WPM to BPS calculation
Klystron
Bits per second, in turn, is APPROXIMATELY equal to baud, a common
measure of modem (or other means of data transmission) speed. I need to
quantify one factor: How many letters are in a "word?" If we assume that
there are 5 (five) letters to a word, my calculations look like this:
WPM = 50
LPM = WPM * 5 # letters per minute
BPM = LPM * 8 # bits per minute
BPS = BPM / 60 # bits per second
BPS = 33.33
I have assumed 8 bits to the byte, which is quite generous
considering that Morse cannot encode an 8 bit character set or, for that
matter, the full ASCII character set, which is only 7 bit.
Can anyone see any obvious errors? Is 50 words per minute really
equal to about 33 baud?
--
Klystron
N2...@aol.com
If the text is typical plain-language English, the test word "PARIS"
is used. WPM is the number of times PARIS can be sent in 1 minute,
using proper spacing between dits and dahs, letters, and words.
It turns out that the word PARIS and one word space equals exactly 50
"dit times", with a dit time being the length of time the key is
closed for a dit. (A dah is three dit times, the spaces between dits
and dahs inside a character are one dit time, the spaces between
letters are three dit times and the spaces between words are seven dit
times.)
So if the word PARIS is sent 50 times in 1 minute, that minute is
divided into 2500 dit times. Which is 41.66 bps.
The reason for the difference is that there are so many different
timing issues in Morse Code. The elements, characters and spaces are
all different lengths, with the most-common characters (like the
letter E) being the shortest.
73 de Jim, N2EY
Bill Horne
Jim,
I'm sure your explanation is correct, but it leaves me confused: I know
bps <> baud, but they're close, and the Model 15 Teletype I used to own
operated at 45 baud. It seems illogical that Morse would be so high in
the bps count.
73, Bill
--
Bill Horne, W1AC
(Remove QRM from my address for direct replies.)
N2...@aol.com
> > It turns out that the word PARIS and one word space equals exactly 50
> > "dit times", with a dit time being the length of time the key is
> > closed for a dit.
> > So if the word PARIS is sent 50 times in 1 minute, that minute is
> > divided into 2500 dit times. Which is 41.66 bps.
> I'm sure your explanation is correct, but it leaves me confused: I know
> bps <> baud, but they're close, and the Model 15 Teletype I used to own
> operated at 45 baud. It seems illogical that Morse would be so high in
> the bps count.
The difference has to do with how the coding is done. The following is
all from memory:
60 wpm Morse works out to 3000 bits per minute or 50 bits per second
using the "PARIS" formula.
Your 45 baud Model 15 Teletype was in all probability what hams called
a "60 wpm 5-level Baudot" machine. We had similar machines at the
University. (In this post I use the term "Baudot" to mean the 5-level
TTY code US hams used for many years until FCC allowed us other codes
like ASCII in the early 1980s)
"Baudot" takes 7 bits to send a character: one start bit, five data
bits, one stop bit. A space between words is a character, so to send
the word "PARIS" would take six characters including the space
character. That's only 42 bits, rather than the 50 bits that Morse
requires. Thus the difference - the Baudot machine uses 16% less bits
to send the same message. The speed difference works out to about 10%
because the Baudot stop bit was longer than the others in the machines
US hams typically used.
So you don't get the full 16% advantage that you'd expect from the raw
numbers. But since only six of the 42 bits are stop bits, the
difference is small.
To make it even more of a sporting course, the above WPM advantage of
the Baudot machine is message-dependent, same as for Morse. In Morse,
the message-dependency comes from the different characters being of
different length; a five-letter word like "TENET" takes a lot less
time to send than one like "JUICY", while in Baudot they both take the
same time to send.
But in the Baudot code the numbers and some other characters are sent
by shifting from "LTRS" to "FIGS", (letters to figures), so sending
mixed groups could take a lot of extra characters that Morse does not
require.
For example, in Morse you could just send the group "6A8G7" as 5
characters, but to send it on a Baudot machine you had to send
"<figs>6<ltrs>A<figs>8<ltrs>G<figs>7", which is 10 characters.
So the WPM are really approximations, and the BPS/baud measures took
over.
73 de Jim, N2EY
Jim Haynes
Bill Horne <bi...@horneQRM.net> wrote:
>I'm sure your explanation is correct, but it leaves me confused: I know
>bps <> baud, but they're close, and the Model 15 Teletype I used to own
>operated at 45 baud. It seems illogical that Morse would be so high in
>the bps count.
>
Your Model 15 Teletype at the nominal 60 wpm speed, which is actually
368 chars/minute and 45.45 baud works out like this. The character
length is 7.42 bits long (for ancient, interesting reasons I won't go
into right now) and the bit duration is 22 milliseconds. The character
duration is therefore 7.42 * 22 = 163.24 milliseconds, and that works out
to 6.12595 characters/sec = 367.55 characters/minute. To convert that
to words you have to figure 6 characters per word because the space
between words is also a character. So the speed is actually 61.26
words/minute.
Teletype speed is sometimes confusing because there are a couple of
other speeds out there. Western Union liked to use a 7.00 unit
character rather than 7.42. With 45.45 baud, or 22 ms pulses, this
gives 154 milliseconds/character, or 6.49 characters/second, 389.6
character/min and hence 65.9 words/minute. This is completely
compatible with 7.42 unit code because the baud rate is 45.45 for
both. But then there is European 50 baud Telex using a 7.5 unit
code. This is a 20 millisecond bit for a character length of 150
milliseconds, 6.67 characters/second, 402 chars/minute, 67 words
per minute. This is not compatible with the other two codes because
the baud rate is different; but if you say something like "66 wpm"
you could be talking about either scheme.
Now when you get to ASCII, the old Teletype machines transmitted 8
data bits per character and used an 11.0 unit code. This makes 100
wpm work out to 110 baud. Electronic terminals don't need 11 unit
code; they can do just fine with 10. Thus the words-per-minute is
numerically equal to the baud rate. 100 baud -> 10 ms/bit ->
100 ms/char -> 10 chars/sec -> 600 chars/min -> 100 wpm.
Morse has already been explained. A Morse dot is actually two bits,
since there is the dot followed by the space that makes it distinguishable
from what comes next. A Morse dash is four bits, counting the space,
and the word space is three dot times or 6 bit times. Then the
word PARIS contains 50 bit times counting the space. So one word
per second is 50 bits per second and 60 wpm. As an aside, the
military sends a lot of encrypted 5-letter code groups, so instead
of PARIS the Signal Corps uses CODEZ as a test word more statistically
correct for their kind of traffic. And CODEZ contains 60 bits.
Klystron
>
> [...]
> divided into 2500 dit times. Which is 41.66 bps.
It still seems like an awfully slow data rate. I have seen people
throw 14400 baud modems in the garbage because they considered them to
be so slow as to be worthless. A data rate of 42 bps is about 3 orders
of magnitude slower than that. It just seems inconsistent with the way
that so many hams have fought tooth and nail to hold onto Morse and to
hinder the move toward digital modes.
--
Klystron
Phil Kane
> It just seems inconsistent with the way
>that so many hams have fought tooth and nail to hold onto Morse and to
>hinder the move toward digital modes.
The joy of Morse is not the speed at which data is transferred but the
means of transferring. A good Morseist (mot me....) doesn't need a
computer or software to decode it.
And I know several Morseists who not only use "high speed data modes'
in addition to using Morse, but hold advanced degrees in development
of those modes.
Morse is for fun.
--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane
>From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon
e-mail: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net
N2...@aol.com
> �N...@aol.com wrote:
> > So if the word PARIS is sent 50 times in 1 minute, that minute is
> > divided into 2500 dit times. Which is 41.66 bps.
> � �It still seems like an awfully slow data rate.
Compared to what? And for what application, in what bandwidth?
If you have a pile of data to send, or a picture, etc., 41.66 bps is
quite slow.
But for a real-time conversation, 41.66 bps isn't all that slow. The
average person doesn't talk or type at a sustained speed much faster
than 100 wpm. 50 wpm isn't that much slower.
> I have seen people
> throw 14400 baud modems in the garbage because they
> considered them to
> be so slow as to be worthless.
11 years ago, when I first went online, it was with a 56k modem. I
gave up on dialup modems several years ago and went broadband. I don't
think anybody who has a choice is still using dialup.
But that's because the options exist, with no significant downsides. A
14400 modem uses the same phone line as a 56K modem. DSL can be run on
the same phone line and not tie it up for telephone calls.
Operating on the limited bandwidth amd high variability of the HF
amateur bands is a completely different thing.
> A data rate of 42 bps is about 3 orders
> of magnitude slower than that. It just seems inconsistent
> with the way
> that so many hams have fought tooth and nail to hold
> onto Morse and to
> hinder the move toward digital modes.
A lot of hams like Morse Code and use it on the air. It has a lot
of advantages. Why should they give it up?
And how has "the move toward digital modes" been hindered by hams?
73 de Jim, N2EY
Paul W. Schleck
Hash: SHA1
In <xxx-A3D450.1...@news.verizon.net> Klystron <x...@yyy.zzz> writes:
> N2...@aol.com wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>> So if the word PARIS is sent 50 times in 1 minute, that minute is
>> divided into 2500 dit times. Which is 41.66 bps.
>> [...]
> It still seems like an awfully slow data rate. I have seen people
>throw 14400 Baud modems in the garbage because they considered them to
>be so slow as to be worthless. A data rate of 42 bps is about 3 orders
>of magnitude slower than that.
Many types of communications vary over many orders of magnitude of
information rate, yet are considered useful and up-to-date.
For example, the Casio WaveCeptor on my wrist:
http://www.eham.net/reviews/detail/2497
receives a ~ 1 Baud Pulse Position Modulated (PPM) signal from radio
station WWVB in Fort Collins, Colorado, which transmits on 60 kHz. It
takes about a minute to send the complete time code to synchronize my
watch. Slow? Yes. Useful? Yes, very much so, especially when
considering the coverage and reliability that can be obtained from such
a low-bandwidth, groundwave-propagated, Very Low Frequency (VLF) signal.
The watch only needs to receive the time code at most once per day,
which it does so automatically in the early hours of the morning sitting
on my desk or dresser. A faster data rate would require something other
than a VLF signal, and would not improve much on the quality or
usability of the communications. It would definitely increase the
price. Witness the much greater success in the marketplace of
WWVB-based watches versus more advanced, higher bandwidth, but much more
expensive, "Smart Personal Object Technology" (SPOT) watches:
One of the most current and widely used communications technologies
among young people is cellular telephone text messaging:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Text_messaging
(sometimes also called "Short Messaging System" or SMS)
According to this recent demonstration on the Tonight Show with Jay
Leno:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhsSgcsTMd4
the realizable data rates are comparable in order of magnitude to that
of fast Morse code that can be sent and received by human operators.
Just try telling a teenager with an SMS-capable cellular telephone that
it should be thrown in the trash because it isn't fast enough, or isn't
of sufficiently novel technology, and see his or her reaction.
To give you an amateur radio example, the Automated Position Reporting
System (APRS):
uses 1200 Baud AFSK packet. Faster, but still an order of magnitude
slower than technologies you imply should be thrown out. Since APRS
reports important, but compact, telemetry at periodic intervals, the
technology meets the requirements of many users utilizing VHF radios and
Terminal Node Controllers (TNC's). Again, substituting much higher data
rates would really not improve the technology or better meet the
requirements of the users which it serves.
To even give you a Morse code example, consider the simplicity and
effectiveness of the NCDXF beacons running on the HF bands:
http://www.ncdxf.org/beacons.html
A relatively low data rate On-Off Keyed (OOK) Morse Code signal is able
to quickly convey to the listener the quality of the communications
link, and required link budget, to various points around the globe. All
that is needed to be transmitted is a station identification, and the
same symbol (in this case the letter "V") sent at 10 dB power steps from
100 Watts to 0.1 Watt. Complex modulation/demodulation equipment to
achieve "orders of magnitude" faster data rates would not only not fit
on the HF bands, they would not seem to offer much improvement in the
quality of the service.
I suppose one could implement a beacon network using something like
PSK31:
which might even be able to demonstrate realizable communications link
budgets below 0.1 Watt. But even that advanced digital mode would only
have data rates comparable to Morse code. Though the NCDXF beacon
network is a Morse code service, note that Morse code knowledge is
really not necessary to utilize it effectively. A synchronized time
base and a chart of which station transmits at which time would enable
very fast determination of the link budget to the beacon locations. If
you can't remember what a "V" sounds like in Morse Code (". . . _" like
the intro to Beethoven's Fifth Symphony), I suppose you could put that
on the chart as well. After all, the use of similar charts are how
pilots usually decode the Morse code identifications of aeronautical
beacons.
There are even a number of excellent software packages linked from the
NCDXF site above that could automatically monitor the signals, decode
the Morse, and record the quality of the communications paths over time.
One such package is Faros:
one of many advanced signal processing software packages for amateur
radio that exploits the ubiquitousness of of inexpensive personal
computers with sound cards in most home ham "shacks."
Focusing simply on information rate disregards other aspects of the
communications and the channel over which it is transmitted. These
important aspects include the bandwidth and propagation characteristics
of the available channel, the complexity of the required transmitting
and receiving equipment, the amount of data that needs to be
transmitted, and how quickly and often it needs to be conveyed.
Single-attribute measuring contests may be fun, even ego-boosting to
some, but are really not very useful or impressive to those who actually
design and use practical communications systems.
>It just seems inconsistent with the way
>that so many hams have fought tooth and nail to hold onto Morse and to
>hinder the move toward digital modes.
I'm not sure that I understand your line of reasoning here. You are
implying cause-and-effect. In other words, use and advocacy of Morse
code somehow directly contributed to the obstruction of other
technologies. Can you give direct evidence of specific examples? If
you are implying that licensing requirements obstructed the development
of advanced digital modes, that really doesn't appear to be the case.
Witness the success of Tucson Amateur Packet Radio (TAPR):
and the Radio Amateur Satellite Corporation:
which have developed or championed many promising digital technologies,
developed by amateurs with widely varying degrees of Morse code
operating skills.
Furthermore, if the only technologies that you believe should be saved
from being thrown away are those at 14.4 kBaud and up, those
technologies are only practically realizable on amateur radio bands at
high VHF and up. Such bands have been open to licensees without need of
a Morse code test for going on 17 years now. Even before then, these
bands were accessible to Technician-class amateurs since at least
shortly after World War II, with a license that only required a minimal,
5 WPM (essentially individual character-recognition) Morse code test.
If you are saying that someone *else* should have developed these
technologies (other than you, of course), and that since they haven't,
then someone *must* be to blame, well, you can't really dictate how the
world should turn out without taking an active role to help make it that
way.
>--
>Klystron
- --
73, Paul W. Schleck, K3FU
psch...@novia.net
http://www.novia.net/~pschleck/
Finger psch...@novia.net for PGP Public Key
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (SunOS)
iD8DBQFH5epg6Pj0az779o4RAvfbAJ4kewTvCX5mqHimGwfXkKtQCusKFwCgxKPZ
ovhE2D69Thi8oiiqsv5I9X8=
=4RMi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Steve Bonine
> Morse is for fun.
Indeed, this says it all.
73, Steve KB9X
Klystron
> > It still seems like an awfully slow data rate. I have seen people
> >throw 14400 Baud modems in the garbage because they considered them to
> >be so slow as to be worthless. A data rate of 42 bps is about 3 orders
> >of magnitude slower than that.
> Many types of communications vary over many orders of magnitude of
> information rate, yet are considered useful and up-to-date.
>
> For example, the Casio WaveCeptor on my wrist:
>
> http://www.eham.net/reviews/detail/2497
>
> receives a ~ 1 Baud Pulse Position Modulated (PPM) signal from radio
> station WWVB in Fort Collins, Colorado, which transmits on 60 kHz. It
> takes about a minute to send the complete time code to synchronize my
> watch. Slow? Yes. Useful? Yes, very much so, especially when
> considering the coverage and reliability that can be obtained from such
> a low-bandwidth, groundwave-propagated, Very Low Frequency (VLF) signal.
> [...]
In your model, only a single axis of data is transmitted - the time
of day. That seems like a great deal of infrastructure and energy
consumption to transmit a single data quantity. The equivalent
infrastructure for weather transmission (marine and air) is even more
elaborate and expensive. Can you see that is an outrageously inefficient
way to distribute a small quantity of information?
> One of the most current and widely used communications technologies
> among young people is cellular telephone text messaging:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Text_messaging
>
> (sometimes also called "Short Messaging System" or SMS)
>
> According to this recent demonstration on the Tonight Show with Jay
> Leno:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhsSgcsTMd4
>
> the realizable data rates are comparable in order of magnitude to that
> of fast Morse code that can be sent and received by human operators.
> Just try telling a teenager with an SMS-capable cellular telephone that
> it should be thrown in the trash because it isn't fast enough, or isn't
> of sufficiently novel technology, and see his or her reaction.
My understanding is that they use SMS for fairly trivial
communications, like what they will have for lunch or where they will
meet at the mall. A rough equivalence might be SMS users objecting to
the use of the SMS system by people who are sitting at full-size
computers or by people who have connected keyboards to their phone. If
they were to complain that "typing" pidgin English (like "HOW R U?")
with your thumbs on a tiny telephone keypad was the one true way to use
SMS, then I think I could agree that there was an equivalence.
You might ask those kids why they also use conventional e-mail,
despite having SMS availability.
> To give you an amateur radio example, the Automated Position Reporting
> System (APRS):
>
> http://www.aprs.org
>
> uses 1200 Baud AFSK packet. Faster, but still an order of magnitude
> slower than technologies you imply should be thrown out.
> [...]
Again, it is for the exchange of a single axis of data - geographic
location. Please stop tying to pass off these single purpose, dedicated
systems as examples of general purpose communications.
> To even give you a Morse code example, consider the simplicity and
> effectiveness of the NCDXF beacons running on the HF bands:
>
> http://www.ncdxf.org/beacons.html
My understanding is that Morse-based beacon identifications are read
by computerized devices and are not "copied" by the pilots. I doubt that
you could find very many current pilots who could copy any Morse at all.
> [...]
> There are even a number of excellent software packages linked from the
> NCDXF site above that could automatically monitor the signals, decode
> the Morse, and record the quality of the communications paths over time.
> One such package is Faros:
>
> http://www.dxatlas.com/Faros/
>
> one of many advanced signal processing software packages for amateur
> radio that exploits the ubiquitousness of of inexpensive personal
> computers with sound cards in most home ham "shacks."
There is nothing about that that is unique to Morse. Any type of RF
link would be usable in that way.
> Focusing simply on information rate disregards other aspects of the
> communications and the channel over which it is transmitted. These
> important aspects include the bandwidth and propagation characteristics
> of the available channel, the complexity of the required transmitting
> and receiving equipment, the amount of data that needs to be
> transmitted, and how quickly and often it needs to be conveyed.
>
> Single-attribute measuring contests may be fun, even ego-boosting to
> some, but are really not very useful or impressive to those who actually
> design and use practical communications systems.
>
> >It just seems inconsistent with the way
> >that so many hams have fought tooth and nail to hold onto Morse and to
> >hinder the move toward digital modes.
>
> I'm not sure that I understand your line of reasoning here. You are
> implying cause-and-effect. In other words, use and advocacy of Morse
> code somehow directly contributed to the obstruction of other
> technologies. Can you give direct evidence of specific examples?
Hams used to deride digital communications as "pulse" and tell tales
about the way that it squandered bandwidth. They made it out to be
something along the lines of spark-gap. Look for articles about "pulse"
communications in old (1960's and 70's) issues of QST and Popular
Electronics. Considering the lead time needed to develop a new mode, I
think it is unreasonable not to go back at least that far. I believe
that the anti-digital curmudgeons delayed the implementation of digital
modes by a matter of decades. It is interesting to note that the most
widely used digital modes (for 2-way radio, not for broadcast) were
developed either in Japan (Icom/JARL DV) or under the auspices of a
police organization that has no ties to radio, except as consumers (APCO
25).
> [...]
> Furthermore, if the only technologies that you believe should be saved
> from being thrown away are those at 14.4 kBaud and up,
Can you point to something in my post that makes such a claim? The
only technology that I have derided as being too slow as to have value
is Morse code that is sent by hand (less than 100 baud). The Navy shut
down its VLF network on the grounds that the data rate was inadequate.
Perhaps it is time for the amateur community to take a similar step.
> those
> technologies are only practically realizable on amateur radio bands at
> high VHF and up. Such bands have been open to licensees without need of
> a Morse code test for going on 17 years now. Even before then, these
> bands were accessible to Technician-class amateurs since at least
> shortly after World War II, with a license that only required a minimal,
> 5 WPM (essentially individual character-recognition) Morse code test.
>
> If you are saying that someone *else* should have developed these
> technologies (other than you, of course), and that since they haven't,
> then someone *must* be to blame, well, you can't really dictate how the
> world should turn out without taking an active role to help make it that
> way.
That last paragraph is incoherent. Could you rephrase it?
--
Klystron
N2...@aol.com
> �Paul W. Schleck <pschl...@oasis.novia.net>" wrote:
> > For example, the Casio WaveCeptor on my wrist:
> >http://www.eham.net/reviews/detail/2497
> > receives a ~ 1 Baud Pulse Position Modulated (PPM)
> > signal from radio
> > station WWVB in Fort Collins, Colorado, which transmits
> > on 60 kHz. �It
> > takes about a minute to send the complete time code
> > to synchronize my
> > watch. �Slow? �Yes. �Useful? �Yes, very
much so,
> > especially when
> > considering the coverage and reliability that can be
> > obtained from such
> > a low-bandwidth, groundwave-propagated, Very Low
> > Frequency (VLF) signal.
> In your model, only a single axis of data is transmitted - the time
> of day. That seems like a great deal of infrastructure and energy
> consumption to transmit a single data quantity.
Actually, it's a very small infrastructure, and very efficient. I've
been there, btw.
The time standard info is already present at the WWVB transmitter
site, so that's no cost. All that's necessary is a system to encode
it, and the WWVB transmitter and antenna. While an impressive
installation by amateur radio standards, the WWVB transmitter is
not overly large for the wavelength.
But WWVB's 60 kHz signal serves large numbers of clocks of many types
all over North America - by radio. It keeps them all synchronized via
radio, without any user intervention.
What alternative technology would do the same job with less
infrastructure and energy consumption?
> The equivalent
> infrastructure for weather transmission (marine and air) is
> even more elaborate and expensive.
Of course. But it's also very important from a safety standpoint.
> Can you see that is an outrageously inefficient
> way to distribute a small quantity of information?
What alternative technology would do the same job with greater
efficiency?
> > One of the most current and widely used
> > communications technologies
> > among young people
Not just "young people". A lot us find text messaging very useful.
>is cellular telephone text messaging:
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Text_messaging
> > (sometimes also called "Short Messaging System" or SMS)
> > According to this recent demonstration on the
> > Tonight Show with Jay Leno:
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?vAhsSgcsTMd4
> > the realizable data rates are comparable in order of magnitude > > to th
at
> > of fast Morse code that can be sent and received by human
> > operators.
The facts are even more telling.
In that Leno clip, the text messager is the Guinness-book
world-record-holder. The Morse Code ops are a couple of
hams who were going less than 30 wpm - which is less than
40% of the world-record Morse Code speed.
The text messager was allowed to use common text-message
abbreviations, while the Morse Code ops just sent the straight
text with no abbreviations at all.
The Morse Code ops also produced a hard-copy in real time.
IMHO, what was most telling was that the audience was sure
the text messager would win. But a much older technology
proved to be faster.
> > Just try telling a teenager with an SMS-capable cellular
> > telephone that
> > it should be thrown in the trash because it isn't fast
> > enough, or isn't
> > of sufficiently novel technology, and see his or her reaction.
The answer will be that it's fast enough for what it's used for.
Isn't that the ultimate test of any technology - that it's good
enough for what it's used for?
> My understanding is that they use SMS for fairly trivial
> communications, like what they will have for lunch or
> where they will meet at the mall.
I can say for a fact that's not true. While a lot of text - and cell
phone - communications is trivial, much is not. For example,
something as simple as a meeting place or time can be
critical information.
> A rough equivalence might be SMS users objecting to
> the use of the SMS system by people who are sitting at full-size
> computers or by people who have connected keyboards to their
> phone.
Actually the system can be used that way, in that a message generated
by a cell can be delivered as an email, and the
reverse.
The point is that speed isn't the only criterion.
> > To give you an amateur radio example, the Automated Position > > Reporti
ng
> > System (APRS):
>
> >http://www.aprs.org
>
> > uses 1200 Baud AFSK packet. �Faster, but still an order of magni
tude
> > slower than technologies you imply should be thrown out.
> � �Again, it is for the exchange of a single axis of data
-
> geographic
> location. Please stop tying to pass off these single purpose,
> dedicated
> systems as examples of general purpose communications.
No one is trying to do that. The point being made is that speed
is not the only criterion.
What is meant by "general purpose communications"? My computer
allows internet access, email and some other things, but I still have
POTS and a cell phone. TV and radio come to my house over the air.
> > I'm not sure that I understand your line of reasoning here.
> > �You are
> > implying cause-and-effect. �In other words, use and
> > advocacy of Morse
> > code somehow directly contributed to the obstruction of other
> > technologies. �Can you give direct evidence of specific
> > examples?
>
> Hams used to deride digital communications as "pulse"
> and tell tales
> about the way that it squandered bandwidth.
I don't know any hams who used the term "pulse" to refer to
digital communications. Nor have I heard tales about squandered
bandwidth.
However, note that not all digital signals are designed with
bandwidth efficiency as the primary consideration. For
example, classic 850 Hz shift 45.45 baud RTTY uses almost
a kHz of band to transmit about the same info (actually
less) as PSK31 which uses maybe 50 Hz.
> They made it out to be
> something along the lines of spark-gap.
If you mean spark, I have not seen that comparison anywhere.
Could you provide a specific reference?
> Look for articles about "pulse"
> communications in old (1960's and 70's) issues of QST and
> Popular Electronics.
I have all the QSTs back to the mid-1920s, and have read all
of them. I do not recall any comparison of digital modes to
"pulse" in any of them. Could you provide a specific reference?
I do recall some QST articles back in the 1950s *advocating* pulse
modes for use at microwave frequencies. The idea was that
rather than trying to adapt lower frequency narrow band techniques to
the microwave bands, broadband/radar techniques would be used for
communications.
> Considering the lead time needed to develop a new mode, I
> think it is unreasonable not to go back at least that far.
PSK31 was developed in a few years by G3PLX and a small group of hams
around the world. Lots of other examples.
> I believe
> that the anti-digital curmudgeons delayed the implementation of
> digital
> modes by a matter of decades.
How was this done?
The main impediments to the implementation of digital modes by
amateurs (at least in the USA) were two:
1) Restrictive regulations, brought about mostly by the FCC's need
to be able to monitor amateur transmissions. However, note that
digital transmissions other than digital voice are not allowed in the
US HF 'phone subbands - which comprise the majority of the
bandwidth on those bands. Those rules force the digital
data modes to share only with Morse Code users.
2) The high cost of hardware. Only a decade ago, a PC
was a significant investment compared to a ham rig.
> It is interesting to note that the most
> widely used digital modes (for 2-way radio, not for broadcast)
> were
> developed either in Japan (Icom/JARL DV) or under the auspices
> of a
> police organization that has no ties to radio, except as consumers > (APCO
25).
They were developed for specific applications, though. Not for general
purpose use.
> > Furthermore, if the only technologies that you believe
> > should be saved
> > from being thrown away are those at 14.4 kBaud and up,
>
> Can you point to something in my post that makes such a claim?
The statement about throwing 14400 modems in the garbage.
> The
> only technology that I have derided as being too slow as to have
> value
> is Morse code that is sent by hand (less than 100 baud).
PSK31 and most HF RTTY are also less than 100 baud. Are they
too slow to have value?
> The Navy shut
> down its VLF network on the grounds that the data rate
> was inadequate.
But amateur radio isn't the US Navy. IIRC, the purpose of that
network was/is to communicate one-way to submerged missile
submarines.
> Perhaps it is time for the amateur community to take a similar
> step.
What form would that step take? Should amateurs simply not
*use* Morse Code any more?
The *test* for the mode was an issue of great contention among
radio amateurs. But until July 2003 the ITU-R treaty prevented
complete elimination of the *test*.
However, as far back as 1990 it was possible to get any US
amateur radio license with just a basic 5 wpm Morse Code
test and a doctor's note. Since April 2000, no doctor's note
has been needed, and since Feb 2007 no Morse Code test
at all.
How any of this has impeded the development or implementation
of digital modes is unclear to me.
> > those
> > technologies are only practically realizable on amateur radio
> > bands at
> > high VHF and up. �Such bands have been open to licensees
> > without need of
> > a Morse code test for going on 17 years now. �Even before
> > then, these
> > bands were accessible to Technician-class amateurs since
> > at least
> > shortly after World War II, with a license that only required
> > a minimal,
> > 5 WPM (essentially individual character-recognition)
> > Morse code test.
The Technician class license was created in 1951. Its Morse Code
test was always 5 wpm, until it was dropped completely in 1991.
IOW, as has been pointed out, practically all of the US amateur bands
above 30 MHz have been available for the development and
implementation of digital modes by amateurs, with no need for any
Morse Code test. Lots of bandwidth, too - all those bands except
222-225 are wider than all the HF/MF amateur bands combined.
73 de Jim, N2EY
Paul W. Schleck
Hash: SHA1
In <xxx-4C7088.1...@news.verizon.net> Klystron <x...@yyy.zzz> writes:
> Paul W. Schleck <psch...@oasis.novia.net>" wrote:
>> Klystron <x...@yyy.zzz> writes:
>
>> > It still seems like an awfully slow data rate. I have seen people
>> >throw 14400 Baud modems in the garbage because they considered them to
>> >be so slow as to be worthless. A data rate of 42 bps is about 3 orders
>> >of magnitude slower than that.
>
>> Many types of communications vary over many orders of magnitude of
>> information rate, yet are considered useful and up-to-date.
>>
>> For example, the Casio WaveCeptor on my wrist:
>>
>> http://www.eham.net/reviews/detail/2497
>>
>> receives a ~ 1 Baud Pulse Position Modulated (PPM) signal from radio
>> station WWVB in Fort Collins, Colorado, which transmits on 60 kHz. It
>> takes about a minute to send the complete time code to synchronize my
>> watch. Slow? Yes. Useful? Yes, very much so, especially when
>> considering the coverage and reliability that can be obtained from such
>> a low-bandwidth, groundwave-propagated, Very Low Frequency (VLF) signal.
>> [...]
> In your model, only a single axis of data is transmitted - the time
>of day. That seems like a great deal of infrastructure and energy
>consumption to transmit a single data quantity. The equivalent
>infrastructure for weather transmission (marine and air) is even more
>elaborate and expensive. Can you see that is an outrageously inefficient
>way to distribute a small quantity of information?
Transmitting 50 kilowatts from a single site capable of covering most of
North America, using groundwave propagation, independent of solar
activity, is an "outrageously inefficient way to distribute a small
quantity of information?" Well, I do hope that you are hurrying to
write your Congressman to demand that the National Institute of
Standards and Technology put an immediate end to this grave outrage, and
profound waste of taxpayer's money that has been going on for decades.
After all, what does the NIST know about technology, or useful
communications? Perhaps as little as the engineers and marketers in the
economically successful and useful product field of WWVB watches and
clocks, in your estimation.
>
>> One of the most current and widely used communications technologies
>> among young people is cellular telephone text messaging:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Text_messaging
>>
>> (sometimes also called "Short Messaging System" or SMS)
>>
>> According to this recent demonstration on the Tonight Show with Jay
>> Leno:
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhsSgcsTMd4
>>
>> the realizable data rates are comparable in order of magnitude to that
>> of fast Morse code that can be sent and received by human operators.
>> Just try telling a teenager with an SMS-capable cellular telephone that
>> it should be thrown in the trash because it isn't fast enough, or isn't
>> of sufficiently novel technology, and see his or her reaction.
> My understanding is that they use SMS for fairly trivial
>communications, like what they will have for lunch or where they will
>meet at the mall. A rough equivalence might be SMS users objecting to
>the use of the SMS system by people who are sitting at full-size
>computers or by people who have connected keyboards to their phone. If
>they were to complain that "typing" pidgin English (like "HOW R U?")
>with your thumbs on a tiny telephone keypad was the one true way to use
>SMS, then I think I could agree that there was an equivalence.
> You might ask those kids why they also use conventional e-mail,
>despite having SMS availability.
I think you are underestimating the power of SMS. As for the comparison
to E-mail, I don't have to ask, as journalists have already done so,
including this recent article from Slate:
http://www.slate.com/id/2177969/pagenum/all/
Simply put, young people find appeal in the immediacy of small, but
low-latency messages sent in relatively large numbers over a long period
of time, and the information transmitted is far more rich and meaningful
that what you imply above. In many respects, this type of communication
is not stilted or limited, but almost provides the immediacy of a
conversation, without having to run up your voice minute charges or
leave your other callers unable to reach you due to the long-term busy
signal.
Young people do still use E-mail, but in circumstances for which it is
the better choice. They are not seeking some overall best "general
purpose communications" to get their messages across to each other.
>
>> To give you an amateur radio example, the Automated Position Reporting
>> System (APRS):
>>
>> http://www.aprs.org
>>
>> uses 1200 Baud AFSK packet. Faster, but still an order of magnitude
>> slower than technologies you imply should be thrown out.
>> [...]
> Again, it is for the exchange of a single axis of data - geographic
>location. Please stop tying to pass off these single purpose, dedicated
>systems as examples of general purpose communications.
I didn't realize that only "general purpose communications" were
considered worthwhile. Your previous reply argued that it was
undesirable to use such a low-speed technology as Morse code given that
there were many higher-speed alternatives (faster by "orders of
magnitude" you said). I replied to you that fastest is not always best.
Other issues (previously enumerated by me) might actually dictate the
choice of lower-speed communications as the best choice.
I also don't see "general purpose communications" mentioned in Part 97.
Many "single purpose, dedicated systems" are used by amateurs, and
help fulfill amateur radio's Basis and Purpose. In many cases, a
"single purpose" technology is far more useful than a misfit,
one-size-fits-all, "general purpose" one.
Before we make too many assumptions about an undefined term, perhaps you
can describe what types of "general purpose communications" you would
consider to be worthy goals for the Amateur Radio Service, and which
"single purpose" technologies you would like to see eliminated?
Would you also kindly define what is a "single axis of data," in terms
familiar to those involved in communications engineering and technology?
What, then, would be "multiple axes of data?"
>> To even give you a Morse code example, consider the simplicity and
>> effectiveness of the NCDXF beacons running on the HF bands:
>>
>> http://www.ncdxf.org/beacons.html
> My understanding is that Morse-based beacon identifications are read
>by computerized devices and are not "copied" by the pilots. I doubt that
>you could find very many current pilots who could copy any Morse at all.
So, in other words, you are actually agreeing with my previous reply to
you that there are many useful Morse code based communications
technologies that do not actually require memorized, in-head, copy of
Morse code. I'm glad that we agree on something.
>> [...]
>> There are even a number of excellent software packages linked from the
>> NCDXF site above that could automatically monitor the signals, decode
>> the Morse, and record the quality of the communications paths over time.
>> One such package is Faros:
>>
>> http://www.dxatlas.com/Faros/
>>
>> one of many advanced signal processing software packages for amateur
>> radio that exploits the ubiquitousness of of inexpensive personal
>> computers with sound cards in most home ham "shacks."
> There is nothing about that that is unique to Morse. Any type of RF
>link would be usable in that way.
Yes. That is somehow a point of disagreement between us? In what way?
I did acknowledge that you could re-engineer the NCDXF beacon system
with one that uses, say, PSK31, but the bandwidth and data rate limits
would still remain. A PC with a soundcard would still be usable for
that system, as you note. I'm sure that the author of Faros could also
quickly adapt, and make a PSK31 version of his NCDXF beacon recording
software package.
Wow, these curmudgeons must have been very powerful and effective in
their obstructionism if they undermined entire areas of communications
technology development in this country over the last 30-40 years. I
didn't realize that our national technology infrastructure was so
inflexible and lethargic that it could not recover from these
influences, even after so many decades.
>> [...]
>> Furthermore, if the only technologies that you believe should be saved
>> from being thrown away are those at 14.4 kBaud and up,
> Can you point to something in my post that makes such a claim?
Just the introduction to your previous article, where you directly
compare the Baud rate of Morse code with that of "obsolete" telephone
modems. You stated that their data rates differed by "orders of
magnitude," implying that communications technologies that were "orders
of magnitude" slower than telephone modems could be dismissed as
obsolete. Following the natural extension of that argument, then the
only technologies that could be favorably compared to such telephone
modems, and meet your argued standard of non-obsolete, could only be
realized on high VHF and up. As I argued previously, use and advocacy
of Morse code has no bearing on the current deployment of such
technologies, as no Morse code test has been required to access them for
at least 17 years. The Technician-class license has existed for far
longer, and has only a minimal Morse code examination.
>The
>only technology that I have derided as being too slow as to have value
>is Morse code that is sent by hand (less than 100 baud).
So, to summarize:
slow-speed (less than 100 baud) PSK31 : "Good"
similar order-of-magnitude speed Morse code: "Bad"
So, it's not the speed you object to, it's the use of Morse code?
Couldn't you have just stated that, and not gone to the trouble of
bringing in other arguments like speed and bandwidth, or whether a
communications technology is sufficiently "general purpose" or not,
regardless of whether something "general purpose" would be the best
choice in a given circumstance? Just say that you don't like Morse
code. Others would at least give you credit for honesty.
>The Navy shut
>down its VLF network on the grounds that the data rate was inadequate.
>Perhaps it is time for the amateur community to take a similar step.
References please? A Google search returns no evidence that Navy
stations like NAA in Cutler, Maine have gone off-line. Are you possibly
thinking of their ELF experiments that were recently ended? Even if so,
what competing technology is the Navy contemplating that will reliably
contact our submarine fleet that has "gone deep" under many fathoms of
RF-attenuating sea water?
I also didn't realize that amateur radio had similar "networks" that
would need to be shut down.
>> those
>> technologies are only practically realizable on amateur radio bands at
>> high VHF and up. Such bands have been open to licensees without need of
>> a Morse code test for going on 17 years now. Even before then, these
>> bands were accessible to Technician-class amateurs since at least
>> shortly after World War II, with a license that only required a minimal,
>> 5 WPM (essentially individual character-recognition) Morse code test.
>>
>> If you are saying that someone *else* should have developed these
>> technologies (other than you, of course), and that since they haven't,
>> then someone *must* be to blame, well, you can't really dictate how the
>> world should turn out without taking an active role to help make it that
>> way.
> That last paragraph is incoherent. Could you rephrase it?
Looked pretty coherent to me, but for your benefit, I'll dissect it in
detail:
"If you are saying that someone *else* should have developed these
technologies ..."
In other words, amateur radio has failed to meet some standard of
technology development. Other people were somehow "wasting" their time
doing other things.
"... (other than you, of course) ..."
What have you done to make amateur radio a better place? Have you
written your Congressman? Petitioned the FCC? Worked in the
communications engineering and technology field? Developed amateur radio
software and hardware solutions? You seem to be knowledgeable on many
technical subjects, including the history of that technology over many
decades. Did you try to change things, or are you asserting that you
did not have the skills or abilities to help do so, even working with
others over many decades?
"... and since they haven't, then someone *must* be blamed, ..."
I was implying that you were seeking scapegoats, as it is easier to
blame others than look in the mirror.
"... well, you can't really dictate how the world should turn out
without taking an active role to help make it that way."
In other words, Lead, Follow, or Get Out of the Way. "Sidewalk
Superintendents" have very little influence on society. What is your
choice?
Also, some people seem to confuse actual solutions to problems (whether
in amateur radio, or on the newsgroups) with a contest over who can
become the most "outraged." To quote Jim Kelley, AC6XG:
"Outrage, and a buck-fifty, will get us exactly what?"
>--
>Klystron
- --
73, Paul W. Schleck, K3FU
psch...@novia.net
http://www.novia.net/~pschleck/
Finger psch...@novia.net for PGP Public Key
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (SunOS)
iD8DBQFH5r/66Pj0az779o4RAnicAJ9csNsCmha8ssxAArkza8p3pxwIhACfZv4O
BXSruHeICy8G0AOT+mCOhPo=
=tMJk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Phil Kane
>I have all the QSTs back to the mid-1920s, and have read all
>of them. I do not recall any comparison of digital modes to
>"pulse" in any of them. Could you provide a specific reference?
>
The only "pulse" reference that comes to mind is the pre-1979 emission
designator for what we now call "digital modulation" in the
International Radio Regulations. Nobody that I know, amateur or
professional (and most of the amateurs were professional communication
engineers) ever put it down.
Klystron
> Transmitting 50 kilowatts from a single site capable of covering most of
> North America, using groundwave propagation, independent of solar
> activity, is an "outrageously inefficient way to distribute a small
> quantity of information?" Well, I do hope that you are hurrying to
> write your Congressman to demand that the National Institute of
> Standards and Technology put an immediate end to this grave outrage, and
> profound waste of taxpayer's money that has been going on for decades.
> After all, what does the NIST know about technology, or useful
> communications? Perhaps as little as the engineers and marketers in the
> economically successful and useful product field of WWVB watches and
> clocks, in your estimation.
Wouldn't it make more sense to include WWV and WWVH along with WWVB?
Are you familiar with the Internet-based ntp system? Then, there is the
matter of GPS, which has a time capability that is incidental to its
navigation function.
> [...]
> I think you are underestimating the power of SMS. As for the comparison
> to E-mail, I don't have to ask, as journalists have already done so,
> including this recent article from Slate:
>
> http://www.slate.com/id/2177969/pagenum/all/
>
> Simply put, young people find appeal in the immediacy of small, but
> low-latency messages sent in relatively large numbers over a long period
> of time, and the information transmitted is far more rich and meaningful
> that what you imply above. In many respects, this type of communication
> is not stilted or limited, but almost provides the immediacy of a
> conversation, without having to run up your voice minute charges or
> leave your other callers unable to reach you due to the long-term busy
> signal.
>
> Young people do still use E-mail, but in circumstances for which it is
> the better choice. They are not seeking some overall best "general
> purpose communications" to get their messages across to each other.
I don't see anything in that that contradicts my statement that SMS
is mainly used for messages of little importance. It is also called CMS,
for casual messaging service.
> I didn't realize that only "general purpose communications" were
> considered worthwhile.
A multi-purpose system that can match a single-purpose system on the
performance of the objectives of the single-purpose system is generally,
if not universally, considered superior.
> Your previous reply argued that it was
> undesirable to use such a low-speed technology as Morse code given that
> there were many higher-speed alternatives (faster by "orders of
> magnitude" you said). I replied to you that fastest is not always best.
> Other issues (previously enumerated by me) might actually dictate the
> choice of lower-speed communications as the best choice.
>
> I also don't see "general purpose communications" mentioned in Part 97.
> Many "single purpose, dedicated systems" are used by amateurs, and
> help fulfill amateur radio's Basis and Purpose. In many cases, a
> "single purpose" technology is far more useful than a misfit,
> one-size-fits-all, "general purpose" one.
>
> Before we make too many assumptions about an undefined term, perhaps you
> can describe what types of "general purpose communications" you would
> consider to be worthy goals for the Amateur Radio Service, and which
> "single purpose" technologies you would like to see eliminated?
Why do you want me to reinvent the wheel? Lets go to the source
(condensed from Part 97.1):
* emergency communications
* contribute to the advancement of the radio art
* advancing skills in both the communication and technical phases of
the art
* expansion of the existing reservoir within the amateur radio service
of trained operators, technicians, and electronics experts
* continuation and extension of the amateurs unique ability to enhance
international goodwill
> Would you also kindly define what is a "single axis of data," in terms
> familiar to those involved in communications engineering and technology?
A single quantity, like time or location
> What, then, would be "multiple axes of data?"
Two or more simultaneous quantities, like time AND location or course
AND speed.
> So, in other words, you are actually agreeing with my previous reply to
> you that there are many useful Morse code based communications
> technologies that do not actually require memorized, in-head, copy of
> Morse code. I'm glad that we agree on something.
There is probably no purpose for which Morse can be used as a machine
language where there isn't a choice of other, better suited languages
available. This includes aeronautical beacons. You are grasping at
straws, now.
> Wow, these curmudgeons must have been very powerful and effective in
> their obstructionism if they undermined entire areas of communications
> technology development in this country over the last 30-40 years. I
> didn't realize that our national technology infrastructure was so
> inflexible and lethargic that it could not recover from these
> influences, even after so many decades.
When you look at the development of the Internet, Linux and other
free software, you have to wonder about the infrastructure behind it.
How did it come about? There was no regulatory body. There were no
licenses. There were no "Elmers." Until recently, there wasn't even any
formal schooling available, except on the sort of machinery that existed
only within the Fortune 500. Early Internet users and developers had to
read O'Reilly books and figure it out on their own.
That showed great initiative. It demonstrated the sort of determined,
driven advancement of technology that was once seen in amateur radio.
But that sort of thing has passed ham radio by. It has been a long time
since ham radio was a source of innovation. I blame the Morse cultists
who hijacked amateur radio for use as their personal playground.
> Just the introduction to your previous article, where you directly
> compare the Baud rate of Morse code with that of "obsolete" telephone
> modems. You stated that their data rates differed by "orders of
> magnitude," implying that communications technologies that were "orders
> of magnitude" slower than telephone modems could be dismissed as
> obsolete.
An amusing interpretation. It follows that trains and ships should be
discarded because they are much slower than airplanes.
> Following the natural extension of that argument, then the
> only technologies that could be favorably compared to such telephone
> modems, and meet your argued standard of non-obsolete, could only be
> realized on high VHF and up. As I argued previously, use and advocacy
> of Morse code has no bearing on the current deployment of such
> technologies, as no Morse code test has been required to access them for
> at least 17 years. The Technician-class license has existed for far
> longer, and has only a minimal Morse code examination.
You left out the faster mode of communication known as "voice." It is
widely used on HF. Further, I once looked at a band plan that showed how
DV could be used on HF. They described a system of HF DV that took up
just slightly more bandwidth than SSB and substantially less than AM.
> So, to summarize:
>
> slow-speed (less than 100 baud) PSK31 : "Good"
>
> similar order-of-magnitude speed Morse code: "Bad"
>
> So, it's not the speed you object to, it's the use of Morse code?
> Couldn't you have just stated that, and not gone to the trouble of
> bringing in other arguments like speed and bandwidth, or whether a
> communications technology is sufficiently "general purpose" or not,
> regardless of whether something "general purpose" would be the best
> choice in a given circumstance? Just say that you don't like Morse
> code. Others would at least give you credit for honesty.
Who are these "others" and when did they appoint you as their
spokesman?
> References please? A Google search returns no evidence that Navy
> stations like NAA in Cutler, Maine have gone off-line. Are you possibly
> thinking of their ELF experiments that were recently ended? Even if so,
> what competing technology is the Navy contemplating that will reliably
> contact our submarine fleet that has "gone deep" under many fathoms of
> RF-attenuating sea water?
I am thinking of the site in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan and the
increased reliance on TACAMO aircraft (at the time of the shutdown).
> I also didn't realize that amateur radio had similar "networks" that
> would need to be shut down.
The infrastructure that is being wasted on Morse includes band
segments that have, until recently, been reserved for its exclusive use.
I am very glad to see that almost all CW segments now allow data modes
(50-50.1 and 144-144.1 being the only exceptions). There is also the
inclusion of keyer provisions in HF radios. It will be interesting to
see what the marketplace does to code tapes and code keys. I don't think
they will last long.
While Morse supporters often point to treaties, the fact is that the
US was one of the last countries to abandon the Morse requirement for an
HF license. Other countries began dropping that requirement many years
earlier, while still claiming to be in compliance with their treaty
obligations. How do you explain that? To me, it sounds like the FCC used
the treaties as a pretext to keep the code requirement in order to
placate the ARRL and the Morse zealots.
> Looked pretty coherent to me, but for your benefit, I'll dissect it in
> detail:
>
> "If you are saying that someone *else* should have developed these
> technologies ..."
>
> In other words, amateur radio has failed to meet some standard of
> technology development. Other people were somehow "wasting" their time
> doing other things.
>
> "... (other than you, of course) ..."
>
> What have you done to make amateur radio a better place? Have you
> written your Congressman? Petitioned the FCC? Worked in the
> communications engineering and technology field? Developed amateur radio
> software and hardware solutions? You seem to be knowledgeable on many
> technical subjects, including the history of that technology over many
> decades. Did you try to change things, or are you asserting that you
> did not have the skills or abilities to help do so, even working with
> others over many decades?
I have worked in the electronics industry. I have made my views clear
to any and all who had an interest in the subject. I made those views as
clear then as I have done in this newsgroup.
AF6AY
>Many types of communications vary over many orders of magnitude of
>information rate, yet are considered useful and up-to-date.
>
>For example, the Casio WaveCeptor on my wrist:
>
>http://www.eham.net/reviews/detail/2497
>
>receives a ~ 1 Baud Pulse Position Modulated (PPM) signal from radio
>station WWVB in Fort Collins, Colorado, which transmits on 60 kHz. It
>takes about a minute to send the complete time code to synchronize my
>watch. Slow? Yes. Useful? Yes, very much so, especially when
>considering the coverage and reliability that can be obtained from such
>a low-bandwidth, groundwave-propagated, Very Low Frequency (VLF) signal.
>The watch only needs to receive the time code at most once per day,
>which it does so automatically in the early hours of the morning sitting
>on my desk or dresser. A faster data rate would require something other
>than a VLF signal, and would not improve much on the quality or
>usability of the communications. It would definitely increase the
>price. Witness the much greater success in the marketplace of
>WWVB-based watches versus more advanced, higher bandwidth, but much more
>expensive, "Smart Personal Object Technology" (SPOT) watches:
Good mention, Paul. Ummm...the data rate is rather exactly one bit per
second and takes exactly 60 seconds to send one frame of time and date
data. :-)
ALL the details are given at www.nist.gov under the 'Time Frequency'
page, including propagation charts at various times of the day and
for various seasons. This southern California region can regularly
receive enough signal to set radio clocks even if at an approximate
distance of about 900 miles to Fort Collins. In 2005 my wife and I
drove to southern Wisconsin and my La Crosse radio wristwatch never
failed to set itself properly even though some of our overnight stays
were in hotels having steel structures or in among other buildings.
We have two radio wall clocks in our residence and those are exact
enough to compare on-the-second with HF time ticks from WWV and WWVH.
[I won't quibble about the PPM mode descriptor since the full details
of modulation are given at NIST website... :-) ]
>According to this recent demonstration on the Tonight Show with Jay
>Leno:
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhsSgcsTMd4
Ahem...<quibble mode on>...that little bit on the Tonight Show was
a 'setup' gig that employed two young local male actors as the
(described) "text messaging experts" but the two hams (one of which
would very soon become marketing director for Heil Sound) were
real. That is the input I got directly from a reliable staffer on
the Tonight Show. Took a few phone calls to get that information
but it is an advantage of living inside the entertainment capital of
the USA (aka Los Angeles, CA)...and the NBC western Hq is only
about 5 miles south of my place, down Hollywood Way to Alameda and
then east about a mile. That whole bit was really a send-up on the
popular fad of text messaging done by teeners and young adults.
That bit is about as 'real documentary' as Leno's send-ups on the
'street interviews' with ordinary (apparently clueless) younger
folk on various kinds of knowledge. In short, ONLY for gag purposes.
>To even give you a Morse code example, consider the simplicity and
>effectiveness of the NCDXF beacons running on the HF bands:
>
>http://www.ncdxf.org/beacons.html
HF beacons are neat for their purposes of checking on HF propagation
paths, but they aren't 'communications' in the regular sense. Those
were also designed for simplicity at the various receiving sites but
require rather precise time-of-day at each receiver in order to get
the start of each cycle.
While I had not intended to restart some morse-vs-others kind of
argument, I have to note where I began HF communications with the
US military some 55 years ago. Not a single communications circuit
used any form of morse coding to achieve a throughput of nearly a
quarter of a million messages per month (average in 1955). The
majority was teleprinter of the 5-level 'Baudot' format running at
60 WPM equivalent rates. 24/7 of course with TTY distributors to
to automatically start another p-tape reader when the other reader
was done. FSK 'spread' was then 850 cycles, not the narrower 170
Hz of today. Radio circuits (where I was assigned) spanned the
northern Pacific from Saigon, Seoul, and Manila to Anchorage,
Seattle, San Francisco, and Hawaii.
In 1955 the Army tried an experiment on a few select radio circuits
to push the Teletype Corporation's machines to 75 WPM equivalent.
End result of that was a failure rate more than double that of the
standard 60 WPM equivalent machines. Teletype seems to have achieved
an optimized design for 60 WPM equivalent; their 100 WPM equivalent
next-generation machines used a different electromechanical system,
were quite reliable at that rate.
>very fast determination of the link budget to the beacon locations. If
>you can't remember what a "V" sounds like in Morse Code (". . . _" like
>the intro to Beethoven's Fifth Symphony), I suppose you could put that
>on the chart as well. After all, the use of similar charts are how
>pilots usually decode the Morse code identifications of aeronautical
>beacons.
Quibble mode on again. The LF aeronautical beacoms are what you are
writing about but they are NOT used much at all for aircraft radio-
navigation now, nor were they a half century ago. Present-day (and in
1962) radionavigation over land is done mainly by VOR (Very high
frequency Omnidirectional Radio range) using a unique 30 Hz antenna
pattern rotation with a reference phase of 30 Hz sent on a 9.96 KHz
subcarrier. Aircraft VOR receivers have used very simple (even for
tube circuits) to determine their bearing to a ground station. These
were simple enough (and low cost enough) for small private general
aviation craft and the US VOR system was adopted internationally in
1955. For distance to a ground station the civil method emplyed a
low L-band interrogator sending a (jittered) double pulse and
measuring the return delay (plus 50 uSec) from the ground station
responder. This DME (Distance Measuring Equipment) was compatible
with military TACAN (TACtical Area Navigation) signal format and the
FAA combined VOR-DME-TACAN equipments on the ground and those are
identified by the contraction VORTAC. On aeronautical charts (from
the government, usually reprinted by private companies) there is
usually a magnetic bearing compass circle (VOR and civil-use-TACAN
reference magnetic reference, not actual north reference)...the
VHF frequencies (DME and TACAN frequencies have been paired with
VOR), ICAO 3-letter ID, and the dot-dash pattern of that 3-letter ID.
The elegant simplicity of VOR is that it will permit AM Voice IN the
ground station transmitter without disturbing the antenna pattern
modulation or the reference phase subcarrier. In congested urban
areas where a lot of general aviation aircraft abound, FAA stations
routinely use VOR voice transmissions to aid civil pilots, easing
the pilots' workload by providing extra information such as WX,
special conditions at an airport. My local airport (BUR) now known
as Bob Hope Airport, the FAA used to send a repeating voice
announcement of local WX conditions, airport info, etc., all
identified by a letter, beginning with A or Alpha at midnight. The
tag on the voice tape loop was "please tell the tower you have
received 'information <Foxtrot or whatever letter>'" when requesting
landing at that airport. Yes, some VORs transmit the ICAO 3-letter
ID as a low-modulation on-off tone in slow morse but I have yet to
find any civil pilot, beginner to experienced, who USES that code
for radionavigation.
>Focusing simply on information rate disregards other aspects of the
>communications and the channel over which it is transmitted. These
>important aspects include the bandwidth and propagation characteristics
>of the available channel, the complexity of the required transmitting
>and receiving equipment, the amount of data that needs to be
>transmitted, and how quickly and often it needs to be conveyed.
Martinez' PSK31 was rather precisely designed for low (<500 Hz)
bandwidth coincident with non-typists typing rate of about 30 WPM
equivalent, all in congested Data slices of amateur radio band
'bandplans' on HF. With relatively simple electronic terminal
equipment with microprocessor-aided operation, I/O memory space
and programming is a minor addition to handle faster typists'
input, even burst typing on a keyboard to 100 WPM or so equivalent.
The OLD FSK bandwidths on HF (of a half century ago) took up about
a whole KHz while using an 850 cycle shift. On the 3 KHz of an old
commercial-format SSB channel (one of four), as many as 8 separate
TTY circuits could be frequency-multiplexed. A more reasonable
shift (to 170 Hz) occurred later with improvements in terminal
equipment technology, is the norm now, even for 100 WPM equivalent
teleprinter rates of those still using electromechanical terminals.
BANDWIDTH occupancy seems to be the primary driver for modulation
rates on HF. YMMV.
There are more complex methods of modulation-demodulation that
have been available for some time. DRM (Digital Radio Mondial) is
one such as has been verified on HF for 'SW BC' (Broadcasting).
That DRM has not spread well among broadcasters has little to do
with technical details of modulation-demodulation, but rather in
the poor propagation conditions of this sunspot cycle limiting
broadcasters' range. If a signal can't get through at all, NO
modulation method is going to help. Besides, with the availability
of satellite radio broadcasting, 'SW BC' has gradually shifted
over to that method rather than using HF directly.
>I'm not sure that I understand your line of reasoning here. You are
>implying cause-and-effect. In other words, use and advocacy of Morse
>code somehow directly contributed to the obstruction of other
>technologies. Can you give direct evidence of specific examples? If
>you are implying that licensing requirements obstructed the development
>of advanced digital modes, that really doesn't appear to be the case.
>Witness the success of Tucson Amateur Packet Radio (TAPR):
It is disingenuous to 'force' an argument by introduction of
something not overtly stated by the originator.
TAPR and its membership have done some excellent technical
development and spread of such technology. Note also that its
membership is made up of radio amateurs who've been licensed for
a while and are NOT technical beginners in radio or electronics.
In the view of the ENTIRE world of radio, not just amateur radio, the
use of morse code modes to communicate has steadily decreased for
over a half century. It has decreased so much so that some non-
amateur radio services either stopped using that mode or never
considered it for a new radio service introduced in the last half
century. As a prime example, the changeover to GMDSS and replacement
of the old 500 KHz international distress and safety frequency which
used morse code exclusively. Even the USCG stopped monitoring that
old 500 KHz frequency. GMDSS was designed and approved by the
Maritime Community, not by amateurs.
The decline, or perhaps more accurately, the failure to keep up
with overall population increase (of USA) amateur licensees is (in
my opinion) NOT due exclusively to 'USE' of morse code. US amateur
radio license totals peaked 5 years ago. In general, by informal
polling, newcomers are NOT embracing morse code modes...nor are
they flocking to HF amateur bands. PART of that MAY be due to the
insistence of the 'amateur radio community' to hang onto the morse
code TEST forever. Part of that is due to the slow acceptance of
international amateur radio to change the international amateur
Radio Regulations away from old standards. WRC-03 of nearly 5 years
ago allowed individual administrations to drop the morse code test
for an amateur radio license. The USA did not follow through on
that until more than 3 years later. [precisely, the end of July
2003 to 23 February 2007]
[in response to 'Klystron']
>If you are saying that someone *else* should have developed these
>technologies (other than you, of course), and that since they haven't,
>then someone *must* be to blame, well, you can't really dictate how the
>world should turn out without taking an active role to help make it that
>way.
That's rather strong wording from a leading person of this
newsgroup, isn't it?
For a very long while, ever since I first began as a pro in HF
radio communications, PART of the 'amateur radio community' had
been very busy 'dictating' how the amateur radio world should be
by the continuation of the morse code test for an amateur radio
license. OTHERS, including those of us (like myself) who were NOT
licensed in amateur radio have actively campaigned to remove that
test from US amateur radio...even though other countries had
already preceded the USA in abolishing that code test. I won't say
that I've 'been responsible' for any USA changes but I was certainly
'active' in trying to do so. The FCC apparently agreed with some
of my views as well as so many others supporting that test
elimination. It came to pass. But, that coming might have been too
late to change others' interests in US amateur radio.
In my electronics work that began (professionally) in 1952, I've
been involved in a lot of different electronics and modes and
modulations of RF that were never allocated for US amateur radio
use. Some of those just wouldn't apply to two-way communications but
others would apply. There are still some US regulations that need
altering but a very vocal PART of the 'amateur radio community'
seems very adamant about NOT upsetting the status quo. The future
of US amateur radio does NOT depend solely on them.
73, Len AF6AY
First licensed in US amateur radio in March 2007
First licensed in US commercial radio in March 1956
First QSY of a 1 KW HF transmitter in February 1953
Phil Kane
> Wouldn't it make more sense to include WWV and WWVH along with WWVB?
>Are you familiar with the Internet-based ntp system? Then, there is the
>matter of GPS, which has a time capability that is incidental to its
>navigation function.
Want some fun? Compare the time ticks received from WWVB, WWV,
NIST-on-line, and GPS. What, they are not all simultaneous? Welcome
to the real world. GPS time does not correlate with UTC by any means
(several seconds difference).
In one of the first digital military command and control system that I
was involved in during the early 1960s, we used rubidium standards at
our switching centers to get accurate time synchronization, and even
then it was rather crude because the line delays varied so much. HF
propagation (WWV/WWVH) is even worse in that regard.
Phil Kane
> As a prime example, the changeover to GMDSS and replacement
>of the old 500 KHz international distress and safety frequency which
>used morse code exclusively. Even the USCG stopped monitoring that
>old 500 KHz frequency. GMDSS was designed and approved by the
>Maritime Community, not by amateurs.
As those of us who had our ears to the hull, so to speak, know very
well, the main reason was to get rid of "Sparks the Radio Operator"
who was a very large expense for the traffic that was being handled by
non-Morse methods. Some could be retrained as service technicians,
many could not and took retirement.
Be aware, though, that there are still several Public Coast Stations
in the US that are capable and do handle Morse traffic, and twice a
year the USCG fires up its Morse stations. It's not all dead.
AF6AY
> On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 22:53:54 EDT, Klystron <x...@yyy.zzz> wrote:
> > � Wouldn't it make more sense to include WWV and WWVH along with
WWVB?
> >Are you familiar with the Internet-based ntp system? Then, there is the
> >matter of GPS, which has a time capability that is incidental to its
> >navigation function.
>
, WWV,
> NIST-on-line, and GPS. �What, they are not all simultaneous? ï
�½Welcome
> to the real world. �GPS time does not correlate with UTC by any me
ans
> (several seconds difference).
>
> In one of the first digital military command and control system that I
> was involved in during the early 1960s, we used rubidium standards at
> our switching centers to get accurate time synchronization, and even
> then it was rather crude because the line delays varied so much. �
HF
> propagation (WWV/WWVH) is even worse in that regard.
I've compared each of our three radio-set clocks at this residence (in
Los Angeles) and find excellent correlation between their one-second
changes and both WWV and WWVH. Don't have any GPS receiver
to try the same.
In 1960, while working in the Standards Lab of Ramo-Wooldridge Corp.
in Canoga Park, CA, I got to pull some OT on Saturdays to measure
the difference between east coast transmissions of WWV and the
local General Radio frequency standard. Just a plain old quartz
crystal standard oscillator driving divider chains to the built-in
clock.
I would record the microseconds of difference between local clock
ticks and WWV ticks from the east coast. Not much variation in a
week's time, don't remember just how much (it was 48 years ago).
Yes, propagation on HF does vary but it is sometimes exaggerated.
Before R-W went into a business tailspin, the Standards Lab was
ready to get a low-frequency HP receiver for 20 KHz to improve on
establishing a local, secondary frequency standard. No joy on that
corporation which was eventually sold off. All I ever got to see was
the 'diurnal shift' of 20 KHz phase recordings at sunrise and sunset.
:-)
73, Len AF6AY
AF6AY
>Bill Horne <b...@horneQRM.net> wrote:
>
>>I'm sure your explanation is correct, but it leaves me confused: I know
>>bps <> baud, but they're close, and the Model 15 Teletype I used to own
>>operated at 45 baud. It seems illogical that Morse would be so high in
>>the bps count.
>
>Your Model 15 Teletype at the nominal 60 wpm speed, which is actually
>368 chars/minute and 45.45 baud works out like this. The character
>length is 7.42 bits long (for ancient, interesting reasons I won't go
>into right now) and the bit duration is 22 milliseconds. The character
>duration is therefore 7.42 * 22 = 163.24 milliseconds, and that works out
>to 6.12595 characters/sec = 367.55 characters/minute. To convert that
>to words you have to figure 6 characters per word because the space
>between words is also a character. So the speed is actually 61.26
>words/minute.
For what it is worth, my paper reference on TTYs is NAVSHIPS
0967-255-0010 "Principles of Telegraphy (Teletypewriter)" from
Department of the Navy Electronic Systems Command. I bought it
from the US Government Printing Office back in the early 1970s as
a reference. [I am an Army veteran, not Navy] The first chapter of
Part A in that TM has a nice historical record of 'telegraphy'
(which includes teletypewriting). It says only "60 WPM" but mentions
other Baud rates.
As far as we in Army communications of the mid-1950s were concerned,
all the teletypewriters that the Army used were called "60 WPM" and
only the teletypewriter maintenance people (and a few carrier systems
types) cared about many numbers. We did have Distortion meters used
to determine irregularities in a circuit.
BTW, the Army and the rest of the military used Teletype Corporation
Model 15s through 19s, variation being only the paper tape punch
and transmitting distributor (P-tape reader).
>Now when you get to ASCII, the old Teletype machines transmitted 8
>data bits per character and used an 11.0 unit code. This makes 100
>wpm work out to 110 baud. Electronic terminals don't need 11 unit
>code; they can do just fine with 10. Thus the words-per-minute is
>numerically equal to the baud rate. 100 baud -> 10 ms/bit ->
>100 ms/char -> 10 chars/sec -> 600 chars/min -> 100 wpm.
OK on that. Teletype Corporation Model 28s (explained in intimate
detail in the NAVSHIPS TM I referenced) would easily do 100 WPM
equivalent 24/7 as long as supplied with paper, ribbon, and oil. :-)
>...word PARIS contains 50 bit times counting the space. So one word
>per second is 50 bits per second and 60 wpm. As an aside, the
>military sends a lot of encrypted 5-letter code groups, so instead
>of PARIS the Signal Corps uses CODEZ as a test word more statistically
>correct for their kind of traffic. And CODEZ contains 60 bits.
I never encountered any test word 'CODEZ' 1953 to 1956, nor
elsewhere in the Signal Corps or in DoD contracts after that. In
the mid-50s we simply used a continuous 'R-Y' generator (from
Teletype Corporation) for circuit checks with the old 60 WPM
equivalent machines. Teletype Corp. also made a 'fox test'
generator consisting of a half dozen cams operating as many
switches to generate "The quick brown fox jumped..." sentence
(with Tx station ID at the end) for radio circuit checks.
Electromechanical teletypewriters are now rather passe' in the
military and government (I use a French word to replace Obsolete
which so many have trouble with). It is all electronic and, for
permanent installations, over the DSN (Digital Switched Network)
anywhere...including interfaces with the regular civilian telephone
infrastructure. The DSN allows encryption on-line as per protocol.
For field radios, the electronic data protocols are compatible
with hard-wired ones and also allow encryption on-line. It was so
in the first Gulf War (1990-1991) which 'battle tested' the whole
military communications network DX to no-DX via TDRS (Tracking
and Data Relay Satellites) and other military commsats from/to
Florida to/from the Middle East.
Not having any access to the DSN or intimate details of military
cryptographic equipment now, I have no exact knowledge of what is
used for a test word, sentence, or whatever. For the OLD electro-
mechanical teleprinters, I'd say the specifications for a
specific TTY Distortion Meter would tell the exact story on
timing for both polar and non-polar TTY circuits and equipment.
73, Len AF6AY
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
> On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 22:53:54 EDT, Klystron <x...@yyy.zzz> wrote:
> > Wouldn't it make more sense to include WWV and WWVH along with WWVB?
> >Are you familiar with the Internet-based ntp system? Then, there is the
> >matter of GPS, which has a time capability that is incidental to its
> >navigation function.
> Want some fun? Compare the time ticks received from WWVB, WWV,
> NIST-on-line, and GPS. What, they are not all simultaneous? Welcome
> to the real world. GPS time does not correlate with UTC by any means
> (several seconds difference).
Each GPS sattelite has it's own on board atomic clock and the system can
easily provide UTC with accuracy on the few microseconds level with an
ultimate limit of +/- 340 nanoseconds using an appropriate receiver and
hardware.
GPS is the basis for most of the current NTP time servers.
http://www.ntp-time-server.com/gps-time-server/gps-time-server.htm
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
AF6AY
> � �I am trying to convert "words per minute" into "bits pe
r second."
> Bits per second, in turn, is APPROXIMATELY equal to baud, a common
> measure of modem (or other means of data transmission) speed. I need to
> quantify one factor: How many letters are in a "word?" If we assume that
> there are 5 (five) letters to a word, my calculations look like this:
It has been common convention in wireline telegraphy to count "one
word"
as having 5 characters followed by a space. The origin of that seems
to be
that it was most advantageous for humans to use/remember while using
the Commercial Codes, a form of encipherment both to protect
information and to reduce the number of words in a telegram.
Bentley's
Commercial Code seems to have been the most used with 17 editions,
publishing Code Books for any business or government.
As a result of those Commercial Codes, actual cryptographic codes
also used 5 characters followed by a space, hence the term '5-letter
groups' in referring to a "word." By the time of WWII starting, the
cryptographic systems were more advanced and it was not possible
to tell one 'word' from another but it was common practice to send
encrypted text as 5-letter (or character) groups; the actual space in
clear text was determined by the null or space substitute in poly-
alphabetic rolling-key encryption codes. (reference: M-209 Code
Converter used in the field in Europe by US forces)
73, Len AF6AY
Paul W. Schleck
Hash: SHA1
In <xxx-21D47C.2...@news.verizon.net> Klystron <x...@yyy.zzz> writes:
> Paul W. Schleck <psch...@oasis.novia.net>" wrote:
[...]
>> Before we make too many assumptions about an undefined term, perhaps you
>> can describe what types of "general purpose communications" you would
>> consider to be worthy goals for the Amateur Radio Service, and which
>> "single purpose" technologies you would like to see eliminated?
> Why do you want me to reinvent the wheel? Lets go to the source
>(condensed from Part 97.1):
> * emergency communications
> * contribute to the advancement of the radio art
> * advancing skills in both the communication and technical phases of
>the art
> * expansion of the existing reservoir within the amateur radio service
>of trained operators, technicians, and electronics experts
> * continuation and extension of the amateurs unique ability to enhance
>international goodwill
Perhaps I should clarify. When I asked the above question, I meant
specific technologies and examples of communications systems, not a
restatement of the general strategies of the Amateur Radio Service that
are enshrined in its Basis and Purpose. The Basis and Purpose
enumerates high-level goals, but does not specify the implementation
details, including the specific technologies.
I'm sure that we are all familiar with FCC Part 97.1, and restating it
really wasn't the answer that I was looking for. Could you please be
more specific?
- --
73, Paul W. Schleck, K3FU
psch...@novia.net
http://www.novia.net/~pschleck/
Finger psch...@novia.net for PGP Public Key
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (SunOS)
iD8DBQFH5zR26Pj0az779o4RAiqtAJ4003CD5KS18L4Ybt5bL//NfZKBFwCfV9Qg
9eRBs7HEqZzaMPPaM3IC4QY=
=UFaB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Paul W. Schleck
Hash: SHA1
In <04d935a1-1812-443e...@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com> AF6AY <LenAn...@ieee.org> writes:
>>According to this recent demonstration on the Tonight Show with Jay
>>Leno:
>>
>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhsSgcsTMd4
>Ahem...<quibble mode on>...that little bit on the Tonight Show was
>a 'setup' gig that employed two young local male actors as the
>(described) "text messaging experts" but the two hams (one of which
>would very soon become marketing director for Heil Sound) were
>real. That is the input I got directly from a reliable staffer on
>the Tonight Show. Took a few phone calls to get that information
>but it is an advantage of living inside the entertainment capital of
>the USA (aka Los Angeles, CA)...and the NBC western Hq is only
>about 5 miles south of my place, down Hollywood Way to Alameda and
>then east about a mile. That whole bit was really a send-up on the
>popular fad of text messaging done by teeners and young adults.
>That bit is about as 'real documentary' as Leno's send-ups on the
>'street interviews' with ordinary (apparently clueless) younger
>folk on various kinds of knowledge. In short, ONLY for gag purposes.
[...]
Sorry, but I've got to call baloney on this one. The individual who
appeared on the Tonight Show who sent the text message was actually Ben
Cook, and not an actor. Ben held the world's record for fastest text
messaging:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Cook
The two Morse code operators, Chip Margelli, K7JA, and Ken Miller,
K6CTW, have attested to this being an actual contest with an actual,
previously unknown, message to send, which was sent both by Morse code,
and by text messaging. And there's no disputing that fast Morse code
would always beat an SMS text message of the same length. See:
http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/05/16/3/?nc=1
Two named witnesses would appear to trump one anonymous source.
Therefore, your anonymous "reliable staffer" seems anything but.
- --
73, Paul W. Schleck, K3FU
psch...@novia.net
http://www.novia.net/~pschleck/
Finger psch...@novia.net for PGP Public Key
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (SunOS)
iD8DBQFH5zJI6Pj0az779o4RAn+5AJ9ffyD9Wq/klqCmx9PlvGnKFKjYLwCeKjlV
Q9BjLTsT7hM/Hb6FRO7X4D4=
=ChL0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
N2...@aol.com
> �Paul W. Schleck <pschl...@oasis.novia.net>" wrote:
> WWV and WWVH along with WWVB?
WWV and WWVB transmitters are at the same site in Fort Collins, CO. I
was there.
> Are you familiar with the Internet-based ntp system?
Such a system requires connectivity to the internet. WWVB does
not; just requires a receiver.
> Then, there is the
> matter of GPS, which has a time capability that is incidental to its
> navigation function.
GPS can only be used where the satellites can be "seen" by the
receiver.
The WWV system still has its uses. I suspect its cost is trivial
compared to other systems, too.
> > Would you also kindly define what is a "single axis of data,"
> > in terms
> > familiar to those involved in communications engineering and technology?
>
> � �A single quantity, like time or location
>
> > What, then, would be "multiple axes of data?"
>
> � �Two or more simultaneous quantities, like time AND loca
tion or
> course
> AND speed.
The WWV system isn't just about time. The transmitters are also
frequency standards. That's two axes of data. For those of us who
use HF, they are also propagation beacons - that's three axes.
There are also voice geomagnetic announcements - that's four axes.
> There is probably no purpose for which Morse
> can be used as a machine
> language where there isn't a choice of other,
> better suited languages
> available.
Yes, there is: Any application where the sender or listener
may be a human rather than a machine, and where an
interface like a keyboard/screen isn't practical.
> When you look at the development of the Internet, Linux and other
> free software, you have to wonder about the infrastructure
> behind it.
> How did it come about? There was no regulatory body.
Actually there was and is. "The internet" as we know it could
not exist without certain legislation that made it possible, and
a huge commercial investment of communications infrastructure
to support it.
What we call "the internet" developed from ARPANET, which was
a DoD thing, just like GPS. Swords into plowshares and all that.
> There were no
> licenses. There were no "Elmers."
Actually, there were, just not in the same form as in radio. The
licenses were regulations; the Elmers were people who developed
easier-to-use systems.
> Until recently, there wasn't even any
> formal schooling available, except on the sort of machinery that
> existed
> only within the Fortune 500. Early Internet users and developers > had to
> read O'Reilly books and figure it out on their own.
How do you define "recently"? I got started online in 1997, and
"the internet" had only been publicly available for a few years at
that point.
> That showed great initiative. It demonstrated the sort
> of determined,
> driven advancement of technology that was once seen in
> amateur radio.
The internet was and is a commercial enterprise. Amateur radio
was never such an enterprise, by its very nature.
> But that sort of thing has passed ham radio by.
> It has been a long time
> since ham radio was a source of innovation.
When did it exist, and when did it end?
> I blame the Morse cultists
> who hijacked amateur radio for use as their personal playground.
When and how did that happen, exactly? I see a lot of claims but
no specifics or history.
> �The infrastructure that is being wasted on Morse includes band
> segments that have, until recently, been reserved for its exclusive
> use.
What band segments are those, specifically? In the USA,
there have been no Morse-code-exclusive-use band segments (except on 6
and 2 meters) for many years.
My 1962 ARRL License Manual has the FCC rules for the Amateur
Radio Service, and at that time - 46 years ago - there were no
Morse-code-exclusive-use band segments on the HF bands, or
any VHF/UHF band above 2 meters. And the rules weren't new then.
OTOH, even today, data modes are prohibited from using the
voice subbands in the USA.
Do you consider a rules change that happened more than 46 years
ago to be "recently"?
> I am very glad to see that almost all CW segments now allow data > modes
> (50-50.1 and 144-144.1 being the only exceptions).
"Now" includes at least the past 46 years.
> There is also the
> inclusion of keyer provisions in HF radios.
Which costs practically nothing.
> It will be interesting to
> see what the marketplace does to code tapes and code keys.
There are more keys on the market now than when I became a ham 40
years ago.
> I don't think they will last long.
I think they will.
> While Morse supporters often point to treaties, the fact is that the
> US was one of the last countries to abandon the Morse
> requirement for an
> HF license.
Yes - because of the slowness of the FCC to change Part 97
after the treaty changed in 2003.
> Other countries began dropping that requirement many years
> earlier, while still claiming to be in compliance with their treaty
> obligations.
Which countries? Please be specific.
> How do you explain that?
I only know for certain of one country that had a no-code-test
HF amateur radio license before 2003. There may be others,
but not many.
Japan has long had a nocodetest HF amateur license called the
4th class. But that license was and is limited to low power levels
(10 watts) and to parts of the amateur bands which are worldwide
exclusively allocated to amateurs.
Japan's claim was that the treaty exists to prevent interference
between users of different radio services and between users o the same
radio service in different countries.
By limiting 4th class JA hams to only worldwide amateurs-only bands,
interference to other services was prevented. By limiting 4th class
amateurs to very low power, and since Japan is an island nation,
interference to amateurs of other countries was prevented.
Nobody challenged Japan on it, either.
But Japan still requires a Morse Code test for at least some of its
higher-class amateur licenses. The USA does not.
> To me, it sounds like the FCC used
> the treaties as a pretext to keep the code requirement in order to
> placate the ARRL and the Morse zealots.
But why? In 1990, FCC created medical waivers for the 13 and 20 wpm
Morse Code tests, but not 5 wpm. FCC said they would have waivered all
the tests except for the treaty. Same for the reduction of all license
classes to 5 wpm in 2000. Opposition to these changes did not stop
FCC.
Would you have preferred that FCC violate the treaty? Or create a
license class similar to Japan's 4th class?
73 de Jim, N2EY
N2...@aol.com
mention of exclusive Morse-code-only band segments.
In the following discussion, "modes" means "modes authorized for use
by amateurs on the specific amateur bands in question".
The current US regulation of the HF amateur bands permits Morse Code
everywhere, voice and image modes on specific subbands, and data modes
wherever voice is not permitted. Morse Code has no exclusive subbands
at all,
and is rarely used in the 'phone subbands. (I've been an active ham
40+ years and never used Morse Code in an HF voice subband). These
regulations are descendants of those going back many decades, to times
when amateur operation on HF consisted of Morse Code, voice and
nothing else. (For example, HF RTTY operation by US hams was first
authorized in the late 1940s, but only 45.45 baud 5 level Baudot code
was allowed.)
A few years ago, ARRL proposed "Regulation By Bandwidth", which would
have separated the various modes by
the bandwidth of the signal rather than whether it was voice, data,
image, etc. For example, under the proposal,
any mode less than 500 Hz wide would be allowed in the 500 Hz and
wider subbands, regardless of whether it carried
voice, data, image, Morse Code or other information. There were also
proposed changes to where automatic and semi-automatic data-mode
stations could operate.
The proposal got an RM number and a comment period. The comments from
those interested were overwhelmingly against the proposal. It was
revised but to no avail; ARRL finally withdrew the proposal.
IMHO, the most common reasons for opposition that I saw reading the
comments were these (in no particular order):
1) 'Phone operators did not want any data modes in the 'phone
subbands.
2) "Robot" (unattended) digital stations should be confined to small
subbands.
3) Concern that amateurs would have to be able to measure the actual
occupied bandwidth of their transmitted signals or be subject to
violation notices and complaints. Older equipment and hams who could
not afford spectrum analyzers would be forced off the air seemed to be
a common fear.
4) AM voice would be limited to 9 kHz bandwidth and was essentially
"grandfathered", but other modes could not
exceed 3.5 kHz on most bands
5) The existing rules did not need changing.
The FCC did act on an earlier "refarming" proposal by ARRL, and
widened the 'phone/image subbands on some of the HF bands at the end
of 2006. However, FCC went far beyond the ARRL recommendations in the
amount of change. This effectively reduced the spectrum space
available for data modes on those bands, since they could not be used
where 'phone is allowed. The most radical change was on the 80/75
meter bands.
About the same time as the "Regulation by Bandwidth" proposal, a group
of less than a dozen amateurs
calling itself the "Communications Think Tank" (CTT) proposed the even
more radical change of eliminating subbands-by-mode completely, and
simply specifying a maximum signal bandwidth for each band.
This proposal also got an RM number and a comment period, but the
comments were even more solidly against it than against "Regulation by
Bandwidth". The opposition was so overwhelming that CTT also withdrew
its proposal.
The point of all this is that ARRL and others have made proposals to
fundamentally change Part 97 in ways that would
favor the use of data modes, and the US amateur community has
repeatedly and strongly opposed those proposals.
73 de Jim, N2EY
Cecil Moore
My ARRL Band chart says "USB phone only" for 60m.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com
N2...@aol.com
> N...@aol.com wrote:
> > The current US regulation of the HF amateur bands permits Morse Code
> > everywhere, ...
>
> My ARRL Band chart says "USB phone only" for 60m.
Hello Cecil!
You are correct, sir! Thanks!
While it could be argued that the five channels known as "60 meters"
are not be an "HF amateur band" in the sense that, say, 20 meters is,
they are HF and only upper-sideband voice is permitted to US amateurs
there.
So amend the above to read:
"The current US regulation of the HF/MF amateur bands permits Morse
Code on all frequencies except the five USB-voice-only channels known
as '60 meters', ..."
73 es TNX de Jim, N2EY
Klystron
> Klystron <x...@yyy.zzz> wrote:
> > Wouldn't it make more sense to include WWV and WWVH along with WWVB?
> >Are you familiar with the Internet-based ntp system? Then, there is the
> >matter of GPS, which has a time capability that is incidental to its
> >navigation function.
> Want some fun? Compare the time ticks received from WWVB, WWV,
> NIST-on-line, and GPS. What, they are not all simultaneous? Welcome
> to the real world. GPS time does not correlate with UTC by any means
> (several seconds difference).
>
> In one of the first digital military command and control system that I
> was involved in during the early 1960s, we used rubidium standards at
> our switching centers to get accurate time synchronization, and even
> then it was rather crude because the line delays varied so much. HF
> propagation (WWV/WWVH) is even worse in that regard.
My understanding is that ntpd can handle that problem quite well. An
OPTIMAL setup would involve 1 computer per radio, each acting as a radio
controller (also called a strata 0 server). You could have a radio for
WWVB or WWVH, a second radio that is set to scan the WWV frequencies and
a third "radio" for GPS. Those 3 computers would connect to a fourth
computer that would act as a strata 1 server. The result would be a time
server that is as accurate as if it were connected to other ntp servers
via the Internet. Such an arrangement is sometimes used by firms that
need metrology-grade time service on a secured, internal LAN.
By the way, do not be put off by the expense of the four (or more)
computers described above. According the ntp documentation that I have
read, they need to have at least 100 MHz processor speeds for optimum
accuracy, but there is no benefit in going much above 100 MHz. Thus, a
pile of old, junkyard computers will do the job quite well and at an
aggregate cost of $20 to $100 in total.
--
Klystron
Klystron
> Klystron <x...@yyy.zzz> wrote:
>
> > Are you familiar with the Internet-based ntp system?
> Such a system requires connectivity to the internet. WWVB does
> not; just requires a receiver.
See my response to Phil Kane. A computer running ntpd can get
metrology-grade time service from radio signals. ntpd can use radio
only, Internet only or both.
> > Then, there is the matter of GPS, which has a time capability
> > that is incidental to its navigation function.
> GPS can only be used where the satellites can be "seen" by the
> receiver.
In or near the continental US, that is not an issue.
> The WWV system isn't just about time. The transmitters are also
> frequency standards. That's two axes of data. For those of us who
> use HF, they are also propagation beacons - that's three axes.
No, it's an incidental benefit. It does not require the transmission
of additional information.
> There are also voice geomagnetic announcements - that's four axes.
> > There is probably no purpose for which Morse can be used as a
> > machine language where there isn't a choice of other,
> > better suited languages available.
> Yes, there is: Any application where the sender or listener
> may be a human rather than a machine, and where an
> interface like a keyboard/screen isn't practical.
I take it that you don't know what "machine language" is. Humans are
not supposed to be involved. If they are, it's not machine to machine
communications.
> > When you look at the development of the Internet, Linux and other
> > free software, you have to wonder about the infrastructure
> > behind it.
> > How did it come about? There was no regulatory body.
> Actually there was and is. "The internet" as we know it could
> not exist without certain legislation that made it possible, and
> a huge commercial investment of communications infrastructure
> to support it.
>
> What we call "the internet" developed from ARPANET, which was
> a DoD thing, just like GPS. Swords into plowshares and all that.
Utter hogwash. It started out as a network of Universities and a few
defense contractors' laboratories. Much of the funding came from the
individual Universities. The contribution of the government (via the
defense contractors) was not absolutely necessary. Besides, after the
Tappan worm incident, the networks were split into ARPAnet and DARPAnet
(with a "D," as in defense). The public Internet is descended from the
small slice of that pie.
> > There were no licenses. There were no "Elmers."
> Actually, there were, just not in the same form as in radio. The
> licenses were regulations; the Elmers were people who developed
> easier-to-use systems.
Again, that is preposterous nonsense.
> > Until recently, there wasn't even any formal schooling available,
> > except on the sort of machinery that existed only within the
> > Fortune 500. Early Internet users and developers > had to
> > read O'Reilly books and figure it out on their own.
> How do you define "recently"? I got started online in 1997, and
> "the internet" had only been publicly available for a few years at
> that point.
The Internet opened to the general public in 1993 and 1994. At that
time, there were essentially no courses at accredited Universities that
covered UNIX, TCP/IP, the Internet or related topics. You had to learn
it on your own. The Universities mainly taught MVS and 360/370
architecture.
> > That showed great initiative. It demonstrated the sort of
> > determined, driven advancement of technology that was once
> > seen in amateur radio.
> The internet was and is a commercial enterprise. Amateur radio
> was never such an enterprise, by its very nature.
The Internet was not commercial in origin. When I first gained
access, I had to sign an agreement not to use it for commercial
purposes. Sending out for pizza via e-mail would have been a violation
and would have resulted in account cancellation. But than, that was long
ago. Spam hadn't been invented yet.
[...]
> > The infrastructure that is being wasted on Morse includes band
> > segments that have, until recently, been reserved for its exclusive
> > use.
> What band segments are those, specifically? In the USA,
> there have been no Morse-code-exclusive-use band segments (except on 6
> and 2 meters) for many years.
The CW bands were those band segments that excluded voice. Until
fairly recently, there was no such thing as "data." There was some RTTY,
but it was never a major issue. For many decades, the traffic in the HF
ham bands was SSB voice or CW. A pie chart would show a very small slice
labeled "other."
[...]
> > It will be interesting to
> > see what the marketplace does to code tapes and code keys.
> There are more keys on the market now than when I became a ham 40
> years ago.
What about code tapes? How much longer will they last? My guess is
that those keys are sold only to replace other keys. I doubt that there
are very many first time key buyers today.
[...]
> I only know for certain of one country that had a no-code-test
> HF amateur radio license before 2003. There may be others,
> but not many.
>
> Japan has long had a nocodetest HF amateur license called the
> 4th class. But that license was and is limited to low power levels
> (10 watts) and to parts of the amateur bands which are worldwide
> exclusively allocated to amateurs.
>
> Japan's claim was that the treaty exists to prevent interference
> between users of different radio services and between users o the same
> radio service in different countries.
So you admit that different countries interpreted their treaty
obligations in different ways?
[...]
> > To me, it sounds like the FCC used
> > the treaties as a pretext to keep the code requirement in order to
> > placate the ARRL and the Morse zealots.
[...]
> Would you have preferred that FCC violate the treaty? Or create a
> license class similar to Japan's 4th class?
I'm not going to spend a lot of time doing your research for you, but
there was more then one treaty and those treaties expired or were
modified over a period of years. No-code HF licenses came about over
time in a number of countries. The US was either one of the last to drop
code or was dead last to do so.
--
Klystron
AF6AY
>AF6AY <LenAnder...@ieee.org> writes:
>
>>>According to this recent demonstration on the Tonight Show with Jay
>>>Leno:
>
>>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhsSgcsTMd4
>>Ahem...<quibble mode on>...that little bit on the Tonight Show was
>>a 'setup' gig that employed two young local male actors as the
>>(described) "text messaging experts" but the two hams (one of which
>>would very soon become marketing director for Heil Sound) were
>>real. That is the input I got directly from a reliable staffer on
>>the Tonight Show. Took a few phone calls to get that information
>>but it is an advantage of living inside the entertainment capital of
>>the USA (aka Los Angeles, CA)...and the NBC western Hq is only
>>about 5 miles south of my place, down Hollywood Way to Alameda and
>>then east about a mile. That whole bit was really a send-up on the
>>popular fad of text messaging done by teeners and young adults.
>>That bit is about as 'real documentary' as Leno's send-ups on the
>>'street interviews' with ordinary (apparently clueless) younger
>>folk on various kinds of knowledge. In short, ONLY for gag purposes.
>
>Sorry, but I've got to call baloney on this one. The individual who
>appeared on the Tonight Show who sent the text message was actually Ben
>Cook, and not an actor. Ben held the world's record for fastest text
>messaging:
If you say so, then it is so. All I've got are some acquaintences IN
the entertainment industry who work behind the camera...plus five
professional actors (who don't count in this particular discussion).
That 'recent demonstration' was over a year ago, was it not?
"The Tonight Show with Jay Leno" is an entertainment vehicle. It is
not a documentary source of absolute facts. All such 'talk' shows
are convenience outlets for Public Relations in this capital of
motion picture and television production of the USA. MOST of the
movie and TV production in this city lives or dies by PR.
If I had become persuasive in my inquiry I MIGHT have gotten at
least a Call Sheet for the 'Leno show' in question. Usually those
are (by common agreement) Non-Disclosure documents. I could have
then digitized that Call Sheet and sent it privately as 'evidence.'
I did not think that such was necessary in this case.
>The two Morse code operators, Chip Margelli, K7JA, and Ken Miller,
>K6CTW, have attested to this being an actual contest with an actual,
>previously unknown, message to send, which was sent both by Morse code,
>and by text messaging. And there's no disputing that fast Morse code
>would always beat an SMS text message of the same length.
I have corresponded with Mr. Margelli in his new position as
Director of Marketing for Heil Sound...about Heil products, not
about this alleged 'test' or 'contest' on the 'Leno show.' I have
NO complaints about Mr. Margelli's nor Mr. Miller's capabilities
with manual morse code communications. I only have complaints
about this entertainment gig being used as 'factual demonstration'
of any comparison of manual morse code versus any other mode.
I haven't used a Teletype Model 28 machine in many years...but I
could challenge ANY manual morse code operator pair to send either
clear text or enciphered (5-character groups) textual data as to
which method is 'faster' (TTY v. manual morse). I would not need
a recipient on-stage since another TTY terminal would repeat all
input sent by the transmitting terminal. The only problem there
is that it ALSO is a 'set-up' kind of 'test' (any touch-typist on
a TTY would 'win') and has very little entertainment value. The
latter item would cause its non-appearance on 'the Leno show.'
I am a touch typist who learned that in middle school on manual
typewriters with no legends on key tops. I am age 75 and still
retain the ability to continuously 'send' keyboard input at about
50 WPM with burst-input rates approximately 100 WPM.
>Two named witnesses would appear to trump one anonymous source.
>
>Therefore, your anonymous "reliable staffer" seems anything but.
I cannot argue your statements or 'baloney' comments in this
venue. My original source is now working for another show.
No more access to Tonight show records is possible. If you or
any other morse code mode champion say it was a 'real test,'
then it must be a real test.
As to the efficacy claim that manual morse code communications
beats cellular telephone textual-only (by keypad) communications,
I do not know of a single communications service or provider
that uses 'text' (via cellphone) for two-way communications. Of
what point was this entertainment venue 'test' actually proving?
AF6AY
Phil Kane
>In 1960, while working in the Standards Lab of Ramo-Wooldridge Corp.
>in Canoga Park, CA,
Errrr, Len, the Ramo-Wooldridge Corporation went out of existence in
1958 when it merged with Thompson Products to become Thompson Ramo
Wooldridge, Inc. Remember that I started with the "original" R-W in
1957 and was employed by them at the time of the merger at the former
El Segundo Boulevard facilities (I never did get to work at the Arbor
Vitae Street facilities which were the headquarters of the Air Force
Ballistic Missile Division). They didn't move to Canoga Park until
the late fall of 1959, and I was laid off (for the second time) in
June of 1960. Thompson Ramo Wooldridge, Inc - later TRW, Inc. - went
on an acquisitions binge and itself went out of existence in 2002 when
the electronics and aerospace parts were acquired by Grumman (now
Northrop Grumman) and the automotive parts mostly by Goodyear.
In context - RW was always friendly to ham radio, and the pre-merger
RW Corp. actually let us scrounge both new and recycled parts for ham
rigs and audio projects which became our property as long as we signed
a register/release stating what we were building.
>I got to pull some OT on Saturdays to measure
>the difference between east coast transmissions of WWV and the
>local General Radio frequency standard. Just a plain old quartz
>crystal standard oscillator driving divider chains to the built-in
>clock.
While at the El Segundo Blvd. facility we had a project of measuring
distance to a transmitter using the time delay of HF transmissions
received at different sites with a calibrated link between them
(azimuth was easy using standard DF techniques) and we used the GR
frequency standard referenced above. Using WWV was too error-prone.
>I would record the microseconds of difference between local clock
>ticks and WWV ticks from the east coast. Not much variation in a
>week's time, don't remember just how much (it was 48 years ago).
My references about time differences, BTW, was to the time of day, i.e
the time of the tick, not the interval between the ticks. GPS has a
very noticeable offset compared to NIST.
I guess that it's only nuts like me that care about that. My early
training as a broadcast studio engineer while I was in engineering
school required timing of program starts and endings to the second.
"Dead air" was not permitted. Three o'clock did not mean three
o'clock plus 1 second - the Western Union clock reset pulse on the
hour was broadcast as a "beep".
>From my other hobby, "railroad accuracy" of watches (which are
compared with a master clock at the start of a shift) requires one
second per day, 30 seconds per month. Easy to do with quartz watches
nowadays. There even used to be a SP Railroad dial-up number (now
long gone) where the "time man" would announce the time "Southern
Pacific Standard Time is ...." as contrasted to Ma Bell's "time lady"
who would announce "Pacific Standard Time is ..."
Phil Kane
>Each GPS sattelite has it's own on board atomic clock and the system can
>easily provide UTC with accuracy on the few microseconds level with an
>ultimate limit of +/- 340 nanoseconds using an appropriate receiver and
>hardware.
Something must have changed (or been fixed) then - we made
measurements about three years ago and there was about six seconds
offset - an eternity for accurate time measurements. 340 nanoseconds
we can tolerate. Six seconds we can't.
Phil Kane
wrote:
>My ARRL Band chart says "USB phone only" for 60m.
60m is a special case - it is not a worldwide amateur band despite
efforts to make it so. It's channelized by regulation, emission and
power restricted by regulation, and I know when I am near one of the
channels by the presence on adjacent humongous (tm) US Navy
wide-spaced encrypted synchronous RTTY signal.....
Phil Kane
>Thus, a
>pile of old, junkyard computers will do the job quite well and at an
>aggregate cost of $20 to $100 in total.
Four such computers in a single box would be ideal for the way I run
my ham data-modes (packet/PACTOR/APRS/BPSK31 setup - 24/7 each). Too
bad we can't get that in a box the size of a toaster at a price that
is less than $100.
Phil Kane
> I take it that you don't know what "machine language" is. Humans are
>not supposed to be involved. If they are, it's not machine to machine
>communications.
Ham radio is supposed to be human-to-human communications, not
machine-to-machine communications.
Phil Kane
> The only problem there
>is that it ALSO is a 'set-up' kind of 'test' (any touch-typist on
>a TTY would 'win') and has very little entertainment value.
My secretary at March AFB (early 1960s) could and did type faster than
the Model 28 could cut tape. It frustrated her no end.
Phil Kane
>Actually, there were, just not in the same form as in radio. The
>licenses were regulations; the Elmers were people who developed
>easier-to-use systems.
Yes, there were "licenses" to users but it was a one-way deal. My
former FCC Bureau Chief went to the Reagan White House as the
Assistant Chief of Staff for Administrative Services, which included
overseeing the White House Communications Agency (staffed by the
military, not the Secret Service which has its own comm net). He was
given an ARPANET connection at home and WHCA mobile phone in his car.
When Reagan left office and George Bush I put his own Chief of Staff -
John Sununu - in place, my guy was replaced because of a personality
conflict and his ARPANET connection and mobile phone were physically
removed from his house and car with less than two hours notice.
Klystron
>
> Something must have changed (or been fixed) then - we made
> measurements about three years ago and there was about six seconds
> offset - an eternity for accurate time measurements. 340 nanoseconds
> we can tolerate. Six seconds we can't.
Could "selective availability" have anything to do with that?
--
Klystron
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Just about any piece of cheap junk from the last decade could handle
all three sources at once, though it would be pointless since the
ntp software would always choose the GPS source (unless it became
unavailable for some reason).
Klystron
> Klystron <x...@yyy.zzz> wrote:
> >Thus, a pile of old, junkyard computers will do the job quite
> >well and at an aggregate cost of $20 to $100 in total.
> Four such computers in a single box would be ideal for the way I run
> my ham data-modes (packet/PACTOR/APRS/BPSK31 setup - 24/7 each). Too
> bad we can't get that in a box the size of a toaster at a price that
> is less than $100.
The 'box the size of a toaster' part is out, but could you settle for
4 old blade servers, 1U size each, in a rack mount? If so, find a
surplus property auction in your area (large state university,
government agency, etc.) and you will probably be able to pick up
something along those lines.
--
Klystron
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
> On Mar 23, 9:53???pm, Klystron <x...@yyy.zzz> wrote:
> > ???Paul W. Schleck <pschl...@oasis.novia.net>" wrote:
> > ??? ???Wouldn't it make more sense to include
> > WWV and WWVH along with WWVB?
<snip>
> Such a system requires connectivity to the internet. WWVB does
> not; just requires a receiver.
As does a GPS based time sytem.
Both WWVB and GPS require decoding of the time information by something.
> > Then, there is the
> > matter of GPS, which has a time capability that is incidental to its
> > navigation function.
> GPS can only be used where the satellites can be "seen" by the
> receiver.
Which is the entire planet.
> The WWV system still has its uses. I suspect its cost is trivial
> compared to other systems, too.
> > > Would you also kindly define what is a "single axis of data,"
> > > in terms
> > > familiar to those involved in communications engineering and technology?
> >
> > ??? ???A single quantity, like time or location
> >
> > > What, then, would be "multiple axes of data?"
> >
> > ??? ???Two or more simultaneous quantities, like time AND loca
> tion or
> > course
> > AND speed.
> The WWV system isn't just about time. The transmitters are also
> frequency standards. That's two axes of data. For those of us who
> use HF, they are also propagation beacons - that's three axes.
> There are also voice geomagnetic announcements - that's four axes.
GPS provides a better frequency standard that WWV.
It does not provide voice announcements or serve as a HF beacon though.
<snip remaining>
Mark Kramer
Phil Kane <Phil...@nov.shmovz.ka.pop> wrote:
>Something must have changed (or been fixed) then - we made
>measurements about three years ago and there was about six seconds
>offset - an eternity for accurate time measurements. 340 nanoseconds
>we can tolerate. Six seconds we can't.
It's changed. GPS and UTC now differ by 14 seconds, according to
http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/gpstt.html. This is because GPS time does
not include leap seconds.
This 14 second difference is part of the GPS broadcast, so can easily
be backed out of the GPS time data to produce UTC. Once corrected,
the UTC values have the stated accuracy.
Don't be confused by the latency of some GPS units in producing time/fix
products. I've seen them produce fixes several seconds later. That's why
the time is included in postition data, so you know when you were there.
If you want time from your GPS, you need either the 1PPS pulse output or
a unit with a known and predictable period from real time to character
output. For many uses, simply assuming that the first character of the
output string (NMEA) occurs at the time in the message is adequate,
but that's not going to get you your 340ns accuracy.
For example, I am using a Trimble Acutime to feed an home-brew time
demon. Tests comparing system time from this demon to ntp stratum 1
servers gave a few millisecond difference. Good enough for me.
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
> On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 00:10:13 EDT, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> >Each GPS sattelite has it's own on board atomic clock and the system can
> >easily provide UTC with accuracy on the few microseconds level with an
> >ultimate limit of +/- 340 nanoseconds using an appropriate receiver and
> >hardware.
> Something must have changed (or been fixed) then - we made
> measurements about three years ago and there was about six seconds
> offset - an eternity for accurate time measurements. 340 nanoseconds
> we can tolerate. Six seconds we can't.
> --
The only thing that has changed since the first sattelite launched is
that the accuracy degrading dither for civilian use was removed about
7 years ago. With the dither the time accuracy was in the range of tens
of microseconds.
Whereever you were getting your six seconds of error from, it wasn't
from the GPS system.
Dave Heil
> On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 18:13:01 EDT, AF6AY <LenAn...@ieee.org> wrote:
>
>> The only problem there
>> is that it ALSO is a 'set-up' kind of 'test' (any touch-typist on
>> a TTY would 'win') and has very little entertainment value.
>
> My secretary at March AFB (early 1960s) could and did type faster than
> the Model 28 could cut tape. It frustrated her no end.
My cohort at the old U.S. Embassy in Guinea-Bissau and I could jam one
up as well. Nothing like poking tape on numerous multi-page outgoing
cables five or six days per week to build typing speed and technique.
The 28's were set up so that we never saw what we typed appear on paper.
If you really wanted to check your work, you'd have to gather up the
perf tape and look at it. Those machines were replaced just after I
left Bissau in late 1987. I took the very last State Department 28 in
Africa out of service in Sierra Leone in 1990. We had to destroy the
innards, but a colleague wanted the cabinet. He re-worked the thing and
turned it into a bar in his living room. His wife arrived at post a
couple of months later and the new bar was quickly relegated to the
fellow's ham shack.
During my early time at State, most places were using Teletype Model 40
equipment with the three 8" disk drives and the fastest, most rugged
impact printer I'd ever seen. That stuff was gradually replaced by
computer equipment in the 1987 to 1992 time frame.
I ran a Model 15 in Cincy and also had a Model 33 for a while. I wanted
a 28 with the 3-speed gear shift badly. W8JIN offered me one long after
I'd begun using a Commodore C-64. I gave it about thirty seconds
thought before rejecting it as too big and heavy.
Len's point about touch typists winning a speed contest with Morse ops
would depend entirely upon how fast the typist was. The second junior
op I had in Bissau would have been lucky to do 30 wpm on a keyboard.
With the teletype model 40 stuff, there was not any typing of cables at
all. Secretaries typed the cable and they were fed into an OCR. The
operator might have to correct a formatting error or the occasional
misread character. With the advent of the classified LAN's and the
computerized equipment, drafters would electronically release cable text
and addressees to the communications center and the ops would send the
messages. Incoming traffic was routed in the same way, mostly
automatically. Anything not understood by the computer would route to a
'spill que' to be manually assigned action and info offices.
Occasionally the Deputy Chief of Mission would telephone or e-mail a
request that the action office for a given cable be changed.
By then, part of our work involved keeping message router databases (the
military addressees--especially Navy--could change frequently) up to
date. The computerization was supposed to result in the paperless
office. It didn't. The stuff was just printed somewhere other than in
the comm center.
Dave K8MN
N2...@aol.com
> > > Are you familiar with the Internet-based ntp system?
> > Such a system requires connectivity to the internet.
> > WWVB does
> > not; just requires a receiver.
>
> A computer running ntpd can get
> metrology-grade time service from radio signals. ntpd can use
> radio
> only, Internet only or both.
That is more complex and costly than a <$50 wristwatch or wall clock,
however. And it takes a lot more attention than simply keeping
batteries in it.
> > > There is probably no purpose for which Morse
> > > can be used as a
> > > machine language where there isn't a choice of other,
> > > better suited languages available.
> > Yes, there is: Any application where the sender or listener
> > may be a human rather than a machine, and where an
> > interface like a keyboard/screen isn't practical.
>I take it that you don't know what "machine language" is.
Actually, I do.
> Humans are
> not supposed to be involved.
Why not?
> If they are, it's not machine to machine
> communications.
Why does it matter? Morse Code can be machine-to-machine,
machine-to-human, human-to-machine, or human-to-human.
That's a big plus.
> > > When you look at the development of the Internet,
> > > Linux and other
> > > free software, you have to wonder about the infrastructure
> > > behind it.
> > > How did it come about? There was no regulatory body.
> > Actually there was and is. "The internet" as we know it could
> > not exist without certain legislation that made it possible, and
> > a huge commercial investment of communications infrastructure
> > to support it.
>
> > What we call "the internet" developed from ARPANET, which
> > was
> > a DoD thing, just like GPS. Swords into plowshares and all that.
>
> � �Utter hogwash.
It wasn't developed from ARPANET?
> It started out as a network of Universities and a few
> defense contractors' laboratories.
DoD funded, then. Maybe not directly, but still DoD funded.
It wasn't a bunch of self-funded basement experimenters.
> Much of the funding came from the
> individual Universities. The contribution of the government (via the
> defense contractors) was not absolutely necessary.
But it was there.
> Besides, after the
> Tappan worm incident, the networks were split into ARPAnet and > DARPAnet
> (with a "D," as in defense). The public Internet is descended from > the s
mall slice of that pie.
How does that make what I wrote "utter hogwash" in any way?
> > > There were no licenses. There were no "Elmers."
> > Actually, there were, just not in the same form as in radio. The
> > licenses were regulations; the Elmers were people who
> > developed easier-to-use systems.
>
> � �Again, that is preposterous nonsense.
Why? Was there no legislation needed to make the internet
as we know it possible? Was there no one working to make it
easier to use?
> > > Until recently, there wasn't even any formal schooling
> > > available,
> > > except on the sort of machinery that existed only within the
> > > Fortune 500. Early Internet users and developers had to
> > > read O'Reilly books and figure it out on their own.
> > How do you define "recently"? I got started online in 1997, and
> > "the internet" had only been publicly available for a few years at
> > that point.
>
> � �The Internet opened to the general public in 1993 and 1
994.
14-15 years ago.
So I got online 3 to 4 years after the beginning.
> At that
> time, there were essentially no courses at accredited Universities
> that
> covered UNIX, TCP/IP, the Internet or related topics.
No courses in UNIX at all?
> You had to learn
> it on your own. The Universities mainly taught MVS and 360/370
> architecture.
> > > That showed great initiative. It demonstrated the sort of
> > > determined, driven advancement of technology that was once
> > > seen in amateur radio.
> > The internet was and is a commercial enterprise. Amateur radio
> > was never such an enterprise, by its very nature.
>
> The Internet was not commercial in origin. When I first gained
> access, I had to sign an agreement not to use it for commercial
> purposes. Sending out for pizza via e-mail would have been a
> violation
> and would have resulted in account cancellation. But than, that
> was long
> ago. Spam hadn't been invented yet.
And how long did that no-commercial-use restriction last? It was long
gone in 1997.
> > > The infrastructure that is being wasted on
> > > Morse includes band
> > > segments that have, until recently, been
> > > reserved for its exclusive use.
> > What band segments are those, specifically? In the USA,
> > there have been no Morse-code-exclusive-use band
> > segments (except on 6
> > and 2 meters) for many years.
> � �The CW bands were those band segments that excluded voi
ce.
But they have included data modes like RTTY for more than 46
years. Every Hz of them.
You claimed:
"infrastructure that is being wasted on Morse includes"
band segments that have, until recently, been reserved
for its exclusive use."
Note the terms "is being wasted" and "until recently". But no such
band segments (except 2.5% of 6 and 2 meters) have existed for at
least 46 years.
Not only that, but modes besides FSK RTTY have been
common on the HF amateur bands since at least the early
1980s.
> Until fairly recently, there was no such thing as "data."
Please define "fairly recently". 10 years? 20 years? 46 years?
All of the non-voice parts of the bands have been open to
data modes for decades. That hams didn't use them much
30-40 years ago wasn't because of Morse Code.
> There was some RTTY,
> but it was never a major issue.
When?
> For many decades, the traffic in the HF
> ham bands was SSB voice or CW.
Hams began using SSB voice in the early 1930s. It
became more popular in the late 1940s and really
took off in the late 1950s-early 1960s.
But there was also AM voice, narrowband FM voice,
RTTY, SSTV, and even some FAX.
> A pie chart would show a very small slice
> labeled "other."
Perhaps, 30-40 years ago. Think about why that was.
It wasn't because of Morse Code.
> > > It will be interesting to
> > > see what the marketplace does to code tapes and code keys.
> > There are more keys on the market now than when I
> > became a ham 40 years ago.
> What about code tapes? How much longer will they last?
They've been largely replaced by Morse Code training
software, like G4FON's. No need to buy tapes anymore,
just download some free software and make your own. Or
download files to your MP3 player or iPod.
> My guess is
> that those keys are sold only to replace other keys.
My observation is that a considerable number are sold
to new hams who want to *use* Morse Code on the air.
Is that wrong? Should hams not learn, use or promote
Morse Code anymore?
> I doubt that there
> are very many first time key buyers today.
I know a couple. And since the usable life of a key is
measured in decades, the need for replacements is
pretty limited.
And consider this:
There are a considerable number of companies making
CW-only or CW-centric low-power HF amateur transceivers.
They are being sold in the tens of thousands.
For example, a new company called Elecraft appeared
in 1999 selling a CW-only QRP HF transceiver *kit* for
a bit under $600. To date, more then 6000 have been sold,
with minimal advertising. The company later produced
other CW-only transceiver kits, and they have sold well
with minimal advertising.
> > I only know for certain of one country that had a no-code-test
> > HF amateur radio license before 2003. There may be others,
> > but not many.
>
> > Japan has long had a nocodetest HF amateur license called the
> > 4th class. But that license was and is limited to low power levels
> > (10 watts) and to parts of the amateur bands which are
> > worldwide exclusively allocated to amateurs.
>
> > Japan's claim was that the treaty exists to prevent interference
> > between users of different radio services and between users
> > of the same
> > radio service in different countries.
>
> � �So you admit that different countries interpreted their
treaty
> obligations in different ways?
I know that Japan used that logic to get around the ITU-R treaty
requirement.
Do you know of *any* other country (besides Japan)
that had a nocodetest amateur radio license with HF privileges before
2003?
> > Would you have preferred that FCC violate the treaty?
> > Or create a
> > license class similar to Japan's 4th class?
>
>�I'm not going to spend a lot of time doing your research
> for you, but
> there was more then one treaty and those treaties expired or were
> modified over a period of years.
I have researched the subject. The treaty in question is
the ITU-R treaty, to which the USA is a signatory. That's
not just my opinion; it's what the FCC has repeatedly
written in its Report and Orders.
Before July 2003, in part S25.5, the ITU-R treaty required
that all amateur licenses which grant privileges below 30 MHz
had to have Morse Code tests.
That requirement was made optional at WRC 2003. Signatory
countries could retain Morse Code testing or eliminate it, as they
chose.
Some have chosen to reduce or eliminate it. Others have not.
> No-code HF licenses came about over
> time in a number of countries.
How many countries besides Japan had them before July 2003?
How many have them now?
> The US was either one of the last to drop
> code or was dead last to do so.
Japan still requires Morse Code for First Class licenses. Canadians
have the option of passing a Morse Code test or getting a higher
score on the written exam. Most of the countries in the former
Soviet Union still require Morse Code testing.
In any event, here in the USA:
- there has been a nocodetest amateur radio license for more than 17
years
- all classes of amateur license have been available for just a 5 wpm
test for 18 years with medical waiver, and for almost 8 years without
such a waiver.
- Morse Code testing has been completely gone for more than a year.
Yet US amateurs continue to use the mode extensively. Some use it
exclusively.
73 de Jim, N2EY
Dave Heil
> On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 07:48:10 EDT, N2...@aol.com wrote:
>
>> Actually, there were, just not in the same form as in radio. The
>> licenses were regulations; the Elmers were people who developed
>> easier-to-use systems.
>
> Yes, there were "licenses" to users but it was a one-way deal. My
> former FCC Bureau Chief went to the Reagan White House as the
> Assistant Chief of Staff for Administrative Services, which included
> overseeing the White House Communications Agency (staffed by the
> military, not the Secret Service which has its own comm net). He was
> given an ARPANET connection at home and WHCA mobile phone in his car.
> When Reagan left office and George Bush I put his own Chief of Staff -
> John Sununu - in place, my guy was replaced because of a personality
> conflict and his ARPANET connection and mobile phone were physically
> removed from his house and car with less than two hours notice.
I've dealt with the WHCA folks on several occasions. The last was
during the '97 Clinton-Yeltsin Helsinki Summit. It is plain why WHCA is
staffed with military people: They don't get overtime. :-) Those I
worked with were very dedicated and hardworking. The flurry of activity
preceding a Presidential visit--for things like frequency clearances
from the host government, the size of the PBX and number of lines for
the visit hotel(s) and the number of cellular phones, is phenomenal.
That Helsinki Summit was a double whammy in that it also involved a
SECSTATE visit which meant that State's commo team was also on the
ground with an entirely different set of communications requirements.
Dave K8MN
Mark Kramer
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
It was turned off about 7 years ago and even then just put the ultimate
accuracy in the low microsecond range.
GPS has never been off by six seconds.
Phil Kane
>> GPS can only be used where the satellites can be "seen" by the
>> receiver.
>
>
> In or near the continental US, that is not an issue.
It is a big issue in my comm room which is partially underground with
concrete walls (what they call a "daylight basement" here) where
neither WWVB nor GPS signals penetrate. I have not yet found an
"atomic clock" (either digital or analog) that has an external antenna
collection - they may exist but not at the consumer level. The
consumer-grade clocks that I have sync well on the "upper" story but
do not hold their accuracy for long.
And to add insult to injury, the analog wall clock that I use by
intent has a face with the marine "silent period" and "auto alarm"
markings, a configuration well known to shipboard radio operators. For
a $20 quartz clock it keeps time remarkably well, considering that I
have to manually adjust it at "DST" time changes anyhow.
Phil Kane
> What about code tapes? How much longer will they last? My guess is
>that those keys are sold only to replace other keys. I doubt that there
>are very many first time key buyers today.
Within the last two years I bought a set of keyer paddles to
complement the 60-year-old J-38 key that I refurbished. And I'm not a
"Valiant Morseman" (tm - Len Anderson) by any means.
"Out here" many of the teenagers who become new hams through one means
or another take the CW classes that our radio club gives if for no
other reason than it's a "thing" that many of their contemporaries who
use cellphones for calls and texting can't do. One-upsmanship still
lives.
Klystron
> Klystron <x...@yyy.zzz> wrote:
> > I take it that you don't know what "machine language" is. Humans are
> >not supposed to be involved. If they are, it's not machine to machine
> >communications.
> Ham radio is supposed to be human-to-human communications, not
> machine-to-machine communications.
He gave an example of Morse being used to encode transponder
identification, thus proving the continuing need for Morse. I countered
that transponder ID's are read by machines (the computers that drive
video displays), not by humans and, therefore, any machine language
would do. In fact, a REAL machine language would probably be better
suited to the task.
Please, let's not lose the context.
--
Klystron
an old freind
> On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 18:10:15 EDT, Klystron <x...@yyy.zzz> wrote:
> > I take it that you don't know what "machine language" is. Humans are
> >not supposed to be involved. If they are, it's not machine to machine
> >communications.
>
> Ham radio is supposed to be human-to-human communications, not
> machine-to-machine communications.
according to whom?
indeed I would say most of Ham use is Machine to human interestion
wether by watching my R/C aircraft fly (as well as to to send my
comands to it) as though I was on board or my interaction with the
fairly lifely packet system that survives in this where I interact
with with people but very often not in real time at all
or looking at what recent didx aprs staion I can see as a guide t
where I might be able to send a signal
frankly phil you seem to over looking a lot of ham radio
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
> In article <i4dgu39mmvnnjf4g5...@4ax.com>,
> Phil Kane <Phil...@nov.shmovz.ka.pop> wrote:
> >Something must have changed (or been fixed) then - we made
> >measurements about three years ago and there was about six seconds
> >offset - an eternity for accurate time measurements. 340 nanoseconds
> >we can tolerate. Six seconds we can't.
> It's changed. GPS and UTC now differ by 14 seconds, according to
> http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/gpstt.html. This is because GPS time does
> not include leap seconds.
If you read the whole thing, you find there are several differences
betweeen the raw time and UTC.
> This 14 second difference is part of the GPS broadcast, so can easily
> be backed out of the GPS time data to produce UTC. Once corrected,
> the UTC values have the stated accuracy.
All the offsets from UTC and their values are in the NAV message. Most
receivers do that adjustment automaticaly as UTC is what most end users
want.
Now, if you have some receiver that outputs the raw uncorrected stuff
or a home brew receiver without the corrections...
That would be a case of RTFM.
> Don't be confused by the latency of some GPS units in producing time/fix
> products. I've seen them produce fixes several seconds later. That's why
> the time is included in postition data, so you know when you were there.
> If you want time from your GPS, you need either the 1PPS pulse output or
> a unit with a known and predictable period from real time to character
> output. For many uses, simply assuming that the first character of the
> output string (NMEA) occurs at the time in the message is adequate,
> but that's not going to get you your 340ns accuracy.
Most cheap receivers are either optimized for position or time, not
both, so it pays to read the spec sheet carefully.
> For example, I am using a Trimble Acutime to feed an home-brew time
> demon. Tests comparing system time from this demon to ntp stratum 1
> servers gave a few millisecond difference. Good enough for me.
That's one that has been optimized for time, so a good choice for your
application. A bit of attention to details could get you into the
microsecond range, but for the majority of people not necessary.
Phil Kane
> The 'box the size of a toaster' part is out, but could you settle for
>4 old blade servers, 1U size each, in a rack mount?
No rack mount space available, but it sounds good. My (step)son is
the IT guy at a well-known audio test equipment manufacturer and has
those sort of contacts.
Phil Kane
>GPS provides a better frequency standard that WWV.
"Standard frequencies" are defined in the International Radio
Regulations of the ITU. On which Standard Frequency does the GPS
system operate?
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
I missed that; what kind of transponders?
Certainly not aircraft transponders as they have no morse id.
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
> On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 23:34:08 EDT, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> >GPS provides a better frequency standard that WWV.
> "Standard frequencies" are defined in the International Radio
> Regulations of the ITU. On which Standard Frequency does the GPS
> system operate?
Irrelevant to the issue.
In any case, there have been several articles in the HAM press on moding
surplus telco GPS time/frequency standands for HAM use.
The usual output is 10 MHz with a lot better performance than anything
a crystal can provide.
Cecil Moore
> My secretary at March AFB (early 1960s) could and did type faster than
> the Model 28 could cut tape. It frustrated her no end.
I can send Morse Code a lot faster than I can text
message on my cellphone.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com
N2...@aol.com
> Paul Schleck posted on 24 Mar 08:
> >AF6AY <LenAnder...@ieee.org> writes:
> >>>According to this recent demonstration on the Tonight Show with Jay
> >>>Leno:
> >>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?vAhsSgcsTMd4
> >>Ahem...<quibble mode on>...that little bit on the Tonight Show was
> >>a 'setup' gig that employed two young local male actors as the
> >>(described) "text messaging experts"
No, it wasn't. They were not actors.
In the clip, the sending text messager is described by Jay Leno as
"the country's fastest text messager" and his name is given as
"Ben Cook". He says his record is sending a 160 character message
in 57 seconds. Those facts can be verified by watching the clip.
160 characters in 57 seconds at 5 characters per word works out to
approximately 33.68 wpm.
160 characters in 57 seconds at 6 characters per word (allowing for
spaces between words) works out to approximately 28.07 wpm.
The current Guinness Book of World Records for a 160 character
message is 41 seconds. That works out to about 46.83 and 39.02 wpm for
5 and 6 characters-per-word, respectively.
All are well below the world-record Morse Code speed, or the speed of
skilled Morse Code operators.
The 160 character message used in the text-message speed-record
attempts
is a standard message previously disclosed, so that all attempts use
the same
message. The Leno test used a message unknown to any of the
participants.
> >>but the two hams (one of which
> >>would very soon become marketing director for Heil Sound) were
> >>real. That is the input I got directly from a reliable staffer on
> >>the Tonight Show.
Whom you do not name, so his information cannot be verified
independently.
> >>Took a few phone calls to get that information
> >>but it is an advantage of living inside the entertainment capital of
> >>the USA (aka Los Angeles, CA)...and the NBC western Hq is only
> >>about 5 miles south of my place, down Hollywood Way to Alameda and
> >>then east about a mile.
What difference does that make?
> >>That whole bit was really a send-up on the
> >>popular fad of text messaging done by teeners and young adults.
> >>That bit is about as 'real documentary' as Leno's send-ups on the
> >>'street interviews' with ordinary (apparently clueless) younger
> >>folk on various kinds of knowledge. In short, ONLY for gag purposes.
> >Sorry, but I've got to call baloney on this one. The individual who
> >appeared on the Tonight Show who sent the text message was actually Ben
> >Cook, and not an actor. Ben held the world's record for fastest text
> >messaging:
>
> If you say so, then it is so.
No, it has been verified by several independent sources, including
people who
were actually there and part of the test.
> That 'recent demonstration' was over a year ago, was it not?
Yes - what difference does that make? The video clip can be
reviewed for confirmation.
> "The Tonight Show with Jay Leno" is an entertainment vehicle. It is
> not a documentary source of absolute facts.
Yet the facts are clear: Neither the text message sender nor the Morse
Code operators were actors, according to named people who were
actually there.
> >The two Morse code operators, Chip Margelli, K7JA, and Ken Miller,
> >K6CTW, have attested to this being an actual contest with an actual,
> >previously unknown, message to send, which was sent both by Morse code,
> >and by text messaging. And there's no disputing that fast Morse code
> >would always beat an SMS text message of the same length.
>
> I have corresponded with Mr. Margelli in his new position as
> Director of Marketing for Heil Sound...about Heil products, not
> about this alleged 'test' or 'contest' on the 'Leno show.'
Yet you use the word "alleged" and imply he is wrong when he says
the text-messager was not an actor.
> I have
> NO complaints about Mr. Margelli's nor Mr. Miller's capabilities
> with manual morse code communications.
OK so far.
>I only have complaints
> about this entertainment gig being used as 'factual demonstration'
> of any comparison of manual morse code versus any other mode.
Why? What are the complaints? What was not factual about the
demonstration?
Do you think that text messaging is faster than Morse Code done
by skilled operators?
The text-messaging sender has been identified as a record-holder
named Ben Cook. The record text-messge speed is below that
of skilled Morse Code operators, and the text-messager simply
lost the speed race. Not just on the show, but in rehearsals.
The two Morse Code operators, K7JA and K6CTW, have publicly and
privately said it was a real test. Are they not telling the truth?
Why should
anyone believe your account of an unnamed ex-staffperson, and not
believe
two identified people who were actual participants?
> >Two named witnesses would appear to trump one anonymous source.
>
> >Therefore, your anonymous "reliable staffer" seems anything but.
>
> I cannot argue your statements or 'baloney' comments in this
> venue.
Why not?
What's wrong with "this venue"?
> My original source is now working for another show.
> No more access to Tonight show records is possible. If you or
> any other morse code mode champion say it was a 'real test,'
> then it must be a real test.
What was wrong with the test? Given the evidence, why would any
reasonable person say it was not a real test?
> As to the efficacy claim that manual morse code communications
> beats cellular telephone textual-only (by keypad) communications,
> I do not know of a single communications service or provider
> that uses 'text' (via cellphone) for two-way communications.
Mine does.
When I receive a text message, the cellphone display shows "reply"
in the lower left corner. All I have to do is push the right button,
type
in my message, and push "send". The recipient can text me back, too.
That's two-way communications. I've had long conversations via text
messaging that way. It's slow but it works. Effective in noisy
environments
or when having a voice call is otherwise not the best choice.
Text messaging is a useful communications tool. So is Morse Code.
I use both.
> Of what point was this entertainment venue 'test' actually proving?
It showed that old methods aren't necessarily slower or less useful
than
newer ones.
In the first part of the clip, Jay Leno selects a young lady from the
audience,
talks to her a bit, and asks if she thinks Morse Code or text
messaging is
faster. The young lady says text messaging is faster. The audience
agrees.
Jay Leno then brings out the "country's fastest text messager" (not an
actor) and the two Morse Code operators, introduces them, and explains
the test.
The audience and the young lady are confident that the new technology
of text
messaging will be faster than the old Morse Code.
Yet when the test is actually run, Morse Code proves to be faster, and
produces
a hard-copy printout for verification. The world-record-holder could
not beat a couple
of amateurs going at a fraction of the Morse Code record speed.
Not only is the bit entertaining, it proves the point of newer not
always being faster.
73 de Jim, N2EY
Cecil Moore
> Yet when the test is actually run, Morse Code proves to be faster, and
> produces
> a hard-copy printout for verification. The world-record-holder could
> not beat a couple
> of amateurs going at a fraction of the Morse Code record speed.
What serious CW operator cannot send Morse faster than he/she
can text-message? I don't know of anyone including me. But
give me a full sized keyboard and the situation changes.
> Not only is the bit entertaining, it proves the point of newer not
> always being faster.
Given no previous experience and one hour of training for
each mode, which would win? :-)
Ivor Jones
news:xxx-21D47C.2...@news.verizon.net
[snip]
: Wouldn't it make more sense to include WWV and WWVH
: along with WWVB?
Or even MSF...
73 Ivor G6URP
Ivor Jones
<ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
news:vurlb5-...@mail.specsol.com
: N2...@aol.com wrote:
: > On Mar 23, 9:53???pm, Klystron <x...@yyy.zzz> wrote:
: > > ???Paul W. Schleck <pschl...@oasis.novia.net>" wrote:
: > > ??? ???Wouldn't it make more sense to include
: > > WWV and WWVH along with WWVB?
:
: <snip>
:
: > Such a system requires connectivity to the internet.
: > WWVB does not; just requires a receiver.
:
: As does a GPS based time sytem.
:
: Both WWVB and GPS require decoding of the time
: information by something.
:
: > > Then, there is the
: > > matter of GPS, which has a time capability that is
: > > incidental to its navigation function.
:
: > GPS can only be used where the satellites can be "seen"
: > by the receiver.
:
: Which is the entire planet.
Those bits of it with an uninterrupted view of the sky, anyway. Doesn't
work too well in my basement office. Or under the canopy of trees on the
road outside my house.
73 Ivor G6URP
N2...@aol.com
> N...@aol.com wrote:
> > The world-record-holder
(in text messaging)
> > could not beat a couple
> > of amateurs going at a fraction of the Morse Code record speed.
> What serious CW operator cannot send Morse faster than he/she
> can text-message? I don't know of anyone including me. But
> give me a full sized keyboard and the situation changes.
Of course! But what cell phone has a full sized keyboard?
And if the Morse operators are allowed full sized Morse keyboards,
the situation changes yet again.
With a decent 10 speed bicycle I could win the Boston Marathon
(as long as everybody else has to run).
> > Not only is the bit entertaining, it proves the point of newer not
> > always being faster.
>
> Given no previous experience and one hour of training for
> each mode, which would win? :-)
Bwaahaahaa! ;-) Good one!
73 de Jim, N2EY
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Neither do any of the traditional time and frequency stations without
a working antenna.
Ivor Jones
news:onbob5-...@mail.specsol.com
[snip]
: > : > GPS can only be used where the satellites can be
: > : > "seen" by the receiver.
: > :
: > : Which is the entire planet.
:
: > Those bits of it with an uninterrupted view of the sky,
: > anyway. Doesn't work too well in my basement office. Or
: > under the canopy of trees on the road outside my house.
:
: Neither do any of the traditional time and frequency
: stations without a working antenna.
True, but my internet-connected computers don't need a working antenna,
they get their info from the ntp server :-)
73 Ivor G6URP
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
> [snip]
Where do you think most ntp servers get their time these days?
Phil Kane
>Of course! But what cell phone has a full sized keyboard?
IIRC I can generate and send text-messages using the Motorola Phone
Tools computer software connected to my Motorola cellphone via a USB
port, thereby using a full-size screen and keyboard to do so. I use
that setup to edit my "call list" in the 'phone.
Although I have received text messages on that 'phone, I have yet had
no need to send one. Compared to the JHS and HS crowd, I am certainly
"deprived".
Jeff
">>Of course! But what cell phone has a full sized keyboard?
>
> IIRC I can generate and send text-messages using the Motorola Phone
> Tools computer software connected to my Motorola cellphone via a USB
> port, thereby using a full-size screen and keyboard to do so. I use
> that setup to edit my "call list" in the 'phone.
>
So given a typist of comparable proficiency to the Morse operators (
meaning probably in the region of 80 - 100 wpm) it is most likely that the
text message would win the race; depending on system delays, which again is
not a fair comparison to face to face Morse. You could wait for hours, or
days, or even years for the bands to open to a particular location!!
It all goes to show that you must compare like with like. I am sure that the
Morse operators would have also lost if they were forced to send extraneous
letters as they cycled through to find the correct one, as the text'er had
to.
73
Jeff
Klystron
> So given a typist of comparable proficiency to the Morse operators (
> meaning probably in the region of 80 - 100 wpm) it is most likely that the
> text message would win the race; depending on system delays, which again is
> not a fair comparison to face to face Morse. You could wait for hours, or
> days, or even years for the bands to open to a particular location!!
>
> It all goes to show that you must compare like with like. I am sure that the
> Morse operators would have also lost if they were forced to send extraneous
> letters as they cycled through to find the correct one, as the text'er had
> to.
Ultimately, we need to treat these various modes as methods of
sending text - no more and no less. Two methods that send the same text
are competing modes, regardless of whether keyboards, a telephone keypad
or a telegraph key is used to send it. A method that sends those blocks
of text faster and with fewer errors is better. A slower, more error
prone method is inferior. Not all encoding schemes are equal. Some, like
ASCII, encode the entire alphabet, including upper and lower case.
Others, like ISO-Latin-1, can encode even more characters. In general,
the more inclusive encoding method is better. An encoding scheme that is
easily adapted to error correction (parity, automatic re-send, etc.) is
also considered better. So claiming that phones, data modes and Morse
can't be compared because they are somehow "different" ignores the
ultimate reason for their existence - text communication via radio.
--
Klystron
Michael Coslo
> "Jeff" <je...@local.host> wrote:
>
>> So given a typist of comparable proficiency to the Morse operators (
>> meaning probably in the region of 80 - 100 wpm) it is most likely that the
>> text message would win the race; depending on system delays, which again is
>> not a fair comparison to face to face Morse. You could wait for hours, or
>> days, or even years for the bands to open to a particular location!!
>>
>> It all goes to show that you must compare like with like. I am sure that the
>> Morse operators would have also lost if they were forced to send extraneous
>> letters as they cycled through to find the correct one, as the text'er had
>> to.
>
>
>
> Ultimately, we need to treat these various modes as methods of
> sending text - no more and no less.
> Two methods that send the same text
> are competing modes, regardless of whether keyboards, a telephone keypad
> or a telegraph key is used to send it.
Respectfully I disagree. None of these methods compete with each other.
They are just different applications of technology, some simpler, some
more complex, and some quite strange (read feld-hell) Users can use
whatever mode they are interested in, and are on equal footing.
> A method that sends those blocks
> of text faster and with fewer errors is better. A slower, more error
> prone method is inferior.
Here is some difficulty when we try to apply your description to HF. It
is difficult to get a high data rate via HF due to the relatively noisy
conditions.
An example is Digital SSTV vs analog SSTV. On the face of it, digital
SSTV has it all over the old fashioned variety. No image size
restrictions, digital accuracy, and the jpeg you send looks the same on
the recipient's end. The problem is under certain conditions that exist
fairly often, the analog SSTV picture is sent, looked at and stored,
while the digital version never arrives, because noisy condx causr the
receiving end to send a continual stream of "Retry please".
NOw to apply this to text modes, this would make PSK31 inferior to
PSK64, 128. and so on. But the psk31 text reads about the same speed,
and takes up less bandwidth.
- 73 de Mike N3LI -
N2...@aol.com
> Ultimately, we need to treat these various modes as methods of
> sending text - no more and no less.
I disagree! Morse Code is more than simply a method of sending text.
> Two methods that send the same text
> are competing modes, regardless of whether keyboards, a telephone keypad
> or a telegraph key is used to send it.
I disagree again! Lots of differences, for example, a simple telegraph
key can be made in a few minutes with simple tools. Keyboards are a
bit more work.
> A method that sends those blocks
> of text faster and with fewer errors is better. A slower, more error
> prone method is inferior.
If the only factors considered are speed and accuracy, that's true.
But there are other
factors when it comes to things like amateur radio - bandwidth,
required equipment,
etc.
> Not all encoding schemes are equal. Some, like
> ASCII, encode the entire alphabet, including upper and lower case.
> Others, like ISO-Latin-1, can encode even more characters. In general,
> the more inclusive encoding method is better. An encoding scheme that is
> easily adapted to error correction (parity, automatic re-send, etc.) is
> also considered better.
See above about what factors are considered.
> So claiming that phones, data modes and Morse
> can't be compared because they are somehow "different" ignores the
> ultimate reason for their existence - text communication via radio.
One can compare all sorts of things, and have the results come out
differently
depending on the factors considered. Is rollerblading "better" than
running because
the same person can go faster and farther for the same effort?
The real point of the Jay Leno clip was to show that the assumption of
"newer is faster/better" turned out to be exactly wrong. The audience
and the woman Leno talked to were *sure* the text-messager would win,
yet Morse Code was faster.
If all you want to do is send text from point A to point B, there are
lots of good modes.
But consider these factors:
1) Morse Code can be manually encoded and decoded by humans and
machines. RTTY, ASCII, etc., cannot, at least in practical terms.
(Yes, I once got to the point where I could usually recognize "RYRYRY"
and "W3ABT" in 45.45 baud Baudot FSK, but have you ever met anyone who
could have conversations that way?)
2) Morse Code can be done with audio or video - by watching a flashing
light, text on a screen, or simply listening to it. Audio reception is
a big advantage in situations where a visual display isn't practical.
3) Morse Code can be implemented with a bare minimum of simple
equipment, or with complex equipment, or anything in between.
There are lots more, that's just a sample.
None of this proves the idea that all radio amateurs must use Morse
Code, or must pass some sort of test on it, etc. That issue has been
decided (at least in the USA).
---
Should radio amateurs not *use* Morse Code any more?
73 de Jim, N2EY
Phil Kane
>The real point of the Jay Leno clip was to show that the assumption of
>"newer is faster/better" turned out to be exactly wrong. The audience
>and the woman Leno talked to were *sure* the text-messager would win,
>yet Morse Code was faster.
As I said in both a print interview and a TV interview during the
December storms here while passing gobs of hospital traffic using PTT
UHF FM ham radios when the electrical power, cellphones, internet
circuits , landlines, and even the sat-phone connections were all
down to the hospitals on the Oregon coast, we showed that 1950s
technology can get through when 1990s technology fails.
Jeff
"
>
> Ultimately, we need to treat these various modes as methods of
> sending text - no more and no less. Two methods that send the same text
> are competing modes, regardless of whether keyboards, a telephone keypad
> or a telegraph key is used to send it. A method that sends those blocks
> of text faster and with fewer errors is better. A slower, more error
> prone method is inferior. Not all encoding schemes are equal. Some, like
> ASCII, encode the entire alphabet, including upper and lower case.
> Others, like ISO-Latin-1, can encode even more characters. In general,
> the more inclusive encoding method is better. An encoding scheme that is
> easily adapted to error correction (parity, automatic re-send, etc.) is
> also considered better. So claiming that phones, data modes and Morse
> can't be compared because they are somehow "different" ignores the
> ultimate reason for their existence - text communication via radio.
>
Indeed, compare it with "text communication via radio" not with sending
Morse across a table. Try the same test, but sending a message to ZL or VK,
I am sure that the SMS message would win. The text message would have
arrived long before the band opened and you tuned up your antenna.
Jeff
Dave Platt
Klystron <x...@yyy.zzz> wrote:
> Ultimately, we need to treat these various modes as methods of
>sending text - no more and no less. Two methods that send the same text
>are competing modes, regardless of whether keyboards, a telephone keypad
>or a telegraph key is used to send it. A method that sends those blocks
>of text faster and with fewer errors is better. A slower, more error
>prone method is inferior. Not all encoding schemes are equal. Some, like
>ASCII, encode the entire alphabet, including upper and lower case.
>Others, like ISO-Latin-1, can encode even more characters. In general,
>the more inclusive encoding method is better. An encoding scheme that is
>easily adapted to error correction (parity, automatic re-send, etc.) is
>also considered better.
I hope you'll pardon me when I ask "Which deity spoke to you and laid
down those particular points of Absolute Truth?". What's all this "We
need to" and "no more and no less" and "xxx is better" and "yyy is
inferior" and "... is also considered better"?
If you're willing to state those as _your_ personal opinions of the
basis on which two partially-competing methods of encoding and
communicating _should_ be compared (and that no other criteria need
apply), I have no objection at all.
I do, however, object in principle to the idea that these are the
highest (or only) criteria, or that they're somehow sacred.
And, I also object to the idea (which I think is implied by the tone
of your other messages - please correct me if I'm wrong) that the
choice of communication methods is somehow exclusive... that the fact
that a method which is superior (by your criteria, perhaps) means that
other methods that you find inferior should be wiped out or
abandoned... or that people who prefer to use the other methods are
somehow responsible for Holding Back The True Progress.
My own perspective is that people may have *many* criteria for chosing
a means of communication (by radio or otherwise). Bandwidth, or
bandwidth*reliability is not the sole criterion that people use, in
practice, nor do I think there's any reason that it should be. Life
is full of tradeoffs between different criteria - information
bandwidth per Hz of spectrum, robustness of encoding, suitability for
multi-point communication, resistance to different sorts of
interference, cost of equipment, availability of equipment, and so
forth. I communicate with my wife by voice, by email, by telephone,
by scribbling half-illegible notes on scraps of paper, and by bringing
home flowers... different methods, for different types of information-
passing under varying conditions.
In commercial communications and public-safety, bandwidth (or payload)
and reliability and cost all play a big factor. In military
communications, reliability and security seem big, bandwidth is
important, and cost (of equipment at least) tends to take a back seat.
Ham radio is a much more diverse motivation-space. Some people
optimize their operations as for public safety and commercial (the
EMCOM folks), others for "most distance per watt" or "per dollar spent
on the radio" (QRP folks, homebrewers, and other experimenters),
others for portability, others for plain ordinary fun (according to
their own definition of fun... for some folks, using single-frequency
crystal-oscillator transmitters is just what gets their rocks off :-)
There's plenty of room in ham radio for different modes of operation.
Saying that we all *have* to abandon Morse (or SSB, or voice, or AM,
or...) and strap computers to all of our rigs, in order to encourage
experimentation and use with newer modes, is really missing the
point... it's implicitly denying a large percentage of hams the right
to explore those aspects of ham radio that *they* find interesting and
worthwhile.
If we were all being paid to do all of this stuff, then the people
paying us would perhaps have the right to set our agendas. We aren't
(and by the rules of the game, cannot be... at least, not here in the
US) and so we get to set our own priorities, operating-mode and
otherwise.
[And, for the record - I operate CW only rarely, and have enjoyed
experimenting with packet and the newer digital modes quite a bit.]
--
Dave Platt <dpl...@radagast.org> AE6EO
Friends of Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!
Cecil Moore
> There's plenty of room in ham radio for different modes of operation.
Not to mention other aspects not involving modes.
My favorite aspect of ham radio is pretty much mode
independent - experimenting with antennas.
Steve Bonine
> Indeed, compare it with "text communication via radio" not with sending
> Morse across a table. Try the same test, but sending a message to ZL or VK,
> I am sure that the SMS message would win. The text message would have
> arrived long before the band opened and you tuned up your antenna.
But where's the fun and the challenge?
If I want to do business with someone in Australia, I'll pick up the
telephone and avail myself of the investment of billions of dollars in
research money and construction cost for a worldwide communications
infrastructure. If my only objective in this case is to communicate
with a specific individual in Australia, right now, reliably, that's the
way to do it.
If I wait for a band opening and manage to snare some rare DX using only
my modest radio equipment and my wits, that's a completely different
goal. Comparing "communication" via ham radio and "communication" via
sending a text message is a lot like comparing traveling over the ocean
on a commercial airliner with doing it on your own sailboat. Yes, in
both cases you are transported from point A to point B. But goals and
priorities that determine "success" for these two endeavors are much
different.
I'm bemused by where this discussion of the Leno "Morse vs. Texting"
segment has gone. I have to give Leno's writers credit for coming up
with something entertaining and unique. It even gave ham radio a bit of
publicity. But a literal comparison of the two items misses the point
of ham radio as a hobby and avocation.
73, Steve KB9X
N2...@aol.com
> Indeed, compare it with "text communication via radio" not with sending
> Morse across a table. Try the same test, but sending a message to ZL or VK
,
> I am sure that the SMS message would win.
That's not guaranteed at all.
> The text message would have
> arrived long before the band opened and you tuned up your antenna.
You're assuming the band isn't open and the antenna needs tuning. That
changes the conditions of the test.
If the path from A to B is already set up and working, the Morse Code
speed advantage may be even greater than it was on the Jay Leno show,
because it only takes a fraction of a second for the direct radio
signal to reach the Antipodes, but the text message will be relayed
many times to go the same distance.
KB9X, in another post, makes a valid comparison between riding on a
jet airliner and piloting your own sailboat. Are sailboats "obsolete"
because they're slower?
73 de Jim, N2EY
Jeff
The test made an interesting piece of tv, but nothing more than that. All it
proved is that mobile phones have a slower and clumsier way of inputting
text than a proficient cw operator.
Jeff
Michael Coslo
>
> Indeed, compare it with "text communication via radio" not with sending
> Morse across a table. Try the same test, but sending a message to ZL or VK,
> I am sure that the SMS message would win. The text message would have
> arrived long before the band opened and you tuned up your antenna.
Let's not forget that the texters have their own limitations, such as
being in range of an antenna, hopefully no power outages or disasters
that cut off the service.
But truly that wasn't the point of the demonstration anyhow. All other
things being equal, texting is slower because of the physical aspect
differences between the two.
Voice would have beaten either OOK Morse or texting. But who cares about
that really? It's all good.
side trip....
I've alway thought that there are some interesting parallels between
regular folks and Us Hams, with seemingly different impressions by the
public.
humor alert!
Using an HT isn't cool, but Using a cell phone is.
Using OOK texting isn't cool, but using cell phone texting is.
My Suzuki Vitara with it's legal height Bugcatcher antenna isn't cool,
but if I put a Penn State banner on it during football season I am
waaaay kewl!
Humor alert off
I really need to post some pictures of the Vitara all set up. That 13+
foot antenna so completely overwhelms the thing that it almost becomes
cool in it's own right. The only downside is that so many people want to
come over to talk to me about it that I sometimes don't get to operate
it as much. OTOH, I was talking to a Fish and Game officer who is going
for his license now
Klystron
> I hope you'll pardon me when I ask "Which deity spoke to you and laid
> down those particular points of Absolute Truth?". What's all this "We
> need to" and "no more and no less" and "xxx is better" and "yyy is
> inferior" and "... is also considered better"?
>
> If you're willing to state those as _your_ personal opinions of the
> basis on which two partially-competing methods of encoding and
> communicating _should_ be compared (and that no other criteria need
> apply), I have no objection at all.
>
> I do, however, object in principle to the idea that these are the
> highest (or only) criteria, or that they're somehow sacred.
I think of them as matters of economics and practical reality. To
wit: it should be obvious that we cannot have every possible mode
available on every band. Some limits must be imposed on the number of
modes and the way in which they share limited bandwidth. This is one of
the reasons why the FCC exists. This is one of the (ostensible) reasons
why digital modes were not allowed for many years.
> And, I also object to the idea (which I think is implied by the tone
> of your other messages - please correct me if I'm wrong) that the
> choice of communication methods is somehow exclusive... that the fact
> that a method which is superior (by your criteria, perhaps) means that
> other methods that you find inferior should be wiped out or
> abandoned... or that people who prefer to use the other methods are
> somehow responsible for Holding Back The True Progress.
>
> My own perspective is that people may have *many* criteria for chosing
> a means of communication (by radio or otherwise). Bandwidth, or
> bandwidth*reliability is not the sole criterion that people use, in
> practice, nor do I think there's any reason that it should be. Life
> is full of tradeoffs between different criteria - information
> bandwidth per Hz of spectrum, robustness of encoding, suitability for
> multi-point communication, resistance to different sorts of
> interference, cost of equipment, availability of equipment, and so
> forth. I communicate with my wife by voice, by email, by telephone,
> by scribbling half-illegible notes on scraps of paper, and by bringing
> home flowers... different methods, for different types of information-
> passing under varying conditions.
Again, if you can't fit every possible mode onto a given band (by the
way, every possible mode means exactly that, not just modes that are
commonly used by hams - otherwise, we would have APCO 25, in addition to
DV, to give just one example). Therefore, we must prioritize; some modes
will be authorized, while some other modes will be excluded. This goes
back to my claim that it is a matter of economics; it represents a
managed resource (a limited "supply") in the face of potentially
unlimited demand. It is from that perspective that I claim that old time
Morse zealots are impeding progress and are attempting to arrogate to
themselves a finite public good, much like cattlemen grazing their cows
on public grasslands while excluding others from using those public
lands for other purposes.
> In commercial communications and public-safety, bandwidth (or payload)
> and reliability and cost all play a big factor. In military
> communications, reliability and security seem big, bandwidth is
> important, and cost (of equipment at least) tends to take a back seat.
>
> Ham radio is a much more diverse motivation-space. Some people
> optimize their operations as for public safety and commercial (the
> EMCOM folks), others for "most distance per watt" or "per dollar spent
> on the radio" (QRP folks, homebrewers, and other experimenters),
> others for portability, others for plain ordinary fun (according to
> their own definition of fun... for some folks, using single-frequency
> crystal-oscillator transmitters is just what gets their rocks off :-)
>
> There's plenty of room in ham radio for different modes of operation.
> Saying that we all *have* to abandon Morse (or SSB, or voice, or AM,
> or...) and strap computers to all of our rigs, in order to encourage
> experimentation and use with newer modes, is really missing the
> point... it's implicitly denying a large percentage of hams the right
> to explore those aspects of ham radio that *they* find interesting and
> worthwhile.
>
> If we were all being paid to do all of this stuff, then the people
> paying us would perhaps have the right to set our agendas. We aren't
> (and by the rules of the game, cannot be... at least, not here in the
> US) and so we get to set our own priorities, operating-mode and
> otherwise.
Considering the small, aggregate size of the HF bands, can you offer
some suggestions as to how many modes can plausibly 'share the road?'
What modes must be forbidden so that the modes that you like can be
allowed? If you say that there are none, then perhaps we can have APCO
25, DV and DD on HF? What do you say to the hams who claim that AM
shouldn't be used on HF, because it uses to much bandwidth?
> [And, for the record - I operate CW only rarely, and have enjoyed
> experimenting with packet and the newer digital modes quite a bit.]
--
Klystron
N2...@aol.com
> �dpl...@radagast.org (Dave Platt) wrote:
>
> > I do, however, object in principle to the idea that these are the
> > highest (or only) criteria, or that they're somehow sacred. �
>
> � �I think of them as matters of economics and practical r
eality. To
> wit: it should be obvious that we cannot have every possible mode
> available on every band.
Well, not every *possible* mode.
> Some limits must be imposed on the number of
> modes and the way in which they share limited bandwidth. This is > one of
the reasons why the FCC exists.
Of course. But there are other factors, such as how popular a mode is,
how much bandwidth it occupies, how it is implemented, etc.
>This is one of the (ostensible) reasons
> why digital modes were not allowed for many years.
Please elaborate, particularly on the dates and where you got thise
idea.
The information I have seen says that the main reason FCC limited the
modes amateurs could use was that FCC has to be able to monitor
amateur transmissions. So if they allowed hams to use a new mode,
their monitoring stations had to be able to decode it.
45.45 baud 5 level Baudot RTTY was authorized for amateurs in the USA
about 1948. Analog SSTV (an image mode) followed in the very early
1960s.
In the late 1970s-early 1980s, new monitoring equipment made it
possible for FCC to decode lots of modes, so US amateurs were
authorized to use ASCII RTTY, AMTOR, packet, and lots of other modes.
We're talking 20-25 years.
Of course not all modes are well-adapted to all bands. HF packet as
used by amateurs turned out to be a bit of a bust, due to being ill-
suited to HF propagation. PSK31, OTOH, has been a big hit.
The biggest impediment to digital modes in the ARS, IMHO, is the cost
of implementing them. Inexpensive PCs and "soundcard modes" have
changed all that.
With all due respect, I think you are avoiding the question. Under
current FCC rules, almost any conceivable mode can be used on the
amateur bands if it is properly documented, does not involve
encryption, and is reasonably spectrum-efficient.
Look at how PSK31 came to amateur radio for an example. It was
developed by hams, not manufacturers. It's relatively easy to
implement without a big investment of special equipment, it's well-
adapted to HF conditions and spectrum-efficient. Most of all, a
considerable number of hams find it to be fun.
> It is from that perspective that I claim that old time
> Morse zealots are impeding progress and are attempting to
> arrogate to
> themselves a finite public good, much like cattlemen grazing
> their cows
> on public grasslands while excluding others from using
> those public
> lands for other purposes.
How have "Morse zealots" done what you claim? In the US regulations,
there are no Morse-code-only segments of the HF bands - all are shared
with either data modes or voice modes. Every Hz. And it's been that
way at least 46 years.
Except for 2.5% of 6 and 2 meters, all of VHF/UHF and 160 are wide
open to all authorized modes for the various bands.
How are Morse-Code-using hams doing what you claim?
The cows-grazing-on-public-land analogy isn't really valid, because
amateur radio isn't a commercial venture, nor does the use of one mode
damage the band for use by others at a later time.
Try this one:
The amateur bands are like a public park system. Some are small, some
are large, some easily accessible, some remote. Depending on their
characteristics, different parks/bands are used for different
activities at different times. The question is how to best allocate
the resources to accomodate those who want to use them.
> > In commercial communications and public-safety,
> > bandwidth (or payload)
> > and reliability and cost all play a big factor. �In military
> > communications, reliability and security seem big, bandwidth is
> > important, and cost (of equipment at least) tends
> > to take a back seat.
>
> > Ham radio is a much more diverse motivation-space.
> >�Some people
> > optimize their operations as for public safety and
> > commercial (the
> > EMCOM folks), others for "most distance per watt"
> > or "per dollar spent
> > on the radio" (QRP folks, homebrewers, and other
> > experimenters),
> > others for portability, others for plain ordinary fun (according to
> > their own definition of fun... for some folks,
> > using single-frequency
> > crystal-oscillator transmitters is just what gets their rocks off :-)
Nice pun!
> > There's plenty of room in ham radio for different modes of
> > operation.
> > Saying that we all *have* to abandon Morse (or SSB, or
> > voice, or AM,
> > or...) and strap computers to all of our rigs, in order to
> > encourage
> > experimentation and use with newer modes, is really missing the
> > point... it's implicitly denying a large percentage of hams
> > the right
> > to explore those aspects of ham radio that *they*
> > find interesting and worthwhile.
That's exactly the point. Well worth repeating!
> > If we were all being paid to do all of this stuff, then the people
> > paying us would perhaps have the right to set our
> > agendas. �We aren't
> > (and by the rules of the game, cannot be... at least,
> > not here in the
> > US) and so we get to set our own priorities, operating-mode and
> > otherwise.
>
> � �Considering the small, aggregate size of the HF bands,
> can you offer
> some suggestions as to how many modes can plausibly
> 'share the road?'
That depends on the modes and their characteristics. For example, it's
not a good idea to allow 30 kHz FM voice on 40 meters, because that
band is only 300 kHz wide, but the same mode is fine for VHF/UHF
bands.
> What modes must be forbidden so that the modes that
> you like can be allowed?
> If you say that there are none, then perhaps we can
> have APCO 25, DV and DD on HF?
If they meet the criteria of not being encrypted, being suitable
for HF use, and being reasonably spectrum-efficient, why not?
As long as they are grouped with similar modes, what's the problem?
> What do you say to the hams who claim that AM
> shouldn't be used on HF, because it uses to much bandwidth?
That depends on how "too much bandwidth" is defined. Certainly
transmitting hi-fi AM that's 10-15 kHz wide on a busy HF band is
spectrum-inefficient and inconsiderate. OTOH, good-quality voice AM
can be had in 6 kHz or so, and when a band is not too busy, why not
use it? Similar
It seems odd that "Morse zealots", whose favorite mode uses only a few
hundred Hz at most, are being held responsible for "impeding
progress", when most of the HF amateur bandspace in the US are
allocated to voice modes that take up much more spectrum.
Should hams stop using Morse Code? Or any other mode they now use?
73 de Jim, N2EY
Dave Platt
Klystron <x...@yyy.zzz> wrote:
> I think of them as matters of economics and practical reality. To
>wit: it should be obvious that we cannot have every possible mode
>available on every band.
We can't have all of the modes, simultaneously, with an unlimited
number of users, on every band band, at the same time. Bandwidth is
limited - granted.
It does not follow from that, that we must be limited to a
strictly-enumerated set of modes at all times. The FCC used to assert
that this was the case, but has eliminated many of those constraints
in favor of an approach which favors more experimentation and
development.
> Some limits must be imposed on the number of
>modes and the way in which they share limited bandwidth.
I agree that a policy that users of the band must share bandwidth in a
reasonable and respectful way, is reasonable and proper.
I do *not* agree that this necessitates that only a specific set of
modes be allowed.
> Again, if you can't fit every possible mode onto a given band (by the
>way, every possible mode means exactly that, not just modes that are
>commonly used by hams - otherwise, we would have APCO 25, in addition to
>DV, to give just one example). Therefore, we must prioritize; some modes
>will be authorized, while some other modes will be excluded. This goes
>back to my claim that it is a matter of economics; it represents a
>managed resource (a limited "supply") in the face of potentially
>unlimited demand. It is from that perspective that I claim that old time
>Morse zealots are impeding progress and are attempting to arrogate to
>themselves a finite public good, much like cattlemen grazing their cows
>on public grasslands while excluding others from using those public
>lands for other purposes.
The portion of the band which is restricted to CW-only by the FCC is
*tiny* - small portions of the 2- and 6-meter bands, plus a portion of
80 which is CW-only for Novices and Technicians but not for anyone else.
Almost all of the non-phone portions of the band are *already* open to
various digital modulations (per the FCC regs and per the ARRL
bandplans and gentlepersons' agreements), and are quite extensively
used in that fashion today.
>From where I sit out here in the cheap seats, your own attitude
strikes me as more zealous, and less willing to cooperate and share,
than what I observe in the people I know who operate a lot of CW.
> Considering the small, aggregate size of the HF bands, can you offer
>some suggestions as to how many modes can plausibly 'share the road?'
I don't think it's a question which can meaningfully be measured in
"number of modes". Some modes co-exist well, others do not.
I think it's a question of the number of _users_ of the band, at any
given time, and the type and quality of the conversations that they
can carry on.
>What modes must be forbidden so that the modes that you like can be
>allowed?
Well, I tend to agree with the FCC that broad-spectrum audio (e.g. SSB
with a DC-to-10-kHz bandwidth, or [worse] AM with a similar passband)
is excessively wide - it's using more bandwidth than is reasonable for
the conversation in question.
> If you say that there are none, then perhaps we can have APCO
>25, DV and DD on HF? What do you say to the hams who claim that AM
>shouldn't be used on HF, because it uses to much bandwidth?
I think there's room for AM, and that SSB is more bandwidth-efficient,
and that the de facto practice of having AM operators voluntarily hang
out in a sub-portion of the HF band works pretty well.
I guess I just don't see why you're so intent on suppressing a mode of
operation which allows quite a lot of individual operators to carry on
multiple independent conversations within a limited bandwidth, at one
of the lowest potential equipment costs per operator of any mode.
Granted, other modes may get more *total* data traffic through the
same amount of spectrum width... but these modes tend to use more
spectrum width per conversation/session, and you end up with less
individual users of the band at any given time.
Applying a purely "economic" model to the ham spectrum (i.e. most
traffic per available Hz of bandwidth) rather misses the point, I
think, because it completely discounts all of the other values
(personal enjoyment, learning, development of personal skills and
knowledge) in ham radio. Ham radio is *NOT* a commercial service with
just a single agenda.