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]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Learning Code - Writing vs. typing  (Read 7471 times)
PA0BLAH
Member

Posts: 0




Ignore
« Reply #30 on: July 28, 2011, 10:20:39 AM »

Tks Wes,

Your moderate words put it in the right context, I feel.

Bob
Logged
N2UGB
Member

Posts: 179




Ignore
« Reply #31 on: July 30, 2011, 05:52:26 AM »

Interesting thread. When I was at Keesler Field radio school. we first learned to type on a manual machine. Then to copy morse on it. As I recall, the idea was to be "behind" by a character or two on the typewriter. So, if you just copied (in your head) the letter g of 'dog', you were striking the letter o of that word on the mill. Been a long time so I may be off a bit.
Logged
K8AXW
Member

Posts: 3827




Ignore
« Reply #32 on: July 30, 2011, 08:49:37 AM »

2UGB:  You're correct.  Actually, as code speeds approached 20-25WPM, AND, as the operator became more experienced, it wasn't uncommon to be 4 or 5 characters behind!  This was with 5 letter code groups, not clear text.  Reason being, with 5 letter code groups, the mind and mill set into a rhythm.  With clear text, the variation in word length upset this "rhythm" and it became necessary to stay within 2 or 3 characters with the mill.
Logged
N2UGB
Member

Posts: 179




Ignore
« Reply #33 on: July 30, 2011, 10:48:59 AM »

Yes, it was 5 character code groups. Sigh, seems like yesterday.
73
Logged
KC2MJT
Member

Posts: 59




Ignore
« Reply #34 on: July 31, 2011, 06:19:21 PM »

Although I agree with WB2WIK that CW is auditory, only by translating what you hear to written text do you preserve accuracy. I've heard hams repeat messages given to them 'orally' and scramble it until it isn't even remotely close to the original message. The military requires you use the 'mill' because it captures the moment. Your memory is poor at repeating a message. Especially when it may contain complicated coordinates, distances, bearings or azimuths. My entire issue with the ham world is they think they can join a net and just repeat crap. I hear crap on the local wx net every morning and its all 'oral' and 'auditory' and all worthless. Although CW is pretty much dead in the military except in use by a few cryptos, the military will never allow head copy.

I've worked plenty of cw ops and I can tell the ones that only listen, and those that copy. Those that copy tend to respond to my questions and the information I provide and are far more enjoyable than the conversations I have with the guys who think they can do it all in their head.
Logged
K8AXW
Member

Posts: 3827




Ignore
« Reply #35 on: August 01, 2011, 09:32:45 AM »

2MJT:  I agree with your observation about 'hard copiers' vs. 'head readers.'  For the most part.  You can tell the 'head readers' from the 'hard copiers' by asking a question.  Most 'head copiers' will as you to repeat the question.

However, it is unfair as well as inaccurate to say MOST head copiers fall into this category.  Just that a substantial number do.

The military has (or should I say had?) no use for head copiers except for "search missions."  But when it comes to copying a station or net, they want character for character accuracy!  That mean a mill.
Logged
PA0BLAH
Member

Posts: 0




Ignore
« Reply #36 on: August 01, 2011, 02:38:54 PM »

Amazing statements here.

When you copy in your head you have a pencil and paper always at hand to make short notices of important data and questions.

When you copy everything by mill. you have too much to read (mostly afterwards...) in order to find important data and questions.

So in practice: Questions are answered by copy by head hams, and they are NOT answered  by mill or jotting_down_ everything_hams.

Furthermore your military statements are a denial of using the telephone, because by telephone you don't have hard copy and you forget to answer questions, because you copy voice by head. ROFL.

Come on, Use your time exercising till you are proficient  in mill AND copy by head above 40 wpm before you are publishing this kind of messages that direct other readers to the wrong trail.
Logged
KC2MJT
Member

Posts: 59




Ignore
« Reply #37 on: August 01, 2011, 04:45:32 PM »

paoblah, although I agree that there is always a pen and pencil handy, unfortunately in practice it is too late by the time the 'head' copier decides to 'copy' the important info. It's too late by that point. As the previous entry noted, the head copiers tend, and it is only a tendency based on my on anecdotal evidence, to ask for more repeats than mill copiers. Admittedly there is often a pause between bursts of communication, but in the end the mill copiers converse more with less time. Nevertheless, your experience is just as valid as mine, as that is all we have. 73.

Nate
Logged
AK7V
Member

Posts: 250




Ignore
« Reply #38 on: August 01, 2011, 04:54:52 PM »

As a "head copier," I prefer QSOs that go back and forth quickly.  QSK, answers right after a question, etc.  My guess is that if I don't answer a question, it's because I forgot what it was after 10 minutes of listening. 

I do write down things that I want to address in my reply.  But the conversations seem to flow a lot more naturally if there's more back-and-forth.
Logged
KC2MJT
Member

Posts: 59




Ignore
« Reply #39 on: August 01, 2011, 05:23:56 PM »

ak7v, ok I can buy that argument. Short exchanges similar to real conversation may produce the results head copiers advocate. When it occurs I might buy in. Yet, Kostyra had copiers go on for many minutes. Listen to 40m Dan around 7.025 any night tonhear 15 minutes of non stop stacatto.

nate
Logged
KC2MJT
Member

Posts: 59




Ignore
« Reply #40 on: August 01, 2011, 05:25:30 PM »

sorry for the obnoxious iPad translation
Logged
N2EY
Member

Posts: 3879




Ignore
« Reply #41 on: August 01, 2011, 07:53:21 PM »

Why does it have to be one or the other?

When I was in high school and college I was a CW traffic handler. Section, region and sometimes even area nets. Formal message traffic in standard ARRL format. I learned how to handle messages, how to be an NCS, how to be a net representative, how to do book messages, special QN signals, the works. Done the amateur way.

The messages themselves were written down; the net stuff wasn't. All part of the game.

Being a good CW op isn't one skill; it's a whole set.

73 de Jim, N2EY 

Logged
DAVER
Member

Posts: 63




Ignore
« Reply #42 on: August 03, 2011, 08:35:02 AM »

Not that I'm proficient in any way... But I learned recently by first using a paddle and just going threw the letters one at a time. I would practice with my eyes closed as I was just listening to the rythem of each one and building the muscle memory in the arm. It reminds me of playing guitar a lot more than I thought ahead of time. I use my pickin' hand to send and the motion was already engrained into me.

Then after having individual letters and numbers down I started going threw the q codes and abbreviations used. While this helped me to be able to reconize the sound of each letter I wasn't really able to copy much. But then after getting on 40m with a less than ideal qrp set up I just listened after each failed contact. So if someone was calling cq and didn't respond to me but someone else and then they went back and forth I'd just listen.

Seamed like the letters popped out at me pretty easy. By doing enough listening on the band after every failed contact attempt I've improved my copy skills dramatically. If it's at a speed I have a harder time with I throw CWGet into the mix, and then write down what I hear and then compare to what comes up afterwords.

But i like using on the air signals for copy practice because it brings into account infinite variations in speed, noise, other signals...etc. It also makes failed contacts with my needle bending qrp set up seam more productive!

If I find two people already ragchewin' it I try to zero beat the signal and then just listen. Get some operating practice in as well. Besides, it's always good to know someone's dog is doing better or hear other's battles regarding the spacial and financial economics of someone's station building compared to what's allowed by the xyl or HOA.

Dave, KD2AKC
Logged
KC9TNH
Member

Posts: 304




Ignore
« Reply #43 on: August 03, 2011, 11:58:10 AM »

By doing enough listening on the band after every failed contact attempt I've improved my copy skills dramatically. If it's at a speed I have a harder time with I throw CWGet into the mix, and then write down what I hear and then compare to what comes up afterwords.
Dave, KD2AKC
Just my $.02 but sounds good to me; although I get what you mean, if you're getting better as a result it's not a failed contact in my view. Started out QRP too, BTDT, and still do in the field & on sprints.

Since you mention copying on-air (vs all computer training), not having a computer at home I have a question about CW 'recognition' software (hope that's the right term). I've wondered if such a thing is sensitive to spacing and signal quality; I mean, if we're gonna get together and have a day at the range, and someone is "bringing the ammo" but the perhaps there's a slightly late dit and it comes out "deringing the ammo" does the computer just translate spacing on a certain threshold, kinda wondering how lack of a human ear lends context.

"deringing" ?  What was rung, in the first place?
"deringing" ?  Maybe he meant delinking...?

As said, no home computer or CW software other than some sound files I can listen to early AM, or at lunch.
Really just wondering how that stuff works in practice.
Smiley
Logged

73
Wes -KC9TNH
"Don't get treed by a chihuahua." - Pete
DAVER
Member

Posts: 63




Ignore
« Reply #44 on: August 12, 2011, 06:40:54 PM »

Thought I had replied a while ago but just saw that it must not of posted.

Yeah the computer decoding is pretty shoddy some times. I haven't used a lot of different things, but CWget works pretty good, you just need to know how to adjust everything. You can adjust "ranges" for LPM for example. You can almost always adjust it manually better than when it's set on auto.

I only use it if I'm using my softrock ensemble though which allows for pretty crazy filtering which helps the software decode. From my experiences you need to isolate the receiver/transceiver from the computer for better audio which is a must for decoding.

Dave, KD2AKC
Logged
Pages: Prev 1 2 [3]   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!