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 Next   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Learning CW on PC - I don't do windows.  (Read 1926 times)
LB3KB
Member

Posts: 227


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #15 on: June 09, 2008, 12:45:45 PM »

It's not really a fair summary, more like a partial summary.  But if it helped you get the main parts of the message it's okay.

Also, if you had followed some of the other advice in here you would have found that article yourself by browsing through the web sites of one or more of the Koch capable softwares.

73
LB3KB Sigurd
http://justlearnmorsecode.com
Logged
KQ6UP
Member

Posts: 136




Ignore
« Reply #16 on: June 09, 2008, 01:33:24 PM »

If I miss communicated.  Yes learning to recognize words is good.

Chris KQ6UP
Logged
KB1OOO
Member

Posts: 214


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #17 on: June 09, 2008, 02:00:03 PM »

> p.s. I love G4FON is a awesome cw learning tool, but as soon as you can
> get on the air and make real QSO's because your real on the air speed
> will be about %20 slower with all the noise and sloppy sending.

I dunno, I think that the noise and sloppy sending is minor compared to the fact that random code groups have an effective speed that is 20% slower than plain text because of the higher frequency of letters with shorter codes.  It's a simple calcuation:  see the bottom of page 167, top of page 168

http://www.qsl.net/n9bor/images/The%20Art%20&%20Skill%20of%20Radio-Telegraphy%203rd%20edition%204-02.pdf

So, if you set your Koch trainer to 20wpm, you're really learning morse code at 16wpm, if that.

Marc
Logged
LB3KB
Member

Posts: 227


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #18 on: June 09, 2008, 02:36:33 PM »

KB1OOO,

>So, if you set your Koch trainer to 20wpm, you're
>really learning morse code at 16wpm, if that.

This is, at best, a bullshit statement.  Maybe you base your misguided conclusions on a lack of ability to understand even the simplest sentences ?

Copying random code is MUCH harder, at any speed, than copying plain text.  The main reason for this is that you can't gain anything from guessing what you missed.  This is true when you do keyboard copy, it's true when you do voice recognition copy, it's true when you copy on paper, and it's certainly true when you "copy in your head".

If you're worried about your ability to copy random characters you should start out using a sensible implementation of Koch.  Any sensible implementation of Koch will allow you to enter, by keyboard or voice recognition, everything you hear - and it will increase the frequency of any letter that you miss.  There is currently NO method available that will allow you to drill your trouble spots like this unless you use random character groups for practice.


LB3KB Sigurd
http://justlearnmorsecode.com
Logged
KB1OOO
Member

Posts: 214


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #19 on: June 09, 2008, 02:45:02 PM »

I'm going to make a bold claim to say that there is little evidence to support some of N1IRZ's claims about the Koch method in his article "So You Want To Learn Morse Code".  I've read his cited references in the scientific literature, and there is simply nothing there to support Koch being a faster method than any of the other widely accepted methods.

In carefully controlled experiments at Harvard University (Taylor, D.W. "Learning the telegraphic code", Psychological Bulletin,
40(7), pgs. 464-487) there wasn't even evidence to support the claim that learning the letters < 10wpm posed some sort of barrier to increasing your speed to 20wpm.  Interesting, N1IRZ cites this reference in his article where he argues exactly the opposite.

I will commend the Koch approach, however, for its positive feedback that keeps the student from getting burned out.  With Koch, expect that it will take 10 months to 1 yr to get to 15 - 20wpm plain text copy.  It might be worth considering some other methods, (search for WB2WIK in these forums and in the article I referenced below) WB2WIK claims 1 month to 20wpm head copy.  Also some of the military approaches like the AERNT method in "morse academy".  

73,
Marc    

ps.  I favor the following article which I think gives fair treatment and thorough review of the different methods for learning morse code:

http://www.qsl.net/n9bor/images/The%20Art%20&%20Skill%20of%20Radio-Telegraphy%203rd%20edition%204-02.pdf
   
Logged
KB1OOO
Member

Posts: 214


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #20 on: June 09, 2008, 03:01:48 PM »

> This is, at best, a bullshit statement. Maybe you base your misguided
> conclusions on a lack of ability to understand even the simplest
> sentences ?

And I think that this statement represents your inability to understand simple mathematics.

But while you are on the topic, cite me a single person who learned on random code groups and then went to plain text at the same speed, and achieved a higher copy accuracy.  I don't doubt that some who learned morse code from the outset on plain text might have better copy accuracy on plain text than random code groups because they've learned to recognize words.  But then, who cares, unless you enjoy sitting around copying random code groups.


 
Logged
LB3KB
Member

Posts: 227


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #21 on: June 09, 2008, 03:29:02 PM »

KB1OOO,
>I'm going to make a bold claim

You do that all the time.

Also, you keep spitting on those who spent time creating the tools that taught you Morse code in the first place, while you keep recommending more or less useless methods you have no experience with.

Maybe if you spent a little less time on torturing your brain trying to understand what you're obviously reading about and a little more time using what you've learned in a constructive way...  Maybe you'd actually GET somewhere...
Logged
AK7V
Member

Posts: 251




Ignore
« Reply #22 on: June 09, 2008, 03:36:32 PM »

Generally, I'd recommend waiting on RufZ until you're around 20WPM.  When you get a callsign correct, the speed of the next one is sent faster.  I'm not sure how much faster -- I'll have to check when I'm at home, but I think it's at least 1WPM faster.  I suppose there's no real reason it won't work at slower speeds, but the increase is a higher percentage of your capability when you're that slow.

I've read that it's best to start running RufZ at about 80% of your maximum speed.  I haven't used RufZ in over a year, but I used to start it up at around 40WPM and my max was usually around 55WPM or so (my best was 64WPM with qrq).  Now I'm probably a little slower (50-52WPM max?)  I generally QSO at 30-35WPM.

It won't hurt to play around with it.  It'll probably help, actually, if it holds your attention and you like the challenge.  Whatever gets you to practice every day is the best method.  The Koch/Farnsworth/Whatever arguments are fine and dandy, but the crux of the issue is daily practice that you enjoy.  For most, that's making QSOs.
Logged
DJ1YFK
Member

Posts: 191


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #23 on: June 09, 2008, 04:54:12 PM »

> The Koch/Farnsworth/Whatever arguments are fine and
> dandy, but the crux of the issue is daily practice that
> you enjoy. For most, that's making QSOs.

Amen.

I'm not taking any position in this argument, because (unfortunately?) you only learn CW once, and are spoilt (or blessed) with it for the rest of your life. It's difficult to make any profound statements on methods of learning CW that you have not experienced yourself, and few (if any) have taught CW to enough people to have a statistically relevant number of pupils to tell the difference.

Intrinsic motivation is the key and it's something that no learning method can give you. CW learning methods are overrated.

Back to the topic: Since the OP already seems to know all characters in CW, I'd recommend to get on the air *ASAP* and improve speed with Rufz/qrq.

73,
Fabian
Logged

LB3KB
Member

Posts: 227


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #24 on: June 09, 2008, 05:36:35 PM »

DJ1YFK,
>you only learn CW once

That is absolutely wrong - a lot of us learned it the hard way, only to discover Koch's method years later when we returned to the hobby and decided to give it a go in a way that makes sense.


>It's difficult to make any profound statements on
>methods of learning CW that you have not experienced yourself

I agree with what you're trying to say here, although it is obvious that some people find it very easy to make profound statements just like that.


>CW learning methods are overrated.

Most of them, yes.  The best of them, no.


>Since the OP already seems to know all characters in
>CW, I'd recommend to get on the air *ASAP* and
>improve speed with Rufz/qrq.

That is horrible advice.  The OP is at 5 WPM and will find nothing but frustrations on the air.  And while contest trainers are useful when you know Morse code at a useful speed, they are hardly useful for anybody who really needs to learn the code.


73
LB3KB Sigurd
http://justlearnmorsecode.com
Logged
AK7V
Member

Posts: 251




Ignore
« Reply #25 on: June 09, 2008, 06:20:04 PM »

I'd listen to what Fabian says - all indications are that he knows of what he speaks.


For what it's worth...

I spent part of my life as a professional orchestral musician.  Part of the "trick" to reaching a high level is learning how to solve your own problems.  In other words, you need to figure out how to teach yourself.  It may be something you do conciously or unconciously, but we all learn a little differently.  You can get ideas from others -- from software, internet discussions, etc. -- but when push comes to shove, you need to evaluate yourself and determine what's actually working.  Those who excel are in tune with their learning methods and practice every single day.  They have the drive to do the work necessary.

The other, more important "trick" is to spend much, much more time "doing" and less time talking/typing about it on the internet. Smiley

Another music pedagogy/practice analogy I can think of that's relevant is the saying: "It is hard to practice in a vaccuum."  It means that if you're just sitting alone in a practice room 6 hours a day every day without any opportunities to perform, you won't grow as quickly as someone who practices the same amount (or even less) but has performance opportunities.  Those opportunities renew your interest, show you your specific weaknesses, inspire you to improve, and reward your progress.  Getting on the air (or at least working CW with another person) is performing.  Sitting at software day after day is "practicing in a vaccuum."

And we all crash and burn sometimes.  Brush it off and get back on stage.
Logged
KB1OOO
Member

Posts: 214


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #26 on: June 10, 2008, 06:17:24 AM »

Sigurd,

I'm not spitting on Koch nor on the people who make it possible as a training method.  I'm only trying to caution against concluding that all other methods are primitive. You are the one who attacked me for stating a fact about random code groups that might help someone using Koch.  And you are the one who spits on anyone who recommends anything other than Koch.  I often recommend Koch software, and even your program because I think it's the best one for Windows.

Fabian,

I agree with you.  My only intent in challenging Koch is to encourage giving other methods (including non-training methods) a chance, since the voices of experienced ops (like WB2WIK and KE3WD) who have taught many people using methods other than Koch tend not to be heard.  I believe that articles like "so you want to learn morse code"  which make it seem that anything other than Koch is primitive, are partially responsible for dismissing these other methods.   My experience is with Koch, following some of WB2WIK's suggestions re head copy and getting on the air,  your suggestions and AK7V's re making many QSOs, and listening to ebooks and news paper articles via your ebook2cw.  I also listen carefully to the posts of others about their experiences with various learning methods. If I've misrepresented myself otherwise, I apologize.

AK7V,

It's great to see you around again.  I hope to catch you on CWIRC or working QRP.  I'd love to hear about your transition out of music and what you are up to now.

Marc
Logged
AK7V
Member

Posts: 251




Ignore
« Reply #27 on: June 10, 2008, 06:36:55 AM »

Thanks Marc, and it's good to see you here!  I'm pretty much settled in at the new job/QTH and enjoying it quite a bit.

I'll dig around and find the RS-232/Paddles interface I made and try to get back on CWIRC soon.  I don't think we'd have too much luck with an on-air QSO right now since I have a severely compromised antenna and only 10 watts out, maximum.  Hopefully that'll change in a year or less.  I'm fine into the west coast/Hawaii/Japan, but have trouble with the East coast hearing me.

73,
Jason
AK7V
Logged
KB1OOO
Member

Posts: 214


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #28 on: June 10, 2008, 12:27:50 PM »

> So, if you set your Koch trainer to 20wpm, you're really learning morse
> code at 16wpm, if that.
>
>> This is, at best, a bullshit statement. Maybe you base your misguided
>> conclusions on a lack of ability to understand even the simplest
>> sentences ?

Here's another way to look at it that doesn't require any calcuations.  Let "just learn morse code" do it for you.  I just set "just learn morse code" to 20/20 wpm, min/max num of chars to 5, and character set to the 26 letters.  Then I let  just learn morse code rip for 10min and counted the number of words it generated.  Guess what I got?  161.  Divide that by 10 and that gives you an average of 16wpm.
My "at best" comment was in reference to the fact that if you were to add numbers and punctuation, the effective word speed would only get worse.

Marc
Logged
KB1OOO
Member

Posts: 214


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #29 on: June 10, 2008, 12:33:44 PM »

Good to hear Jason.  I'm on CWIRC most days.  Hpe to cu there.

73,
Marc
Logged
Pages: Prev 1 [2] 3 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!