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] 2 3 4 Next   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Will the future change the way we transmit CW ?  (Read 12555 times)
N5RWJ
Member

Posts: 461




Ignore
« on: November 10, 2011, 02:46:11 PM »

I think most of us transmit cw by key/key'er or key board and decode it by ear. But in the future we may find that we can also transmit cw by voice, you speck into your radio and it transmitted out as cw. At the receive end its decoded into type or voice.

Do commit ,but not only on my post, but how you see the future?

« Last Edit: November 12, 2011, 02:32:52 PM by N5RWJ » Logged
WX7G
Member

Posts: 6035




Ignore
« Reply #1 on: November 10, 2011, 02:49:48 PM »

You don't work CW do you?
Logged
N5RWJ
Member

Posts: 461




Ignore
« Reply #2 on: November 10, 2011, 03:16:02 PM »

You don't work CW do you?
Wow, yes I do,I do Qrp and other modes with my SF team.
Logged
AA4PB
Member

Posts: 12832




Ignore
« Reply #3 on: November 10, 2011, 03:37:00 PM »

CW is not a very good choice for machine to machine data. There are much better data modes available for that these days. CW's primary benefit is that it requires simple equipment and it can be encoded and decoded directly by human operators. Once you decide that there will be computer processors to encode and decode the data then you'd be much better off to encode it with some type of PSK. Voice encoded to PSK, transmit over radio, and decode back to voice on the other end is how modern digital cell phones work.

Typical real-time speach is about 160WPM. While machine sent and received CW could operate that fast, the performance would be very poor unless the signal to noise ratio on the radio link was very high and stable (not good for HF). In addition, the ocupied bandwidth of the signal would be much greater than the normal 15-20WPM human operated CW speeds. Again, CW (on/off keying) would be a poor choice for high speed computer to computer communications.
Logged
WB2WIK
Member

Posts: 20595




Ignore
« Reply #4 on: November 10, 2011, 03:38:56 PM »

The technology to do what you describe isn't likely to ever be embraced.  

Almost nobody would want to use it because to change voice to CW and back again is a bit silly when digital modes are much more modern and can already allow KB-KB communications which can be converted to and from speech with currently available technology.  Some visually handicapped operators already do that.

The whole lure of code operation is to use it because it's fun to use.  Code ops can already send using keyboards and receive using decoding programs so they can just read code off their screens and hardly anyone does that for regular operations because it isn't fun, and digital modes are more efficient.

If I didn't have a key and headphones to use for CW I wouldn't bother using it at all.  What would be the fun in that? Wink
Logged
K8AXW
Member

Posts: 3827




Ignore
« Reply #5 on: November 10, 2011, 09:05:33 PM »

Quote
If I didn't have a key and headphones to use for CW I wouldn't bother using it at all.  What would be the fun in that? 
   


That says it all!!  Very well put!!
Logged
N2EY
Member

Posts: 3879




Ignore
« Reply #6 on: November 11, 2011, 03:17:33 AM »

I can't see voice-to-Morse or similar methods gaining wide acceptance. They may have applications, but not general use.

Besides the facts that it is fun to use and can use very simple or very complex equipment, Morse Code has other advantages:

- it permits a simple human-machine interface. You can have a manually-keyed human-interpreted station on one end and a full-up computerized setup on the other.

- it is adaptable to at least some disabilities. An op's eyes may be weak and hearing almost gone, yet s/he can be a top CW op.

- it is adaptable to low-impact ("don't bother others") situations. For example, with voice modes you have to talk, and the people around you can hear you. A keyboard and screen take up space and light up the area. But with code and headphones you can have minimal impact on those around you.

- it is unique. In many ways this is the biggest advantage of all. It is aural, not visual. It is real-time, not canned. It is fast enough to be interesting (once you have the skills) yet slow enough that you can stop and think about what you're saying and hearing.

Morse is different from both the spoken word and the written word. A different communication experience.

Keyboards and screens are everywhere; voice generation and recognition too. Morse is the one thing that is different, unique, not copied and commercialized and everywhere.

I don't want to think about how many hours per year I spend staring at various screens, poking at keyboards and keypads, yakking into phones or listening to them. After all that it is a welcome relief to listen to some beautiful Morse music, and make some of my own.

73 de Jim, N2EY
Logged
PA0BLAH
Member

Posts: 0




Ignore
« Reply #7 on: November 11, 2011, 08:43:17 AM »



- it permits a simple human-machine interface. You can have a manually-keyed human-interpreted station on one end and a full-up computerized setup on the other.

Sure, just as my touchtone telephone.
Yes I can adjust my keyer using Morse code. However Morse is about 45 characters and ASCII 128, EBCDIC 256
Quote

- it is adaptable to at least some disabilities. An op's eyes may be weak and hearing almost gone, yet s/he can be a top CW op.
Yes a well known American guy (not a ham, and 40 yrs ago) was deaf and totally blind, it was easy to communicate with him tapping on his shoulder, I remember. Just tried it, and yes the response was there.
When you get a stroke, and can't talk and write anymore, due to paralysis, you can still order a cup of coffee with the xyl with your eye shutters winking in Morse.  However ony when you educated her CW in advance.
Quote
- it is adaptable to low-impact ("don't bother others") situations. For example, with voice modes you have to talk, and the people around you can hear you. A keyboard and screen take up space and light up the area. But with code and headphones you can have minimal impact on those around you.
Voice mode: you have to talk and spell it out, Morse is already spelled out, no kilo whiskey required, just KW.
I started my ham carrier in 1946 as AM phone ham, Thanks to the Americans that sent parts to help us (PA0) to build our own equipment short after WW2, never forget that, neighbours complaining. Even when I wasn't at home. Never had any problem with CW after moving. (RTTY FSK should have been better, I confess, but that didn't yet exist and was not covered by the license) and the range of the simple homebrew transmitter transformed from local QSO's in town to all Europe and North  Africa on 80 with  CW.

Quote

Morse is different from both the spoken word and the written word. A different communication experience.
Just like being cosy to a new girlfriend is a complete new communication experience.
Feel the Thrill, feel It happen.
Quote
Keyboards and screens are everywhere; voice generation and recognition too. Morse is the one thing that is different, unique, not copied and commercialized and everywhere.
Just like bee buzzing and chicken toktok is for the breeder
Quote
I don't want to think about how many hours per year I spend staring at various screens, poking at keyboards and keypads, yakking into phones or listening to them. After all that it is a welcome relief to listen to some beautiful Morse music, and make some of my own.
In order to be able to solid copy a rag chew qso at 45 wpm upwards, of 5 minutes, it takes you four years daily exercising at least half an hour EACH day.


Quote
73 de Jim, N2EY


30 PA0BLAH
« Last Edit: November 11, 2011, 11:46:08 AM by PA0BLAH » Logged
N5RWJ
Member

Posts: 461




Ignore
« Reply #8 on: November 11, 2011, 01:22:13 PM »

CW is not a very good choice for machine to machine data. There are much better data modes available for that these days. CW's primary benefit is that it requires simple equipment and it can be encoded and decoded directly by human operators. Once you decide that there will be computer processors to encode and decode the data then you'd be much better off to encode it with some type of PSK. Voice encoded to PSK, transmit over radio, and decode back to voice on the other end is how modern digital cell phones work.

Typical real-time speach is about 160WPM. While machine sent and received CW could operate that fast, the performance would be very poor unless the signal to noise ratio on the radio link was very high and stable (not good for HF). In addition, the ocupied bandwidth of the signal would be much greater than the normal 15-20WPM human operated CW speeds. Again, CW (on/off keying) would be a poor choice for high speed computer to computer communications.

In the future  voice cw shouldn't be a problem, and it's CW being transmitted not voice, so the bandwidth shouldn't increase. Voice CW has the advantage QRP DX world wide, and  it will allow any one to sent over 50 wpm ,also think about this, our kid's can't spell.
« Last Edit: November 11, 2011, 01:40:41 PM by N5RWJ » Logged
AA4PB
Member

Posts: 12832




Ignore
« Reply #9 on: November 11, 2011, 01:40:28 PM »

The bandwidth of CW increases with increased keying speed. What future technology changes are you expecting that would permit real-time voice via CW? For many years now engineers have been developing new modulation techniques to increase the speed and reliability of digital communications - moving away from CW.
Logged
N5RWJ
Member

Posts: 461




Ignore
« Reply #10 on: November 11, 2011, 01:46:36 PM »

The bandwidth of CW increases with increased keying speed. What future technology changes are you expecting that would permit real-time voice via CW? For many years now engineers have been developing new modulation techniques to increase the speed and reliability of digital communications - moving away from CW.

Just setback and wait?  Hams will tell us!
Logged
M0JHA
Member

Posts: 646




Ignore
« Reply #11 on: November 12, 2011, 06:08:34 AM »

morse is morse , it doesn't need to be anything more than it already is . why would anyone with a passion for it want to change it ? I know i would walk away albeit reluctantly if it went "hi tech" . It's bad enough now with people stating they are cw ops de coding via a pc and sending via a keyboard.

key/radio /antenna  why try fixing something that is far from  broken ?


billy
Logged
PA0BLAH
Member

Posts: 0




Ignore
« Reply #12 on: November 12, 2011, 07:50:17 AM »

The trolls are more the guys that have a history on this website of starting 25 threads, with a total of 27 postings, I think.
Just watch their profile data by clicking on their User-ID and you know more than they like you to know.

However a few points of interest:
1. When I copy Morse by head it is much more easier, it doubles my copy speed over 45 wpm, when the Morse is keyboard generated.
Bad fists , no wordspacings are a disaster, which forces me to jot down with a reduced max speed of 25 wpm or so, in order to get the intended message.

2. When plain speech (2.7 kHz bandwidth) , as indicated  in this thread, is 160 wpm. than that can be coded in 7-bit ASCII with average 6 characters/word including the word space, it can be transmitted in a channel with 112 bits per second, which requires a minimum bandwith of 56 Hz in the case of 2 level (on-off) communication.

When you code it in Morse code, one word plain text including word space (PARIS) takes 50 bits on the average, so the required transmission speed is 134 bits per second.

Only about 44 characters are codable in Morse and it takes more bits than ASCII which carries 128 different characters.

So, Morse ... Vail coded American Morse, not International Morse,
I think it is just what you are used to, you want to hold, and for that reason I think that over 30 years Morse Code is completely vanished, just as right now American Morse, hieroglyphs, Baudot code Murrey Code, EBCDIC and what have you are vanished out of the space, except in historical books and museums.
« Last Edit: November 12, 2011, 08:27:57 AM by PA0BLAH » Logged
DL1SDZ
Member

Posts: 15




Ignore
« Reply #13 on: November 12, 2011, 12:31:13 PM »

Just a little OT: If you don't know how to SMS you can do it via Morse code:
http://youtu.be/3uxDqkWJ658

Logged
N5RWJ
Member

Posts: 461




Ignore
« Reply #14 on: November 12, 2011, 03:25:19 PM »

Note: Voice CW is transmitted as CW. RX is unchanged ,you decode it by ear or whatever, depending on code speed. and your ability. The new tech is how your voice is change to CW and transmitted.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 Next   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!