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]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Computer aided reception of CW  (Read 7643 times)
N3QE
Member

Posts: 2425




Ignore
« Reply #15 on: January 11, 2012, 11:59:49 AM »

Quote
Enough said about it.  I quit explaining. When you are not willing to see my point, then candle and glasses wan't help.

It's not about evading machine copy. It's about sending good code.

Good code, like voice communications, can be done in any number of accents. In CW it's called a "fist". A good fist is not necessarily the same as machine-produced code. Beyond that anyone sending with any sort of keying apparatus (straight key, bug, keyer, keyboard) applies their own spacing and emphasis via CW.

These all enhance the CW experience. Unlike the obfuscation you propose, which will hide a good distinctive fist.

Tim.
Logged
PA0BLAH
Member

Posts: 0




Ignore
« Reply #16 on: January 11, 2012, 12:40:36 PM »

As far as I understand, he is emulating another (virtual) mans fist. May be bad, may be good.

Some fists, good or bad are hardly or not copied by machine decoders. So  when you don't like to be registered by a machine you are able (?) to use that specific fist when you build the gadget PA0VW is promoting/describing here.

At least you can use your own fist in a standard QSO except when you give name and QTH, you flip the switch, looking what happens, and keeping track of the number of 'pse rpt'. That  yields the no code boys hiding after their machine decoders. Especially at QRQ an interesting experiment.

There is no mode in amateur radio that is so much emulated by nocode hams as CW.  They intermixed it in their phone QSO's Q-codes, 73, saying "h  i" spelled out, (not as "hotel india" but as "H" and then "I" ) instead of laughing in the mike, and so on.

And how about the photographs on Internet of shacks with the "no code" ham at the key? Preferable an expensive one, with a connector at the end of the cord somewhere on the desk because they don't know where to plug it in  their proudfull possession: their Kenwoet tranceiver, with a 2 kW Americatron as Linear (linear to preserve the fist?) because when you fail in school you will be at least a big gun on the ham radio bands.

73 Bob
Logged
N3QE
Member

Posts: 2425




Ignore
« Reply #17 on: January 11, 2012, 01:18:05 PM »

Some fists, good or bad are hardly or not copied by machine decoders.

I heard a lot of distinctive good fists on straight key night, sent my own as well, and later went back and saw that CW Skimmer had no problem copying me and them.

Obfuscating CW to the point where skimmer cannot copy, is not a "distinctive fist" but intentional QLF.

You and others rant about the no-code hams but skimmer and other computer-based tools, can be their introduction to the mode. Just training wheels, that's all, and many will go on to become good CW ops who don't need skimmer to copy code.

Tim.
Logged
LA9XSA
Member

Posts: 376




Ignore
« Reply #18 on: January 11, 2012, 01:42:59 PM »

So everything I sent and that is readable by a human reader, also a human eavesdriopper. is NOT encrypted.
It's not encrypted, but it's obfuscated. You have explicitly tried to make it hard to understand for other people. You may be breaking rules against obscuring the meaning of your code, and also rules for properly identifying your station. I would in any case take some advice before embarking on this.
Logged
KD6KWZ
Member

Posts: 276




Ignore
« Reply #19 on: January 12, 2012, 12:38:22 AM »

Quote
If you really want to see how good your morse sending is, send it to a cw decoder, the result is usually enlightening.

Especially with straight keys. I always wonder what happens when the CW sender sneezes or coughs.  Grin

Cadence can be an issue.

I'm using CWGet to become less of a CW klutz. I would have gotten a Technician class license in 1974 if it wasn't for CW woes of mine, instead of in 1992 with no code. Yes, CWGet is subject to propagation woes, the level control has flaws in both automatic & manual modes. But, looking at the output graph allows checking.

And, CW's range is still amazing. I was copying some ham in New Zealand on CW at night here on 10 meters (part of the path was daylight), yet I don't think SSB would have been heard across town on 10 at that time.

The issue with reliable CW real time translating programs reminds me of closed caption TV issues. For instance, if the TV signal gets weak, CC is the first thing too go, I noticed. To the point that if it was printing garbage while the TV was muted, I would make my son laugh by joking that the CC people must have been drinking before going to work that day, it was that bad.

Error detection & correction would help all signals, but that take more time or bandwidth in sending signals.
Logged
PA0BLAH
Member

Posts: 0




Ignore
« Reply #20 on: January 12, 2012, 07:34:25 AM »

Quote
If you really want to see how good your morse sending is, send it to a cw decoder, the result is usually enlightening.

Especially with straight keys. I always wonder what happens when the CW sender sneezes or coughs.  Grin


I'm using CWGet to become less of a CW klutz. I would have gotten a Technician class license in 1974 if it wasn't for CW woes of mine, instead of in 1992 with no code. Yes, CWGet is subject to propagation woes, the level control has flaws in both automatic & manual modes. But, looking at the output graph allows checking.

Thanks for your interesting comment.

Interesting is the answer on the question: Should you have learned CW when decoding aids just as CWget were NOT available?

Are you now, as old timer since 1972 active able to decode CW by head? In other words did CWget help you to get head copy proficiency?

If you are at present not able to decode CW on ear,  do you think that you should have learned it when CWget was not available, or should you not bother, just as about reading hieroglyphs, unreadable for a lay-man, but who cares. Interesting to decode with a hyroglyphget program, but not worth the effort of learning when such a program is not available, and also learns CWget that you are not missing anything, phone, PSK31 and the like will suffice, more than that because they are faster on the avarage.
Quote
And, CW's range is still amazing. I was copying some ham in New Zealand on CW at night here on 10 meters (part of the path was daylight), yet I don't think SSB would have been heard across town on 10 at that time.

Right, but do you think the same or better result can be obtained with PSK31 due to the less required bandwidth?


Logged
STAYVERTICAL
Member

Posts: 875




Ignore
« Reply #21 on: January 16, 2012, 10:22:51 PM »

This is certainly an entertaining thread.
When I was taught code it was to send "standard" spacing code, both of elements and spacing, as this was considered the pinnacle of achievement.
It did not always work out this way of course, and a lot of "fists" developed anyway after the course was finished.
I personally do not find various "fists" enjoyable to read, but accept them as a normal consequence of human based sending.
At sea, many RO's seemed to have fists, but coast station operators seemed to have more standard sending - even when hand key sending.
Maybe something to do with the ships motion, or being on watch after the "refreshments" in the officers smokeroom.

In any case, apart from the hypothetical arena, sending good code should be the goal of all CW ops.
To send poor code intentionally is the same of exhibiting poor manners in a formal situation - it is a sign of a disrespect to your contact and taints your callsign.

73s
« Last Edit: January 16, 2012, 10:24:25 PM by STAYVERTICAL » Logged
WB3CQM
Member

Posts: 129




Ignore
« Reply #22 on: January 17, 2012, 03:36:10 AM »

This is certainly an entertaining thread.
When I was taught code it was to send "standard" spacing code, both of elements and spacing, as this was considered the pinnacle of achievement.
It did not always work out this way of course, and a lot of "fists" developed anyway after the course was finished.
I personally do not find various "fists" enjoyable to read, but accept them as a normal consequence of human based sending.
At sea, many RO's seemed to have fists, but coast station operators seemed to have more standard sending - even when hand key sending.
Maybe something to do with the ships motion, or being on watch after the "refreshments" in the officers smokeroom.

In any case, apart from the hypothetical arena, sending good code should be the goal of all CW ops.
To send poor code intentionally is the same of exhibiting poor manners in a formal situation - it is a sign of a disrespect to your contact and taints your callsign.

73s


IMHO sending poor code is a direct result of 2 things . One sending code to try and learn it. And No# 2 lack of practice on the air. Oh 3 , very little copy of great code to imprint it in ones brain to begin with.

If a person can not copy code at all  how do they think they can send it the way it should sound , with the correct spacing ?

Everyone is in rush to send code with key , before they know how to copy. Nothing new , hams were doing that 35 years plus ago also.

Today we have computers and if you can type , why not send with key board ? And use the spacing bar ? Makes it better for the person on the other end. Then they do not have to copy bad fist.

Reminds me of when I was trying to learn to use a duck call. My buddy said to me one day in duck blind , STOP ! blow your duck call on your own time not while we are hunting. That's what I did and at home. How ? I listened to real ducks in a pen . I got the sound imprinted in my head and then mimic the real ducks. (very little listen to tapes)

National Duck / Goose Champions spend HOURS calling I mean HOURS . Divorce is high among National Goose Callers!

This is my point. If you do not use it will  you lose it ? I answer the question for you . I have not been on bike in over 10 years. I can still ride , I know . But I will not win any race.

What I see as problem with all hams today is that they do not want to listen. They do not want to copy. If you do not copy Great / Good code how do you then think it will be imprinted in your head ?

Why do I think I can copy code in my head ? Because I spent hours and hours of copy the right stuff . USCG and Coastal broadcast. Hours of it . W1AW ok but to me was bore. Maybe like this post I write.

But Hams need to COPY and that is  good CODE - To imprint it in their heads , BEFORE they ever pick up a key.

How much copy ? Everyone is different , I do not think there is a correct answer.

How  do you then get good with a key ? Practice with it . Better yet get on the air and use it ? But how about sending into a copy machine and see how good or poor the machine can copy your fist to help you ?

This comment is written to no one Just what I think reading all these post this week.

Getting good at something is done by "Practice makes Perfect".

How much practice ?

My self - After 35 years ham I still do practice  copy  of code using LCWO / RufzXP / CW Freak / and other tools. I doubt I been in cw qso in years. So if you hear me call cq  , "forgive my bad sending in advance".  But I will see you in the dx pile ups.

73 JIM


Logged
K3TN
Member

Posts: 296


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #23 on: January 17, 2012, 03:37:11 AM »


Right, but do you think the same or better result can be obtained with PSK31 due to the less required bandwidth?

I'm 80% CW op and I play with PSK31, using DM780 and lately WinWarbler. On a dying band or on "troubled" conditions I think I can pull through CW signals at a lower SNR than the PSK decoders - for the typical short QSO where you are just getting the call and RST.

For a rag chew type QSO,  fractured PSK31 screen print is probably better to a lower SNR than I could do copying CW. The printed text might be full of character errors but seeing "Ri^ he(_ is E%$craQt KE" is pretty easy to error-correct!

John K3TN
Logged

John K3TN
WS3N
Member

Posts: 809




Ignore
« Reply #24 on: January 17, 2012, 10:06:22 AM »

National Duck / Goose Champions spend HOURS calling I mean HOURS . Divorce is high among National Goose Callers!

And justifiable homicide?
Logged
PA0BLAH
Member

Posts: 0




Ignore
« Reply #25 on: January 17, 2012, 10:59:29 AM »


National Duck / Goose Champions spend HOURS calling I mean HOURS . Divorce is high among National Goose Callers!


They met their wife first, probably during goose calling.
Logged
Pages: Prev 1 [2]   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!