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 Next   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Will the future change the way we transmit CW ?  (Read 12320 times)
AD6KA
Member

Posts: 2232




Ignore
« Reply #30 on: November 18, 2011, 01:21:05 PM »

N5RWJ:
Quote
Thanks for your commit, the tech for voice/cw is not here yet,
 in the future we hams will gain the ability to do voice/cw.

Charles, why do you NOW say "it is not here yet"?
Why the change in tune?
You never mentioned that in any of your
other posts on the topic. They were "We can do this now!".

Is it because as a Technician Class Op your only HF phone
privileges are on 10m, so that is the only
band YOU could personally test this on?

Ken  AD6KA
Logged
PA0WV
Member

Posts: 98




Ignore
« Reply #31 on: November 18, 2011, 02:56:40 PM »

Ken,

Hold ur horses. 10 is an excellent band right at the moment with openings, hence a good idea starting to stimulate other hams to set up experiments with the (edit: ironically:) completely new and bright ideas that Charles Lester presented us in this topic and defended succesfully.

Wim PAoWV
« Last Edit: November 20, 2011, 02:51:24 AM by PA0WV » Logged
AD6KA
Member

Posts: 2232




Ignore
« Reply #32 on: November 18, 2011, 03:22:57 PM »

Ken,
Hold ur horses. 10 is an excellent band right at the moment with openings, hence a good idea starting to stimulate other hams to set up experiments with the completely new and bright ideas that Charles Lester presented us in this topic and defended succesfully.
Wim PAoWV
Point taken, I agree.
But a true and complete evaluation would
include multiple bands, which have different
propagation methods, signal to noise ratios,
crowded bands, etc.

On a quiet, uncrowded band with low noise,
strong signals, it would probably work. But how fast could
you get the text through,how many dropouts/errors
would you have, even under ideal conditions?

I am not saying throw the concept in the rubbish.
I am saying I would like to see it tested in a rigorous
scientific fashion before it is proclaimed "the future of CW".


Quote
the completely new and bright ideas that Charles Lester presented us
With all respect, very, very few ideas are "completely new".

An idea is easy to defend, like a hypothesis.
Hypotheses are based on suppositions.
Theories are based on facts and reproducible data/phenomena.
I'd just like to see some facts and data, that's all.

A happy holiday season to all.
73, Ken  AD6KA
« Last Edit: November 18, 2011, 03:45:36 PM by AD6KA » Logged
N5RWJ
Member

Posts: 461




Ignore
« Reply #33 on: November 19, 2011, 12:03:08 PM »

N5RWJ:
Quote
Thanks for your commit, the tech for voice/cw is not here yet,
 in the future we hams will gain the ability to do voice/cw.

Charles, why do you NOW say "it is not here yet"?
Why the change in tune?
You never mentioned that in any of your
other posts on the topic. They were "We can do this now!".

Is it because as a Technician Class Op your only HF phone
privileges are on 10m, so that is the only
band YOU could personally test this on?

Ken  AD6KA
Well now, if you would like to look at my first post, you will find, That I said in the future we will have Voice/CW. I do hope it can be accomplished with analog transceivers or all in one SDR , or maybe just a add on to your radio?
« Last Edit: November 20, 2011, 02:33:00 PM by N5RWJ » Logged
N5RWJ
Member

Posts: 461




Ignore
« Reply #34 on: November 19, 2011, 12:25:22 PM »



With that added info, I think you're right.

But it is certainly possible that a couple of storks could change things....

73 de Jim, N2EY

Right, but added with the fact that he wrote in a link referenced in this thread, that he was in a combat situation in 1976 as commander of a unit with wounded soldiers, I do not expect the age of a young man in the period of family creating. Sri fr my english.

So I want to use this place to thank N5RWJ, for the presentation of his bright ideas about the future of CW. We all have to start thinking about the possibilities he sketched.

Wim PAoWV
Yes after FANK  B 43 closed in Vietnam. I  work as a operator from 75 to Jun of 1980 in Africa . The Russians and Red Chinese where trying to take control of all the supertanker ports ,to stop them we tried to control the out come of the war in Rhodesia. President. J Carter, the British and and some Rhodesian/Zimbabwe traitors hoping for high British decorations . Gave an free democratic elected Country over to red Chinese Control in a fake election in 1980. Hoping they would stop the Russians! ***Just look who, I have Exposed***Sorry Jim.
« Last Edit: November 20, 2011, 02:40:51 PM by N5RWJ » Logged
N5RWJ
Member

Posts: 461




Ignore
« Reply #35 on: November 19, 2011, 12:53:48 PM »

N5RWJ:
Quote
Thanks for your commit, the tech for voice/cw is not here yet,
 in the future we hams will gain the ability to do voice/cw.

Charles, why do you NOW say "it is not here yet"?
Why the change in tune?
You never mentioned that in any of your
other posts on the topic. They were "We can do this now!".

Is it because as a Technician Class Op your only HF phone
privileges are on 10m, so that is the only
band YOU could personally test this on?

Ken  AD6KA
You know, I didn't think of that, but your right, technicians would seem to gain from this. But no they can't , they must stay in their FCC allocation, but they could use Voice/CW on home ground. also I promise to upgrade to low band voice soon.
« Last Edit: November 19, 2011, 01:47:33 PM by N5RWJ » Logged
N5RWJ
Member

Posts: 461




Ignore
« Reply #36 on: November 19, 2011, 12:56:56 PM »

The question is ,who will be the Fathers of VOICE/CW ?
« Last Edit: November 19, 2011, 01:00:50 PM by N5RWJ » Logged
N5RWJ
Member

Posts: 461




Ignore
« Reply #37 on: November 21, 2011, 12:23:03 AM »

Is G3PLX work with Vericode/CW ,the way forward for Voice/CW ?
« Last Edit: November 21, 2011, 12:25:31 AM by N5RWJ » Logged
S51M
Member

Posts: 14




Ignore
« Reply #38 on: November 21, 2011, 10:14:57 AM »

Is G3PLX work with Vericode/CW ,the way forward for Voice/CW ?

Let be there this new voice/cw mode although it has just little or even nothing to do with the beauty and knowledge of CW. I propose voice/cw activity should be outside from CW frequencies. Otherwise we will have together motor boats and sailing boats activity.

73 DE S51M, Bruno
Logged
N5RWJ
Member

Posts: 461




Ignore
« Reply #39 on: November 21, 2011, 10:51:28 AM »

Bruno, stateside we can use cw on all of our spectrum/allocation , but not PSK and its versants per band plan.
Logged
STAYVERTICAL
Member

Posts: 854




Ignore
« Reply #40 on: November 22, 2011, 11:16:44 AM »

Thank you for making me laugh on this rainy morning.
I was starting to think that ham radio had lost its share of odd personalities and wacky ideas, but it appears we still have our quota.

Do you guys who champion the voice to cw to voice path even do morse?
Dust off the key/bug/paddle, join the big boys, and have a great time.

Ten metres is hot lately, as are 12 and 15, lots of morse, mostly hand keys and bugs from the sending styles seen.
I use a hand key, paddle or PC keyboard with a serial interface as the mood grabs me.
Its all fun.

I could even fire up my Dragon 11 and use it to send morse and parse the poorly decoded morse from cwdecoder or MRP40 etc to readplease 2000 and have it speak it out.

But really, the result would be rubbish, clumsy and unwieldy making it a poor experience.

Or I could just read morse in my head, and enjoy the experience.

I used to use Dragon 11 with my digimode operation, and it worked, sort of, but in the end the utility was really not worth the extra clumsiness.

This thread seems to assume the technology in the future will meet some pressing need to send voice CW, but the technology is here right now, off the shelf (on my computer even), to do this - in the main people are just not interested.

Most of my morse operating is with stations sitting in the noise, sending "non standard" spacing and we all have great fun.
I sometimes put on morse decoding programs to see how they cope with decoding, forget it, unless you want to laugh.

Why is traditional morse still popular when so many other options are available to communicate?
I don't know, but for me, it is the satisfaction of achievement I gain from training my brain to turn intermittent bursts of tones into a conversation, much to the bemusement of onlookers.

It's sort of like being in an ancient secret society with a special language, and after all that's what morse is - a language.
And I like languages, which is why I taught myself German, Spanish and Japanese, not because I need to, but because it is human to explore.

73s


« Last Edit: November 22, 2011, 11:19:20 AM by STAYVERTICAL » Logged
N5RWJ
Member

Posts: 461




Ignore
« Reply #41 on: November 23, 2011, 11:57:45 AM »

So you have use first generation Voice/CW, that makes you a pioneer in the field. Happy Holidays!

PS: Do you have a call?
« Last Edit: November 23, 2011, 11:59:50 AM by N5RWJ » Logged
AA4PB
Member

Posts: 12697




Ignore
« Reply #42 on: November 23, 2011, 01:11:43 PM »

If I encode voice with CW doesn't the FCC require it to be used in the phone bands? Other forms of digitally encoded voice must be used in the phone bands.
Logged
N5RWJ
Member

Posts: 461




Ignore
« Reply #43 on: November 24, 2011, 02:20:51 PM »

If I encode voice with CW doesn't the FCC require it to be used in the phone bands? Other forms of digitally encoded voice must be used in the phone bands.

[/quote ] The FCC will let you use CW in the phone bands, but we have band agreements that prevents its. Now think of Voice/CW or code  ,as a speech interphase, you speak ,its then encoded into code and then TX. To the other stations, where its decoded back into speech or type. This Tech is not here yet, but could be soon. At this time its need for the handicap, and  for some no code Hams. Out of the 700,000 Hams in the US, its reported that half of them are technicians that work VHF bands or have lost interest in Ham radio. If this trend is not stopped, look for your future radio, to cost as much as a new car?
« Last Edit: November 24, 2011, 02:24:51 PM by N5RWJ » Logged
STAYVERTICAL
Member

Posts: 854




Ignore
« Reply #44 on: November 26, 2011, 06:49:40 AM »


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.

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!