comma free code which works on a character by
character without Markov modelling, just like the Huffman coding in Peter's
Martinez's new PSK31 technique.
And of course... if coherent or "near coherent" channel coding techniques
were widely used as some already do today, then at the channel coding level
it is extremely efficient and compares to the other "so-called" modern
digital modes as well.
The inventors of Morse and wireless telegraphy were way ahead of their time!
CW is literally the only purely digital mode that is 100% readable by both
machine and human. If it is sent too fast for humans, it can be simply
slowed down and played back for the human to read. Try that with Clover, or
PacTor, or RTTY...
If the point you are trying to make is that humans should not have to learn
the skill, and prove that they have the skill, to copy CW to qualify for an
amateur radio licence to operate on the HF bands, then I can agree with
that, but...
as for the CW mode not being digital and being "outmoded", you are "dead
wrong"!
And so...
Fools... What the heck is your beef?
Comments, thoughts?
Peter K1PO
<horseshoestew@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8iqsjp$evp$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <8ip3im$oh3$1@slb0.atl.mindspring.net>,
> "Peter O. Brackett" <ab4bc@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > Fool...
> >
> > CW is digital!
>
> Wow - 20wpm, I'm SO impressed. And you write it down on a piece of
> paper with a pencil, right? And you are at the mercy of Mr. Sun, who
> just happens to be in an upbeat mood right now.
>
> When you start to realize that reliable worldwide 100,000wpm transfer
> rates are now available to just about everyone, you might start to
> understand why CW is such an anachronism.
>
> > Peter K1PO
>
> Stewart - N0MHS
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 18:15:41 GMT
From: K0HB <K0HB@arrl.org>
Subject: Forget HF & CW - Think Digital
In article <8iqsjp$evp$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
horseshitstew@my-deja.com wrote:
> When you start to realize that reliable worldwide 100,000wpm transfer
> rates are now available to just about everyone, you might start to
> understand why CW is such an anachronism.
The above is a classic non-sequitur.
Amateur radio is an avocation, and Morse operators are a special
interest group within that avocation. In the context of that
avocation, they aren't concerned with high speed data transfer,
just as equestrians aren't concerned with travel at supersonic
speeds.
If your interests are in high speed data transfer, then Morse is
not for you.
Have a nice life.
73, Hans, K0HB
--
~~~
If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you;
but if you really make them think, they'll hate you.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 20:49:37 GMT
From: horseshoestew@my-deja.com
Subject: Forget HF & CW - Think Digital
In article <8ir0nq$ibv$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
K0HB <K0HB@arrl.org> wrote:
> In article <8iqsjp$evp$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> horseshitstew@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > When you start to realize that reliable worldwide 100,000wpm
transfer
> > rates are now available to just about everyone, you might start to
> > understand why CW is such an anachronism.
>
> The above is a classic non-sequitur.
>
> Amateur radio is an avocation, and Morse operators are a special
> interest group within that avocation. In the context of that
> avocation, they aren't concerned with high speed data transfer,
> just as equestrians aren't concerned with travel at supersonic
> speeds.
That is all well and good - but they don't make Concorde pilots learn
horse jumping.
> If your interests are in high speed data transfer, then Morse is
> not for you.
EXACTLY my point - so why the over-emphasis on this dead mode.
> 73, Hans, K0HB
Stewart - N0MHS
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 17:57:28 -0400
From: Uri Blumenthal <uri@attglobal.net>
Subject: Forget HF & CW - Think Digital
horseshoestew@my-deja.com wrote:
> > Amateur radio is an avocation, and Morse operators are a
> > special interest group within that avocation. In the
> > context of that avocation, they aren't concerned with
> > high speed data transfer, just as equestrians aren't
> > concerned with travel at supersonic speeds.
>
> That is all well and good - but they don't make Concorde
> pilots learn horse jumping.
Because Aviation regulations are dictated by practical
To be continued in digest: hd_2000_173E
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
