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: Prev 1 2 3 [4]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Will the future change the way we transmit CW ?  (Read 13349 times)
N5RWJ
Member

Posts: 461




Ignore
« Reply #45 on: November 26, 2011, 12:07:11 PM »


I don't think the FCC cares how you generate morse as long as it enters the RF spectrum as an A1 compliant signal and it is not encrypted.
Whether you generate it by hand key, bug, paddle, PC keyboard, Voice recognition, foot pedal or pianola roll.

I don't know about first generation morse sending.
If you are familiar with the Dragon v11 voice to text program you would see it is excellent (after some simple training) at converting voice to text.
It is entirely capable of achieving very good results, but it becomes tiresome to use voice recognition and the other methods are so much better and simpler.
For example, voice recognition is good enough to run a computer browser and surf the web ( I have used it ), but in the end one gets tired of speaking and goes back to the mouse.
The technology to go from voice to morse is here now, entirely practical, but suffers from the same problem of lack of benefit.
I have spoken to hams using Dragon V11 with PSK31 and it works fine, but they are handicapped and this is their path to using digimodes, not a shortcut, but an enabling technology.

The situation is entirely different with decoding morse.
To decode morse which is machine generated, strong signals without qrm is relatively easy and problem free, but as soon as you get signals in the noise and particularly with human generated morse the situation changes completely.
I have tried about nine different programs and really put them through their paces, and so far the results are mediocre.
This could certainly do with further research and may yield future results.

But, what is the point of doing this?
Morse is not required for ham licensing, and even if it was, voice morse would not be eligible for examination in any case.
Morse can be generated by PC, electronic key with a paddle, bug or voice to text, but how voice to morse would increase the number of hams is beyond me.
If you are suggesting that there are thousands of prospective hams who are avoiding taking up the hobby because voice morse is not used much, seems a little ludicrous.
As to the ham radio hobby declining, have you read the recent article about ham radio increasing its numbers greatly lately?

Frankly, I don't see what the point of this conversation is, since if you want voice to cw, it is already available - today  - right now.
If you want to decode morse by computer, it is available today as well, although the reliability is very variable.

But again, what is the point of this: Machine to machine modes are available in huge numbers in ham radio.
Some examples are: PSK31/OLIVIA/MFSK/PACKET/........... and the list goes on almost to infinity, so the options for machine-RF-machine are already here, and large numbers of hams are using them today.
Why would they be interested in doing the same using morse code as the intermediate mode when PSK31 is available to do just that?

The allure of morse code is that it is a human readable code, but, and this seems to be the problem you are trying to address - it takes effort on the part of the ham who wants to use CW.
Yes, it takes effort, willpower, time and persistence.

Like becoming a master swordsman, you have to travel a road of difficulty which ends in excellence.
Or you could just get a pistol and bypass all that hard work.


Stay; Thanks for your commits, the problem is, new Hams don't do Allure very long. It's reported that out of the 700,000 hams, half are technicians that operate VHF and up, or have lost interest in the hobby. I thank the future choice is louse the cw allocation to machines or find a working voice CW interphase?
Logged
AE6ZW
Member

Posts: 100


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #46 on: November 26, 2011, 03:42:35 PM »

since there is NO requirement to know Morse Code, I think future of CW is concentrate in slow speed, less than 10 WPM.   I do mostly slow speed straight key CW, and sometime  come cross somebody just learn code, and learning to use it.    in Japan, using slow speed Morse Code with straight key is trend now.   I heard that for voice communication,  Signal to noise ratio have to be better than 6dB to understand by most people.  Morse Code 0 dB S/N  no problem, even -10 dB possible.  so difference is more than 10 dB.   on top of that CW with 250 Hz filter has 10 dB less noise compare to  2.5kHz  SSB filter. so total difference can be more than 20 dB.  so my 100 wts STN can communicate about same range as if I were using more 10 kW in SSB mode with same ANT.
Logged
N2EY
Member

Posts: 3913




Ignore
« Reply #47 on: November 27, 2011, 06:50:52 AM »

It's reported that out of the 700,000 hams, half are technicians that operate VHF and up, or have lost interest in the hobby. I thank the future choice is louse the cw allocation to machines or find a working voice CW interphase?

I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

Looking at the the FCC license numbers, Technicians account for 48.8% of US hams, down from the peak of 49.5% a few years back.

How many hams are "active" is anyone's guess. Listen to the bands during a CW contest and you'll hear a lot...

There are only two "cw allocations" in US ham radio regulations - both on VHF bands. All the other non-voice allocations on HF are shared CW and data modes.

It's already possible to interface CW, PSK1, RTTY, etc. with voice. The question is: why would someone want to? Particularly CW?

73 de Jim, N2EY
Logged
PA0BLAH
Member

Posts: 0




Ignore
« Reply #48 on: November 27, 2011, 07:23:52 AM »

It's reported that out of the 700,000 hams, half are technicians that operate VHF and up, or have lost interest in the hobby. I thank the future choice is louse the cw allocation to machines or find a working voice CW interphase?

I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

Looking at the the FCC license numbers, Technicians account for 48.8% of US hams, down from the peak of 49.5% a few years back.
Amazing. Topic Starter is also having Technician and an Advanced troll according to other people.

When you really are interested in radiotechnique and propagation, you are not interested in the guys that just buy a radio and an antenna and starts transmitting with their "Technician license" You should be embarrassed to buy a radio, and want to experiment and build yourself, collecting knowledge and "how to do"

The right way turns out to be the mode CW, because you meet at least only people that had the persistence and willpower to accomplish the task of copying in their head the code that the technicians can't copy with their decoder programs and hardware decoders. So avoid also contests as I am doing right now CQ WW CW.
Quote
How many hams are "active" is anyone's guess. Listen to the bands during a CW contest and you'll hear a lot...

Not a guess when you look at the confirmed QSO's in LOTW you know the percentage of LOTW users, and when you look at the server load of LOTW you will obtain pretty reliable numbers of overall activity.


Quote
It's already possible to interface CW, PSK1, RTTY, etc. with voice. The question is: why would someone want to? Particularly CW?
Open your eyes.

Nice to meet you, anyway.

Bob
« Last Edit: November 27, 2011, 07:27:04 AM by PA0BLAH » Logged
N5RWJ
Member

Posts: 461




Ignore
« Reply #49 on: November 27, 2011, 12:40:19 PM »

Same here Bob,  the reason to use Voice/CW interphase, is because it will let you copy by ear ,and  the digital modes want.
« Last Edit: November 27, 2011, 01:29:34 PM by N5RWJ » Logged
N5RWJ
Member

Posts: 461




Ignore
« Reply #50 on: November 27, 2011, 12:49:25 PM »

since there is NO requirement to know Morse Code, I think future of CW is concentrate in slow speed, less than 10 WPM.   I do mostly slow speed straight key CW, and sometime  come cross somebody just learn code, and learning to use it.    in Japan, using slow speed Morse Code with straight key is trend now.   I heard that for voice communication,  Signal to noise ratio have to be better than 6dB to understand by most people.  Morse Code 0 dB S/N  no problem, even -10 dB possible.  so difference is more than 10 dB.   on top of that CW with 250 Hz filter has 10 dB less noise compare to  2.5kHz  SSB filter. so total difference can be more than 20 dB.  so my 100 wts STN can communicate about same range as if I were using more 10 kW in SSB mode with same ANT.
Do you have a commit, on how Voice/CW interphase, should/could be accomplish?
Logged
N2EY
Member

Posts: 3913




Ignore
« Reply #51 on: November 28, 2011, 03:48:37 AM »

If I encode voice with CW doesn't the FCC require it to be used in the phone bands?

No.

Other forms of digitally encoded voice must be used in the phone bands.

That's because there's a fundamental difference.

In a digital-voice setup (such as D-star?), what you hear at the receiving end is a pretty accurate replica of the original speaker's voice. And you cannot listen to the digital stream and make any sense of it.

But a voice-to-Morse encoder produces Morse Code that is no different from hand-sent Morse, except perhaps in speed (which brings up a different issue). And a Morse-to-voice decoder does not reproduce the original voice - what you hear is a machine voice.

So it's a completely different situation from digital voice.

The one issue would be bandwidth.



73 de jim, N2EY
Logged
N5RWJ
Member

Posts: 461




Ignore
« Reply #52 on: November 28, 2011, 02:14:34 PM »

Well N2EY you have a valid point on RX speech, we can hope in the future it will sound as natural as a cell phone. I think as AE6ZW does that future code speed will be around 10 wpm , also I will reefer to AE6ZW  above post on bandwidth .Thank you Jim ,for you far seeing posts.
« Last Edit: November 28, 2011, 02:23:55 PM by N5RWJ » Logged
S51M
Member

Posts: 14




Ignore
« Reply #53 on: November 28, 2011, 10:10:18 PM »

On the same garden together nature and semi plastic flowers. What a wonderful modern world!

73 DE S51M, Bruno
Logged
N2EY
Member

Posts: 3913




Ignore
« Reply #54 on: November 29, 2011, 05:51:39 AM »

Well N2EY you have a valid point on RX speech, we can hope in the future it will sound as natural as a cell phone.

Natural is easy; that can be done now.

What won't be done is for the reproduced voice to sound anything like the original, because there's no way for the CW-to-voice converter to know what the original voice sounds like.

I think as AE6ZW does that future code speed will be around 10 wpm

Why? 10 wpm is a starting point. Some will go far past it, others won't.

I think the opposite is true. With all the new keys, keyboards, good CW rigs, training aids and competitions, speeds will go higher, not lower.

When I became a ham, the highest Code Proficiency award was ARRL's 35 wpm level. Then a club in CT began offering higher-speed awards and practice (W1NJM?). Now ARRL's top speed is 40 wpm, and there are lots of others.

Thank you Jim ,for you far seeing posts.

You're welcome.

73 de Jim, N2EY
Logged
K1ZJH
Member

Posts: 1155




Ignore
« Reply #55 on: November 29, 2011, 09:40:49 AM »

I think that being able to send CW by keyboard is as far as it needs to progress.
Maybe we should consider converting CW into sideband so we can "talk" on the air using
our keyers? Another silly thread.

Pete
Logged
N2EY
Member

Posts: 3913




Ignore
« Reply #56 on: November 29, 2011, 10:07:23 AM »

Maybe we should consider converting CW into sideband so we can "talk" on the air using
our keyers?

Actually, that's not a bad idea for other applications.

There are apps for various smart phones which permit CW input which then becomes text. Easier and faster than the tiny keyboard, and you don't need to look at the phone to use it.

The Elecraft K3 can do PSK31 and some other digital modes all by itself, without a keyboard. The received text scrolls across the display and you can send with paddles. Of course "conventional" operation in those modes is also provided.

73 de Jim, N2EY
Logged
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 [4]   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!