Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net

   Home   Help Search  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Learning Morse code by sending only.  (Read 3074 times)
LB5KE
Member

Posts: 141




Ignore
« on: May 01, 2010, 06:01:26 AM »

Is it possible to learn the Morse code by using the computer to decode, and answering by sending Morse code back by hand? I had a discussion with some one who claims it's possible to learn this way. I am a little sceptic, i could be wrong. By learning i mean being able to decode by ear.
Logged
K7MH
Member

Posts: 334




Ignore
« Reply #1 on: May 01, 2010, 07:19:24 AM »

Certainly is the wrong way to go about it!
I would expect any results would be poor copying speed and a very long time in getting just to that!
About as good a plan as writing all the characters down on paper and taping it to your head in hopes your brain will absorb the knowledge. Grin
Logged
N2EY
Member

Posts: 3877




Ignore
« Reply #2 on: May 01, 2010, 09:23:56 AM »

Is it possible to learn the Morse code by using the computer to decode, and answering by sending Morse code back by hand? I had a discussion with some one who claims it's possible to learn this way.

Did the person who claimed it actually learn code that way?

I think not.

---

Back when I was learning Morse Code, I started out with a key and oscillator. I learned all the letters and numbers and could send really well.

But I couldn't copy a thing. Only when I built a receiver and listened to actual code sent by others did I learn to receive.

73 de Jim, N2EY
Logged
IK0YGJ
Member

Posts: 43


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #3 on: May 01, 2010, 01:51:29 PM »

... I thought a lot about your assertion and ... maybe your friend is not so wrong.
Of course, I did not try , but suppose the following:

1. You start receiving with a PC
2. You force yourself to transmit only by hand (this means that you must be correct in TX)
3. You go on makin *a lot of QSO*

I think that, at the end, you will not need anymore the PC for receiving and you will abandon it sooner or later.
73 de Carlo IK0YGJ
---------------
Download your free copy of "Zen and the Art of Radiotelegraphy" here:
http://www.qsl.net/ik0ygj/enu/index.html
Logged
AA1BN
Member

Posts: 56




Ignore
« Reply #4 on: May 01, 2010, 04:26:53 PM »

The best way to learn CW is to learn to copy at a 20-30 wpm
rate for each letter.

When you listen to CW at a slow rate, you're counting the dits
and dahs; your brain has to work twice as hard to put them
together to form a letter. When you hear "dididadit", you're
hearing a rhythm; you're hearing what the letter sounds like.

And you should listen to the usual words used in a CW QSO,
like "and", "the", "Name", etc, at a fast rate, so the words also
become rhythms that relate to the words. You'll be hearing the
usual words often, and don't need to write them down. That gives
you more time to write down names, calls, rigs, wx conditions, etc..

There are googles of places to download PC software to learn
CW.
http://www.g4ilo.com/software.html  has plenty of links that are
helpful. The "morse machine" can start you down the right path,
since the slowest speed for each letter is 20wpm. I would set it
at 25-30, though, and force your brain to hear the sound; the
rhythm, of each letter.

You will amaze yourself.

Good luck.

John

Logged
DJ1YFK
Member

Posts: 188


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #5 on: May 02, 2010, 12:05:49 PM »

Is it possible to learn the Morse code by using the computer to decode, and answering by sending Morse code back by hand? I had a discussion with some one who claims it's possible to learn this way. I am a little sceptic, i could be wrong. By learning i mean being able to decode by ear.

I suppose it's possible, but that's just the big problem with all the different methodologies for learning Morse code:

There are lots of interesting claims about the performance of one particular learning method versus another, some supported by seemingly plausible arguments, others without. But they usually lack serious statistical data to back it up.

I wish I could erase all my memory related to Morse code and re-learn it a couple of times with different methods. And have two dozen others do the same. Then we could come up with some statistically relevant data from a good sample group to draw some conclusions from. :-)

In the end it probably all boils down to one simple conclusion: Those who are truly and intrinsically motivated will learn the code without much difficulty by pretty much any of the common methods. Those who aren't won't.

73, Fabian DJ1YFK
http://lcwo.net/
Logged

M0JHA
Member

Posts: 647




Ignore
« Reply #6 on: May 14, 2010, 12:16:20 PM »

is it in the spirit of morse code though?? i don't think so.. why are so many people scared of putting effort into something?  morse code is not hard to learn,yes it takes effort and time but it can be done by most who try..

pc de-coding is in my eyes anyway a cop out ..

i must admit sending practice DID help me learn but this was done at a ratio of 1/4 hour sending and 3/4 hour listening per day..  buying a reader did cross my mind but i decided this was not the way for me . i wanted to be a real cw op not a pretend one ..

sorry if that sounds a bit harsh but its the way i feel, good morse code both tx and rx  is an excellent skill to have and should be credited with the respect it deserves not dumbed down by a pc..

billy 
Logged
W6ONV
Member

Posts: 99


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #7 on: May 14, 2010, 02:24:13 PM »

I have many different software programs, both freeware and for sale from vendors. I know all the letters, numbers and prosigns and have been working on getting my speed up, which never seems to be fast enough. As a tool I did buy MRP40, which is one of the best decoders out there for CW. When I am using CW and looking for QSOs I will have MRP40 running in the background. If I happen to copy a callsign mistakenly I can (usually) confirm it with MRP40.

Wrong? I am sure purists will say so, but honestly it is a tool that has assisted me in learned and improving my CW. I have no problems mentioning this when discussions turn to CW.
Logged
K9FV
Member

Posts: 479




Ignore
« Reply #8 on: May 18, 2010, 08:50:00 AM »

Learning CW by sending only is a question I asked a few yrs back - never did get many folks to actually think seriously about it.  Much like this thread - "not the way we've always done it!", or "anyone can learn CW easy with a little work" type answers.... 

As a previous post, I would love to do a "memory dump" and start clean on learning code.  Some folks learn it easy, others it's much harder. Just like music - some folks have a "talent", others don't and will require many more hours of study to achieve some level of ability.

I'm not sure if a person only sent code, and did learn to send good clean code at 20wpm (where the computer can copy), would he not be able to copy code at some speed?  I'm not talking about using a PC to copy code, but only sending until he knew all the code and could send good clean code.

Ken H>
Logged
AA1BN
Member

Posts: 56




Ignore
« Reply #9 on: May 18, 2010, 11:08:28 AM »

It's easier to send code without your brain working to decipher the
code, since you know in advance what you're encoding.

That's the same reason why some people can argue their side
of a topic proficiently, but yet never seem to be able to understand
what others are saying to them. (I speak for myself, of cuz)

When you know what each letter sounds like without counting
dits and dahs, and you begin to hear words within the bursts
of dits and dahs, you will also be able to send as proficiently
with only a modest amount of practice.

Using a bug, iambic or otherwise, or a vibroplex, can take
some practice, but it will come easier when you know what
good code sounds like.

I'm back at practicing after being away from all this for almost
10 years. It takes time and concentration, and devotion.

Read street signs as you drive, and spell it out in code in your head.
Think of things you want to say, and say it in code mentally.

You have to want to learn CW, and you have to practically live it.

But expecting to get proficient enough to copy while in a qso by just
learning to send? Very doubtful. Hell, it's even easier to copy in a
contest environment, than in a qso, since everything said in a C'test
is a lesson in total redundancy. RST, QTH, Name, tnx, 73. What
happens in a qso when the OM asks a question about something totally
different than hamming? oops.. didn't practice sending that...?

Listen to both sides of a qso and try to copy all the important
items. Get the name, and work, and the years and dates, everything
you're going to want to know in your own qso. Don't try to write
every letter and word, just listen to the conversation and take notes.

When you're in your own qso, do the same thing. You don't write
everything down when you're talking to a neighbor or friend,
you're just listening and taking mental notes regarding the topic.
A CW qso shouldn't be any different, you're only having a conversation,
not taking a test. If a car or noise takes my attention away from a
conversation with my neighbor, I'll as for a repeat... no dif on CW.
And no big deal, either.

Relax...... and enjoy the greatest part of this hobby.

I'll be listening for you!

73

Logged
N2EY
Member

Posts: 3877




Ignore
« Reply #10 on: May 18, 2010, 01:59:19 PM »

Learning CW by sending only is a question I asked a few yrs back - never did get many folks to actually think seriously about it.  Much like this thread - "not the way we've always done it!", or "anyone can learn CW easy with a little work" type answers.... 

As a previous post, I would love to do a "memory dump" and start clean on learning code.  Some folks learn it easy, others it's much harder. Just like music - some folks have a "talent", others don't and will require many more hours of study to achieve some level of ability.

I'm not sure if a person only sent code, and did learn to send good clean code at 20wpm (where the computer can copy), would he not be able to copy code at some speed? 

When I was learning code, I learned to send first. I could send all the characters at well above 13 wpm on a straight key - and couldn't receive at all.

I don't know about others, but I've never encountered anyone who learned to receive by only sending.

73 de Jim, N2EY
Logged
K9FV
Member

Posts: 479




Ignore
« Reply #11 on: May 19, 2010, 05:37:40 AM »

Thanks for the input Jim, I have often wondered it a person could send "good clean code" at 13 wpm, if that would help on receiving.  It just seems like the brain would "know" the code in order to send, then the brain would have some idea of receiving. You are the first person who has commented they actually did this..... and didn't work.

Thanks for the input.

73 de Ken H>
Logged
N2EY
Member

Posts: 3877




Ignore
« Reply #12 on: May 19, 2010, 01:59:09 PM »

Thanks for the input Jim, I have often wondered it a person could send "good clean code" at 13 wpm, if that would help on receiving. 

It helps but it's *not* going to teach someone how to receive.

It just seems like the brain would "know" the code in order to send, then the brain would have some idea of receiving.

To send, a person must first know what is they want to send. Then they turn each letter into a hand motion that generates the desired code. If they can hear what they send, it only confirms what they already know.

To receive, a person must *not* know what is going to be sent. (If they already know, they're not receiving). They have to listen to the incoming code and recognize the patterns which correspond to the letters/numbers/etc. Then they either write it down or remember it.

Two related but very different processes.

The thing about learning skills of any kind is that they can *only* be learned by doing. A person can only learn to ride a bike, play the piano, etc., by actually doing it. Often it takes repeated practice to get good at it. And often what is being learned is a set of skills, not just one. Morse Code is no different.

And IMHO that's what bothers some folks so much about it. More than a few people are used to "book learning", where you read something, watch a video, listen to someone talk, etc., and then you "know" it. Learning code doesn't work that way.

You are the first person who has commented they actually did this..... and didn't work.

I didn't know it wouldn't work when I did it. So I had no prejudices against the method.
What *did* work for me was that I built a simple 2 tube receiver and listened to hams actually using the code.

73 de Jim, N2EY
Logged
W5LZ
Member

Posts: 477




Ignore
« Reply #13 on: May 21, 2010, 09:39:50 PM »

It's pretty simple.  If you want to be able to understand audible code you have to use your ears to hear it.  If the idea is visible signals, you have to use your eyes to see them.  Either way takes time to train your eyes/ears to recognize what they see/hear.  It takes time.
How can you learn to send good code if you don't know what it's supposed to sound like?  Just by looking at those dots and dashes on a piece of paper?  I don't think so.  In fact it will make it harder, as in one more 'step' to go though to convert those dots/dashes to sound.  If you hear code being sent, do you convert those sounds to 'dots' and 'dashes' before converting those 'dots' and 'dashes' to the character sent?  Having learned Morse code that way, I can tell you it takes a huge amount of work to break the habit, to rid your self of that 'extra' mental step you are going through.  It isn't too bad at slow speeds, but almost impossible at high speeds.  And it takes a lot longer to build speed.  do yourself a favor, never write down dots and dashes, don't visualize them either.
Paul
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!