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

donate to eham
   Home   Help Search  
Pages: Prev 1 2 [3] 4 Next   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Iambic Keying - Debunking the Myth  (Read 4643 times)
VK5EEE
Member

Posts: 936




Ignore
« Reply #30 on: August 08, 2017, 11:03:38 AM »

 Grin missed that! Yes KF7DS you are in luck! The single lever will do just fine with keyer, no worries about iambic. You don't need iambic anyway  Grin I happily key either way, single lever, or squeeze leaver. It really doesn't matter what people use, unless they want to go faster than 40WPM.
Logged

Long Live Real Human CW and wishing you many happy CW QSO - 77 - CW Forever
KF7DS
Member

Posts: 265




Ignore
« Reply #31 on: August 08, 2017, 11:29:22 PM »

Thanks.....good to know
Logged
AA4N
Member

Posts: 148




Ignore
« Reply #32 on: August 09, 2017, 07:03:18 AM »

Hi all,  it's me again...  The staunch defender of iambic keying Smiley

I've taken another look at that article written by N1FN where he is beating up on iambic mode.   He is basing his whole thesis on a table of keystroke counts that was developed by K7QO where he compares the number of moves that it takes to generate letters and numbers using the various common telegraph keying systems.   Here's the table that K7QO proposes (I'm converting it to percent of straight key keystrokes here, I also added keyboard just for giggles);

SK - 100%   Bug - 66%   SLP - 55%   Iambic - 49%   Keyboard - 27%   (K7QO data)

So, just to be difficult, I put together my own table...  Strangely, I came up with significantly different numbers.  Here's what I've got;

SK - 100%   Bug - 76%   SLP - 55%   Iambic - 45%   Keyboard - 27%   (AA4N data)

Then I added 6 more characters, 3 punctuation and 3 pro-signs (comma, period, question mark, AR, SK, BT).  Here's that table;

SK - 100%   Bug - 77%   SLP - 58%   Iambic - 44%   Keyboard - 29%   (AA4N data with punctuation and pro-signs)

I couldn't make the link to the original K7QO article work.   So, I'm not sure why He and I disagree on the bug v straight key numbers so much.  But, I think I know why we disagree on the iambic numbers...   It looks to me like he's counting the squeeze move as two moves.   For my money, a squeeze is a single move.   I haven't made any attempt to weight the data for frequency of use though.

It only takes a few minutes with a spreadsheet to put this together.   Do you guys get similar numbers?

Full disclosure...   My go-to key is actually an old Champion bug that I've painted up to look like a J-36 (the brass vibroplex name plate was missing and it just looked too naked without it)  I usually only use a keyer for field day or the occasional other contest.


Just stirring the pot...

cheers  Mike

Logged
AA4N
Member

Posts: 148




Ignore
« Reply #33 on: August 09, 2017, 07:12:33 AM »

Not sure if I can pull this off.  Trying to paste data directly from a spreadsheet to this post...

This is my keystroke table (DLP means iambic)

   SK   Bug   SLP   DLP   KB
   166   127   97   73   48
   100   77%   58%   44%   29%
A   2   2   2   1   1
B   4   2   2   2   1
C   4   4   4   1   1
D   3   2   2   2   1
E   1   1   1   1   1
F   4   3   3   2   1
G   3   3   2   2   1
H   4   1   1   1   1
I   2   1   1   1   1
J   4   4   2   2   1
K   3   3   3   1   1
L   4   3   3   2   1
M   2   2   1   1   1
N   2   2   2   1   1
O   3   3   1   1   1
P   4   4   3   3   1
Q   4   4   3   2   1
R   3   3   3   1   1
S   3   1   1   1   1
T   1   1   1   1   1
U   3   2   2   2   1
V   4   2   2   2   1
W   3   3   2   2   1
X   4   3   3   3   1
Y   4   4   3   2   1
Z   4   3   2   2   1
0   5   5   1   1   1
1   5   5   2   2   1
2   5   4   2   2   1
3   5   3   2   2   1
4   5   2   2   2   1
5   5   1   1   1   1
6   5   2   2   2   1
7   5   3   2   2   1
8   5   4   2   2   1
9   5   5   2   2   1
,   6   5   3   3   2
.   6   6   6   1   2
?   6   4   3   3   2
AR   5   5   5   1   2
SK   6   4   4   2   2
BT   5   3   3   3   2
Logged
VK5EEE
Member

Posts: 936




Ignore
« Reply #34 on: August 09, 2017, 09:34:28 AM »

Hi Mike,

Did you just take the average of all the letters? I think one needs to take the weighting of the English language frequency of letters into account when making the overall comparisons? Assuming non random code groups are sent.

For example, C and Q are not common frequency letters, but provide a high saving of 'energy' in iambic mode.

Which brings us to 'energy'. If I can happily twiddle my fingers all day long without the slightest fatigue, what difference will any 10% saving make or even if it were 50% saving, what difference would it make in reality? None.

As someone pointed out with the difference between American and European straight key methods there IS a lot of energy expended, but even so, what is there difference for that significant difference? A can of beans? Obesity vs longer life?
Logged

Long Live Real Human CW and wishing you many happy CW QSO - 77 - CW Forever
M0LEP
Member

Posts: 478




Ignore
« Reply #35 on: August 09, 2017, 03:11:57 PM »

I think one needs to take the weighting of the English language frequency of letters into account when making the overall comparisons?

Assuming you're considering the difference keying methods would make to an amateur radio operator, you'd probably do better to take into account the character use distribution in normal amateur radio use. Characters like Q would be rather higher up the table for amateur radio use than they would be in general english text.

For practical purposes, I figure the difference between non-iambic and iambic paddles is real, but rather less significant than the difference between straight keys and paddles, always assuming the operator is equally practiced in using them all, and the devices are all equally weighted in use. I suspect that last assumption is probably dodgy; at least as far as mechanical bugs go, because their weighting must add something to the keying effort.

At the end of the day, you're best off using which ever means you're best practiced at and the device you're most at ease with, and that's going to be a balance that's likely to differ from person to person.
Logged
VK5EEE
Member

Posts: 936




Ignore
« Reply #36 on: August 09, 2017, 09:52:14 PM »

Talking of ease of use. I am the very, very happy owner of OzBug made by Georg VK2DLF, which features a number of very unique characteristics in the history of bugs. For example, it has paddles -- dual -- just as used for an iambic keyer, but in this case a bug. You can and do squeeze the paddles, but this does not produce any iambic sequence. Example, if holding down the dah, and you then also push the dit and hold it, you get a string of dits but they won't be sent as the dah is already making contact. What purpose does it serve then? It just makes for an easier sending, as you can already start moving one or the other lever, and it is easy to use for anyone coming from a dual paddle or iambic paddle, though I'm happy using a standard bug, I must say this key has the nicest feel to it. You can see a photo of it below. This and other keys are available from www.morsekeys.com -- I was very fortunate to receive this gifted to me by the Master Craftsman himself, made with impeccable German Precision -- as a gift in thanks for my activities in support of CW in Australia. Thanks Georg!

Logged

Long Live Real Human CW and wishing you many happy CW QSO - 77 - CW Forever
VK5EEE
Member

Posts: 936




Ignore
« Reply #37 on: August 10, 2017, 01:14:52 AM »

I should add that there is no stronger movement using this OzBug than a paddle. You just twiddle your fingers. No slapping around. It produces a very long string of dits before timing out, at least 100 of them, and, it does NOT slow down before timing out into constant dah at the end as they finally get longer. This too is unique to this key design by VK2DLF of MorseKeys.com. My old Simplex Auto from WW2 era also does not need slapping around, but you have to be careful, as with many bugs, not to get a scratchy or "half" dit -- something almost impossible to do on the OzBug. The sound is beautiful, and as you can see the key is a joy to look at. Very clever and unique design in many respects. It goes from around 10WPM up to about 50 WPM or so, which is also rather unique range. No need for extra weights, everything you need comes supplied.
Logged

Long Live Real Human CW and wishing you many happy CW QSO - 77 - CW Forever
W3TTT
Member

Posts: 234




Ignore
« Reply #38 on: August 10, 2017, 09:34:45 AM »

Parame, it is either straight key or computer keyboard.  None of these fid-del-lie things.
P.s. I never use a computer keyboard on the air. 
 Smiley
73, Joe
Logged
K4EQ
Member

Posts: 22


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #39 on: August 12, 2017, 07:37:04 PM »

We hams sure are the craziest bunch of people--always looking for something to complain about in the hobby. Whether one can send faster or easier with iambic keying depends on the person. Some can, some can't. Personally, I can send both faster and easier with iambic B but, obviously, many can't. There's no myth to debunk here. Straight keys, single paddles, dual paddles, iambic A, iambic B, etc.--they're all available to all of us. Use whatever you enjoy the most and have some fun.
Logged
VK5EEE
Member

Posts: 936




Ignore
« Reply #40 on: August 12, 2017, 08:11:07 PM »

K4EQ yes, but that is quite a rhetorical statement. The OP here is about sharing some KNOWLEDGE about iambic keying that is not known by many, and which I wish someone had told me about 30 years ago. Is that such a crime, sharing knowledge?
Logged

Long Live Real Human CW and wishing you many happy CW QSO - 77 - CW Forever
VK5EEE
Member

Posts: 936




Ignore
« Reply #41 on: August 12, 2017, 08:11:54 PM »

Is that such a crime, sharing knowledge?
Oops. That was a rhetorical question. In the modern western world sharing knowledge IS a crime.
Logged

Long Live Real Human CW and wishing you many happy CW QSO - 77 - CW Forever
VK5EEE
Member

Posts: 936




Ignore
« Reply #42 on: August 12, 2017, 08:12:46 PM »

In the modern western world sharing knowledge IS a crime.
Debunking myths is an even greater crime, punishable by killing with cotton wool.
Logged

Long Live Real Human CW and wishing you many happy CW QSO - 77 - CW Forever
M0LEP
Member

Posts: 478




Ignore
« Reply #43 on: August 13, 2017, 12:59:34 AM »

Debunking myths is an even greater crime, punishable by killing with cotton wool.

My main problem with the aricle in question is its title. The article iself doesn't actually debunk any myth. What it does is put some of the various types of keying into some sort of perspective, quantitatively, and point out where greater efficiency might be found, or not. The title is just clickbait.
Logged
K4EQ
Member

Posts: 22


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #44 on: August 13, 2017, 08:50:12 AM »

K4EQ yes, but that is quite a rhetorical statement. The OP here is about sharing some KNOWLEDGE about iambic keying that is not known by many, and which I wish someone had told me about 30 years ago. Is that such a crime, sharing knowledge?

Of course not and I don't think I even implied that. Nor is my opinion any less or more significant than yours.  In my opinion, the knowledge of which you speak is quite subjective and there is no crime in the two of us having differing views on the topic. It really doesn't matter what the so-called "experts" say about the "best" paddle. If one sends easier, faster, and more efficiently with a single lever paddle, then that is the best paddle for the person to use. Personally, after using a bug for many years, I switched to electronic keying with a single lever paddle, then switched to a dual-lever paddle for iambic keying when that became available. When mode B came out I found that to be even better (translation: more enjoyable) for me.

BTW, the reason I wrote my post was primarily because of a statement you made in your first post in this thread: ". . . iambic keying is clever, and fun, but of very little practical value. Worse, it can impose a speed limit on your sending." I don't know if iambic keying is clever, whatever that means here, but I do find it fun. Is it of practical value? Huh? I use it, so it obviously is of some practical value to me. Does it impose a speed limit on my sending? Possibly, but I'll never know if my limitation is greater with iambic or not because there is no way to objectively measure this limitation. I do know that I start making lots of mistakes while sending at 40 wpm, but I probably would be making more mistakes at that speed with a single lever paddle because I'm not used to using one anymore. The good news is I greatly enjoy CW, especially with my dual-lever paddle using mode B. That's even if all the experts tell me it's of no value to me and limits my operating potential.
Logged
Pages: Prev 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!