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: [1] 2 Next   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: 500 most common English words in Morse Code @23wpm  (Read 3042 times)
W4KYR
Member

Posts: 1658




Ignore
« on: December 22, 2017, 03:47:17 AM »

500 most common English words in Morse Code @23wpm

This might be helpful for some here, HamRadioQRP over on YouTube has several videos. This particular one is called "500 most common English words in Morse Code @23wpm".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1sTWD3pSaQ


In addition he has several different videos like this with speeds ranging from 15 wpm all the way up to 38 wpm. The majority of his videos have the most common 100 words however there are two videos which have 500 of the most common words. One video is at 18 wpm, the other one is 23 wpm (link above). If his video (s) have helped you any, send him a thanks...

(Disclaimer: I am not connected to the gentleman in any way. Just passing on info that might help others)




Logged

The internet and cellphone networks are great until they go down, what then? Find out here. 
https://www.eham.net/ehamforum/smf/index.php/topic,111948.0.html

Using Windows 98 For Packet...
GW3OQK
Member

Posts: 403




Ignore
« Reply #1 on: December 22, 2017, 07:06:40 AM »

Hello KYR
Seeing the text and hearing it could be useful. I'll pass on this tip again for real beginners, click on the gear wheel button and you can slow it down.

However, it is not 23 wpm, it's about half that speed and because it is not smoothly flowing with correct spacing between characters I found it quite unpleasant to listen to. Here is properly sent morse and the written text. http://www.smrcc.org.uk/Morse/morse.htm73, MX
Andrew
Logged
KC0W
Member

Posts: 345




Ignore
« Reply #2 on: December 22, 2017, 08:01:31 AM »

 If that's 23 WPM I should be able to do 90 WPM with ease.  Smiley

                                        Tom KC0W
Logged
PU2OZT
Member

Posts: 5




Ignore
« Reply #3 on: December 22, 2017, 11:37:19 AM »

I'll stick to IZ2UUF Koch smartphone application, highly configurable, I make it playing a .txt list of 4k words

Oliver
Ohne Fehler fehlt was 
Logged
ZL1BBW
Member

Posts: 1239




Ignore
« Reply #4 on: December 22, 2017, 11:59:59 AM »

The keying in the 500 words off to me, is it a bit soft? certainly not pleasant to read for a long time, whereas the other sample tapes are spot on, crisp keying, very acccurate formation.
Logged

ex MN Radio Officer, Portishead Radio GKA, BT Radio Amateur Morse Tester.  Licensed as G3YCP ZL1DAB, now taken over my father (sk) call as ZL1BBW.
KE6EE
Member

Posts: 1904




Ignore
« Reply #5 on: December 22, 2017, 04:34:22 PM »

It is not 23 wpm, it's about half that speed and because it is not smoothly flowing with correct spacing between characters.
Andrew

Right. It's Farnsworth sending with characters sent at 23 wpm but with expanded space between characters so the
overall rate is significantly less than 23 wpm. The OP did not explain this adequately.

I agree that it doesn't sound right.

I think that Farnsworth sending can be done in a much more graceful way by spacing
more between words and spacing properly for the characters within words. This is often what I do when I am communicating with someone who prefers something like 18 wpm and my bug is set perhaps 5 wpm faster. This makes for
sending that sounds right and is easier for a slower operator to copy.
Logged
K8AXW
Member

Posts: 6503




Ignore
« Reply #6 on: December 22, 2017, 11:15:28 PM »

EE:  Exactly!  This is why I have always been down on "gimmick" methods of learning code.  It doesn't sound right and after learning this way the excited ham gets on the air and is lost!

Now normally this kind of comment starts a pissing contest and has been repeated many times on the CW forum.  I'm not getting into that mess again but am simply confirming EE's comments.

He's right!
Logged
W4KYR
Member

Posts: 1658




Ignore
« Reply #7 on: December 23, 2017, 08:29:20 AM »

It is not 23 wpm, it's about half that speed and because it is not smoothly flowing with correct spacing between characters.
Andrew

Right. It's Farnsworth sending with characters sent at 23 wpm but with expanded space between characters so the
overall rate is significantly less than 23 wpm. The OP did not explain this adequately.


It's not my job to explain anything.....

It is not my job to analyze and pick apart the man's video and point out things, after all I didn't make the video... I thought I made that clear...

I said "It might be helpful for some here"

I posted it for those who may be interested. 

I don't care either way if anyone likes it or not.
Logged

The internet and cellphone networks are great until they go down, what then? Find out here. 
https://www.eham.net/ehamforum/smf/index.php/topic,111948.0.html

Using Windows 98 For Packet...
KE6EE
Member

Posts: 1904




Ignore
« Reply #8 on: December 23, 2017, 08:41:03 AM »

It's not my job to explain anything.....

I don't care either way if anyone likes it or not.

I did not intend to criticize you--only to point out to a beginner reading here that there are aspects of the
sending that are likely to confuse beginners. For example there is the difference between the character
speed and the overall speed of sending, the latter being much less than 23 wpm. Also there is the problem
that the irregularly-spaced "Farnsworth" code may not be as easy to copy as ordinarily-paced code sent
at the same lower speed.

Like AXW I am not a fan of the "latest and greatest" and "shortcut" methods for learning code or
increasing copy speed. I think I have good reasons for being critical of some of these approaches.
Logged
K8AXW
Member

Posts: 6503




Ignore
« Reply #9 on: December 23, 2017, 09:14:30 AM »

KYR:  I too didn't mean to sound critical of your post in any way!  I apologize if it came across that way.

Actually, I enjoyed that video as well as some of the other videos that guy made. 

Because of several factors I'm not able to or even feel like operating anymore and so when I saw these videos and was able to head copy after being away from my rig for quite. I was pleasantly surprised I could still head copy so well.

Thank you for sharing the videos.  I wish you a very Merry Christmas OM, or whatever you do or do not celebrate.   Grin
Logged
W0WCA
Member

Posts: 82




Ignore
« Reply #10 on: December 23, 2017, 11:05:50 AM »

I like it!
Logged
K3EY
Member

Posts: 42




Ignore
« Reply #11 on: January 01, 2018, 10:47:55 AM »

It's not my job to explain anything.....

I don't care either way if anyone likes it or not.

I did not intend to criticize you--only to point out to a beginner reading here that there are aspects of the
sending that are likely to confuse beginners. For example there is the difference between the character
speed and the overall speed of sending, the latter being much less than 23 wpm. Also there is the problem
that the irregularly-spaced "Farnsworth" code may not be as easy to copy as ordinarily-paced code sent
at the same lower speed.

Like AXW I am not a fan of the "latest and greatest" and "shortcut" methods for learning code or
increasing copy speed. I think I have good reasons for being critical of some of these approaches.


If you already have the skill mastered, why do you give a rip?

What's with the juice in your words. You need to relax before you can't.
Logged
W4KYR
Member

Posts: 1658




Ignore
« Reply #12 on: January 02, 2018, 06:13:20 AM »

There is another video, this time it contains 100 of the most common QSO words at 15 wpm. So far all the comments to the man's video have been positive.

Just to be clear.  Again, like the other video...I am not connected to the video in any way and I do not know the man who produced it.

I am only putting this up as an FYI in hopes that it MAY help some hams...Then again, it may not.

(Description below from the uploader)

"100 common words, Q-codes, abbreviations, etc. that you'll encounter in a Morse Code / CW QSO in Ham radio.

By the way there is a mistake. I sent G5VR rather than G5RV.  Mea culpa


Morse Code words in the video: AND THE YOU THAT A TO KNOW OF IT YEAH IN THEY DO SO BUT IS LIKE HAVE WAS WE ITS JUST ON OR NOT THINK FOR WELL WHAT ABOUT ALL THATS OH REALLY ONE ARE RIGHT UH THEM AT THERE MY MEAN DONT NO WITH IF WHEN CAN AS HIS FROM HAD BY SOME WERE OUT OTHER WHERE YOUR UP QRL QRM QRN QRQ QRS QRZ QTH QSB QRP QSY R TU RTU TNX NAME RST CQ AGN ANT INV V DIPOLE BEAM ENDFED G5RV WINDOM OCF SLOPER VERTICAL DX ES FB GM GA GE HI HR HW NR OM PSE PWR WX 73 BK KN RIG QRP AGE YRS TEST ICOM KNWD YAESU TENTEC ELECRAFT HEATHKIT HOMEBREW MFJ PSK SWR WX TEMP WARM HOT COLD SUNNY COOL CLOUDY CLDY CLEAR CLR RAIN SNOW SLEET HAIL WINDY WNDY FOG HOUR . ? / 599 589 579 479 359 489 559 HW? CW AM SSB USB LSB PSK31 FT8 PSK DIGITAL"



"100 Common QSO words @15wpm -- Beginning Morse Code"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JskAldoROMM&t=226s






.
Logged

The internet and cellphone networks are great until they go down, what then? Find out here. 
https://www.eham.net/ehamforum/smf/index.php/topic,111948.0.html

Using Windows 98 For Packet...
KB5ZCR
Member

Posts: 3




Ignore
« Reply #13 on: January 02, 2018, 08:37:01 PM »

I listen to several of his vids in the car to and from work to work on head copy. I like them. There is also this one
https://youtu.be/O8wOa2SNspQ
That is 90 min long, I just let it play over my jeep radio while driving, I think it helps.

Logged
K8AXW
Member

Posts: 6503




Ignore
« Reply #14 on: January 02, 2018, 09:17:38 PM »

Great idea, using normally wasted time by listening to CW.  It's taking advantage of opportunities like this that increases your ability to copy code, especially head copy.

Nice going!!
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 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!