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 12252 times)
PA0BLAH
Member

Posts: 0




Ignore
« Reply #15 on: November 13, 2011, 02:15:23 AM »

Note: Voice CW is transmitted as CW. RX is unchanged ,you decode it by ear or whatever, depending on code speed. and your ability. The new tech is how your voice is change to CW and transmitted.

You are running this discussion in other thread(s) also, by adding one of your oneline messages to keep it alive.

Yes, everything is said about it.
Look for the formula of Shannon in wikepedia or a text book and you will find the required bandwidth.

Said in this thread is that speech is 160 words per minute.
I am sure you never will be able to copy 160 wpm CW in your head.

First step: Speech recognition, one form is speech to text on your screen, is in development and works better or less.
when you have it printed on your screen, every transformation to another code is possible, Morse is one of them.
We call that the source code.

Next step: You transmit the code over radio. You have 2.7 kHz channel bandwith, with noise QRM QRN and selective fading, possible echo's by multipath propagation. For that reason you are going to use a transmission code. The source code can be transformed to a transmission code, including forward error correction by redundancy, you choose a modulation method, on-off keying is one of them, certainly not optimal but possible. Morse code as transmission code is also possible as we all know, but far from optimal.

160 wpm is no problem even not in noisy selective fading channels of 2.7 kHz bandwidth, because your net transport speed is, as said in this thread 130 bits per second when the speed is 160 words per minute. Morse was not optimal, takes more bits for the same message.

Third step: In the receiver you recover the original source code of 130 bps.
You can translate that in Morse as you like that, but it is not possible to copy 160 wpm, so you have to print it out on your screen or let it talk out bij a voice of your choice, male female, you mention it.

Morse at 160 wpm is completely senseless, because the code is not real time decodable by human beings at 160 wpm. Rag chewers go sometimes up to 120 wpm decoding speed, as reported, but that are not plain vanilla QSO partners, a handfull on earth, I estimate.

http://forums.qrz.com/showthread.php?230245-yaesu-897D-out-of-band-transmit/page4

Reading this URL my serious advice is see your Ψ , in order to help you better than we , CW hams, are able to do  by interaction as normal human beings to you.

73 es SK


« Last Edit: November 13, 2011, 04:45:46 AM by PA0BLAH » Logged
N5RWJ
Member

Posts: 461




Ignore
« Reply #16 on: November 14, 2011, 09:52:47 AM »

Note: Voice CW is transmitted as CW. RX is unchanged ,you decode it by ear or whatever, depending on code speed. and your ability. The new tech is how your voice is change to CW and transmitted.

You are running this discussion in other thread(s) also, by adding one of your oneline messages to keep it alive.

Yes, everything is said about it.
Look for the formula of Shannon in wikepedia or a text book and you will find the required bandwidth.

Said in this thread is that speech is 160 words per minute.
I am sure you never will be able to copy 160 wpm CW in your head.

First step: Speech recognition, one form is speech to text on your screen, is in development and works better or less.
when you have it printed on your screen, every transformation to another code is possible, Morse is one of them.
We call that the source code.

Next step: You transmit the code over radio. You have 2.7 kHz channel bandwith, with noise QRM QRN and selective fading, possible echo's by multipath propagation. For that reason you are going to use a transmission code. The source code can be transformed to a transmission code, including forward error correction by redundancy, you choose a modulation method, on-off keying is one of them, certainly not optimal but possible. Morse code as transmission code is also possible as we all know, but far from optimal.

160 wpm is no problem even not in noisy selective fading channels of 2.7 kHz bandwidth, because your net transport speed is, as said in this thread 130 bits per second when the speed is 160 words per minute. Morse was not optimal, takes more bits for the same message.

Third step: In the receiver you recover the original source code of 130 bps.
You can translate that in Morse as you like that, but it is not possible to copy 160 wpm, so you have to print it out on your screen or let it talk out bij a voice of your choice, male female, you mention it.

Morse at 160 wpm is completely senseless, because the code is not real time decodable by human beings at 160 wpm. Rag chewers go sometimes up to 120 wpm decoding speed, as reported, but that are not plain vanilla QSO partners, a handfull on earth, I estimate.

http://forums.qrz.com/showthread.php?230245-yaesu-897D-out-of-band-transmit/page4

Reading this URL my serious advice is see your Ψ , in order to help you better than we , CW hams, are able to do  by interaction as normal human beings to you.

73 es SK



Your post is just a personal attack, and has no place on this forum, Do think about this .CW is the same when transmitted by hand or machine, its bandwidth will change some what by CW speed. The future tech is changing voice into cw and changing CW back to voice!
Logged
NI0C
Member

Posts: 2383




Ignore
« Reply #17 on: November 14, 2011, 12:29:09 PM »

The OP wrote:
Quote
Your post is just a personal attack, and has no place on this forum, Do think about this .CW is the same when transmitted by hand or machine, its bandwidth will change some what by CW speed. The future tech is changing voice into cw and changing CW back to voice!

I didn't read the posting from our PA0 friend as a personal attack.  Instead he referred you to basic information theory, which explains why no one but you seems to have any enthusiasm for the idea.

73,
Chuck  NI0C 
Logged
STAYVERTICAL
Member

Posts: 854




Ignore
« Reply #18 on: November 14, 2011, 12:57:45 PM »

As a digimodes and CW operator I can give you my personal experiences with speech to data modes.

I work some guys who use Dragon to encode to PSK31, which since they have severe disabilities, is the only way they can type.
They can enjoy communicating with fellow hams on data modes due to this technology, something they would be denied without it.
Another ham friend is deaf and cannot use CW (or voice) without either some sort of mechanical vibrator or visual cues, so he now
uses PSK31 to continue to enjoy ham radio.
These are the most noble uses of technology - to help those who are impaired, to participate in ham radio.

For others who are sound in body, why use a mode that originated 150 years ago, is not required to be used commercially anymore,
and takes time and dedication to learn?

The reason is the same one that drives people to climb mountains, cross Antartica on foot or restore a rusted old vintage car -
the satisfaction of achieving something that not everyone has the determination to master.
For example, one of my other hobbies is restoring old sextants, which have been replaced by GPS navigation these days.
So why do it?
The efficiency of modern GPS far exceeds the sextant, but anyone who has used a sextant to find their position can attest to the
feeling of achievement gained.

There is more to being human than efficiency.

In my case, I have all the technology to implement voice or keyboard to CW, but choose to use the old hand pump or a paddle.
Why? simply because when you use these devices, and after you have crossed a threshold of competence, the whole experience
becomes zen like.
The paddle or key become part of ones body, like a car in the hands of an excellent driver.
Reading CW in my head and with a paddle at the end of my hand, CW becomes natural, like speaking to a friend.

To paraphrase JFK "we do CW not because it is easy, but because it is hard".

And I would add, for me, it is the most fun in ham radio.

73s es hpe cuagn dit dit
« Last Edit: November 14, 2011, 01:39:45 PM by STAYVERTICAL » Logged
PA0WV
Member

Posts: 93




Ignore
« Reply #19 on: November 14, 2011, 04:04:35 PM »

You don't work CW do you?
Wow, yes I do,I do Qrp and other modes with my SF team.

What is SF? Science Fiction?

On Dec 21, 2009 Topic Starter wrote in eHam/QRP:
Quote
After two storks , I must drop CW on my K2, and go to the phone,Which of the two FT 897 d or IC 700  or others in the same price rang would y'all recommend ?

So I want to remark to be lucky to hear from our  fellow ham  his "Wow,yes" as reply on the question of W7XG.
Afterwards when he can't use  paddles or a straight key, due to two strokes, he is able to use a keyboard since his entrance on eHam since 2 years.


Wim PA0WV
« Last Edit: November 14, 2011, 04:08:29 PM by PA0WV » Logged
N5RWJ
Member

Posts: 461




Ignore
« Reply #20 on: November 16, 2011, 02:31:10 PM »

What would be the advantage in this?  It  is easier to just run CW.

73s John AA5JG
For you it is,but maybe not for others?
Logged
N5RWJ
Member

Posts: 461




Ignore
« Reply #21 on: November 16, 2011, 02:34:54 PM »

As a digimodes and CW operator I can give you my personal experiences with speech to data modes.

I work some guys who use Dragon to encode to PSK31, which since they have severe disabilities, is the only way they can type.
They can enjoy communicating with fellow hams on data modes due to this technology, something they would be denied without it.
Another ham friend is deaf and cannot use CW (or voice) without either some sort of mechanical vibrator or visual cues, so he now
uses PSK31 to continue to enjoy ham radio.
These are the most noble uses of technology - to help those who are impaired, to participate in ham radio.

For others who are sound in body, why use a mode that originated 150 years ago, is not required to be used commercially anymore,
and takes time and dedication to learn?

The reason is the same one that drives people to climb mountains, cross Antartica on foot or restore a rusted old vintage car -
the satisfaction of achieving something that not everyone has the determination to master.
For example, one of my other hobbies is restoring old sextants, which have been replaced by GPS navigation these days.
So why do it?
The efficiency of modern GPS far exceeds the sextant, but anyone who has used a sextant to find their position can attest to the
feeling of achievement gained.

There is more to being human than efficiency.

In my case, I have all the technology to implement voice or keyboard to CW, but choose to use the old hand pump or a paddle.
Why? simply because when you use these devices, and after you have crossed a threshold of competence, the whole experience
becomes zen like.
The paddle or key become part of ones body, like a car in the hands of an excellent driver.
Reading CW in my head and with a paddle at the end of my hand, CW becomes natural, like speaking to a friend.

To paraphrase JFK "we do CW not because it is easy, but because it is hard".

And I would add, for me, it is the most fun in ham radio.

73s es hpe cuagn dit dit
I think the future will tell us. But try to understand that you are not loosing the ability to hand key and decode by ear,you gaining a new ability to sent cw by voice , and have it decoded back into voice at the other station.
« Last Edit: November 16, 2011, 02:55:18 PM by N5RWJ » Logged
N5RWJ
Member

Posts: 461




Ignore
« Reply #22 on: November 17, 2011, 01:03:12 PM »

What would be the advantage in this?  It  is easier to just run CW.

73s John AA5JG
For you it is,but maybe not for others?

Then do another mode, or find another hobby.

73s John AA5JG
[/quote*** I  will not, and its foolish of you to say that!***
Logged
N2EY
Member

Posts: 3835




Ignore
« Reply #23 on: November 17, 2011, 02:32:28 PM »

For others who are sound in body, why use a mode that originated 150 years ago, is not required to be used commercially anymore, and takes time and dedication to learn?

The reason is the same one that drives people to climb mountains, cross Antartica on foot or restore a rusted old vintage car - the satisfaction of achieving something that not everyone has the determination to master.

That's one reason. But it's not the whole thing. There's a lot more to it.

For example, one of my other hobbies is restoring old sextants, which have been replaced by GPS navigation these days.
So why do it?
The efficiency of modern GPS far exceeds the sextant, but anyone who has used a sextant to find their position can attest to the feeling of achievement gained.

Yes, but there's more to it.

GPS is great but if too much dependence is put on it, disaster can result. This has already happened.

There have been cases where people have died because they did what the GPS/mapping device told them. In some cases they followed summer roads in the winter, in others they got lost in places like Death Valley because the GPS maps were based on old maps that showed roads which just aren't there anymore.

And what do you do if the GPS receiver fails?

There is more to being human than efficiency.

You got that right!

And it all depends on how someone defines "efficiency".

In my case, I have all the technology to implement voice or keyboard to CW, but choose to use the old hand pump or a paddle.
Why? simply because when you use these devices, and after you have crossed a threshold of competence, the whole experience
becomes zen like.
The paddle or key become part of ones body, like a car in the hands of an excellent driver.
Reading CW in my head and with a paddle at the end of my hand, CW becomes natural, like speaking to a friend.

For me, CW stopped being "hard" more than 40 years ago. Yes it took some effort to learn but once a certain level was reached it became easier than talking. Which says something.

And there is something to be said for having a variety of ways to do something. Sure, a photograph is efficient, but does that mean there is no point in learning how to draw or paint? Not at all - a drawing or painting can sometimes be a better way to represent something than a photograph.

To paraphrase JFK "we do CW not because it is easy, but because it is hard".

I prefer this scene from "A League Of Their Own":
 
Long version (bit of strong language)
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=fvwp&v=ndL7y0MIRE4&NR=1
 
Short version:
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOdAbjebs-g&feature=related
 
And I would add, for me, it is the most fun in ham radio.

Same here. Which is the whole point, really.

73 de Jim, N2EY
Logged
N2EY
Member

Posts: 3835




Ignore
« Reply #24 on: November 17, 2011, 02:38:01 PM »


On Dec 21, 2009 Topic Starter wrote in eHam/QRP:
Quote
After two storks , I must drop CW on my K2, and go to the phone,Which of the two FT 897 d or IC 700  or others in the same price rang would y'all recommend ?

So I want to remark to be lucky to hear from our  fellow ham  his "Wow,yes" as reply on the question of W7XG.
Afterwards when he can't use  paddles or a straight key, due to two strokes, he is able to use a keyboard since his entrance on eHam since 2 years.

You misunderstood him.

He wrote "two storks", not "two strokes". Which means two babies in the family in a short time.

73 de Jim, N2EY
Logged
AD6KA
Member

Posts: 2232




Ignore
« Reply #25 on: November 17, 2011, 05:07:57 PM »

To The topic starter:

Why don't you get a group of like minded
hams located around the globe, and actually TEST
 this Voice Recognition->Computer CW Generation->
Computer CW Copy-> Text to Voice plan?

Test it on different bands at different times,
band conditions, distances, etc.


Generate some empirical data on the subject "mode"
then write it up for an article, either online or print.

Wouldn't that do more for your "Voice CW" jihad
than multiple posts saying:
"Wow, look at this amazing idea I have!
It will be the future of phone comms!"

Link posted by PA0BLA:
http://forums.qrz.com/showthread.php?230245-yaesu-897D-out-of-band-transmit/page4

Hah! Thanks for the laughs. Sound like a BS story
by a serious wannabee, or a kid with a vivid fantasy life.

Ken  AD6KA
Logged
PA0WV
Member

Posts: 93




Ignore
« Reply #26 on: November 18, 2011, 08:12:12 AM »


On Dec 21, 2009 Topic Starter wrote in eHam/QRP:
Quote
After two storks , I must drop CW on my K2, and go to the phone,Which of the two FT 897 d or IC 700  or others in the same price rang would y'all recommend ?

So I want to remark to be lucky to hear from our  fellow ham  his "Wow,yes" as reply on the question of W7XG.
Afterwards when he can't use  paddles or a straight key, due to two strokes, he is able to use a keyboard since his entrance on eHam since 2 years.

You misunderstood him.

He wrote "two storks", not "two strokes". Which means two babies in the family in a short time.

73 de Jim, N2EY
 
Jim, I don't think so. I interpreted stork as a mistyping of stroke, two storks can't be a reason to drop CW and go over on phone.
Furthermore I read from the hand of topic starter (also with a typo) on January 31 2010 in Mobile Ham on this forum:
Quote
 I'm disable , thanks for the link
This added to the quoting habits give me  the feeling that my guess of a typo was correct.

Wim PAoWV
« Last Edit: November 18, 2011, 08:13:57 AM by PA0WV » Logged
N5RWJ
Member

Posts: 461




Ignore
« Reply #27 on: November 18, 2011, 08:19:29 AM »

To The topic starter:

Why don't you get a group of like minded
hams located around the globe, and actually TEST
 this Voice Recognition->Computer CW Generation->
Computer CW Copy-> Text to Voice plan?

Test it on different bands at different times,
band conditions, distances, etc.


Generate some empirical data on the subject "mode"
then write it up for an article, either online or print.

Wouldn't that do more for your "Voice CW" jihad
than multiple posts saying:
"Wow, look at this amazing idea I have!
It will be the future of phone comms!"

Link posted by PA0BLA:
http://forums.qrz.com/showthread.php?230245-yaesu-897D-out-of-band-transmit/page4

Hah! Thanks for the laughs. Sound like a BS story
by a serious wannabee, or a kid with a vivid fantasy life.

Ken  AD6KA

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.
Logged
N2EY
Member

Posts: 3835




Ignore
« Reply #28 on: November 18, 2011, 08:57:07 AM »

Jim, I don't think so. I interpreted stork as a mistyping of stroke, two storks can't be a reason to drop CW and go over on phone.
Furthermore I read from the hand of topic starter (also with a typo) on January 31 2010 in Mobile Ham on this forum:
Quote
 I'm disable , thanks for the link

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
Logged
PA0WV
Member

Posts: 93




Ignore
« Reply #29 on: November 18, 2011, 10:31:21 AM »



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
« Last Edit: November 18, 2011, 10:38:18 AM by PA0WV » 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!