Re: Interesting speed test
 

Think we've got our codes crossed, maybe. Check CW code too; that might be faster. Morse is one, CW is another. Though you might want to use the full name for CW; Wikipedia doesn't have anything under that term...

Re: Interesting speed test
 

I hate to call you out, but to my recollection CW and Morse Code are the same thing. Maybe you are talking about modulated CW vs traditional? Modulated being where you can hear the beeps without the need to modulate it on the receive end.

Re: Interesting speed test
 

Don specified using two fingers to type on a full desktop QWERTY keyboard, not a cell phone.

Re: Interesting speed test
 

While it is "contrary to" Don's suggestion, it by no means contradicts it. The table you quoted shows speeds achieved by experts, not by people using two fingers on a desktop computer keyboard. The Wikipedia article clearly indicates that Turner was using a straight key; the previous sentences speak of operators sending 100 words per minute.

Re: Interesting speed test
 

You said that text messaging doesn't rely on phrases. But if you really think about it, any person that spends long enough typing, or text messaging will eventually stop thinking in letter and start thinking in words, then in sentences. Reading is the same, you do not look at each word and sound them out slowly letter by letter do you? further you do not stop and think about each word as you read your text either do you? it comes down to the way we process information, in either case comes down to the same thing, sentences and the ideas they represent.

just wanted to throw that out there for consideration,

DE KI4URQ

Re: Interesting speed test
 

I don't know what if any difference there is, but CW was specifically called out in the article as the code used. Some of the conversation here kind of implied that it's not the same. I'm not a radio operator myself, and I'm pretty sure the radio club at my college uses voice stuff, not Morse or other code.

Re: Interesting speed test
 

That's fine I just don't want there to be any confusion. There is a wide following for voice and CW. I personally am looking into digital.

Re: Interesting speed test
 

Hey, if you can pick the keyboard, I can pick the keyer. I go for an iambic, thanks. I stick with the 75 WPM statement, too.

Looking at the chart for QWERTY: Have you ever met anyone who could type 150 WPM on anything? I wonder what the world speed record is. As you well know, 75 WPM is rare. Ask around where you work.

And, as others have stated: When you read, you decode the information a word at a time, not a single letter at a time. We're apples to apples here.CW is the type of Radio Frequency (RF) signal being used, it stands for Continuous Wave. A CW signal is then keyed using On-Off-Keying (OOK), Morse code is a common encoding scheme for OOK, there are others.

Compare CW to AM (Amplitude Modulation) or FM (Frequency Modulation), where instead of having an unchanging RF carrier (that is switched on and off) you vary some parameter of the carrier (amplitude or frequency).

CW is what most Hams will call Morse code, although technically inaccurate they are used interchangeable.

Don

PS: The "other life" Al S. refers to is that I write about digital communications for a ham radio magazine. That's why Shannon is a hero of mine, and why I know a little about coding theory and modulation types. Anthony, let me know if you have any questions.

Re: Interesting speed test
 

I get the feeling that in all of the debate here between Morse Code vs. texting some might be overlooking the fundamental difference. Texting, emailing, instant messaging, Twittering, or whatever you want to call sending the bits that make up an electronic message requires a cell phone or some other sort of electronic device. Morse Code does not. You can send Morse Code with a flashlight, a stick and a pot, or even your car horn.

Let’s say you are a ship captain being held hostage in a lifeboat by some pirates and the US Navy is nearby. Maybe you could get a message to the Navy with a signal mirror or piece of a reflective Mylar emergency blanket both of which are standard equipment in a lifeboat. Maybe if the Navy knew that you knew Morse Code they could some how get a covert message to you using say a flashing light or a horn or a Navy Seal tapping on the bottom of the life boat hull. Seems to me that it sure would be nice to know when the Navy snipers plan to take their shot at the pirates so you can hit the deck.

My point is, regardless of speed, being able to send a message to someone at a distance has always and will always be a useful thing and a cell phone or computer isn’t always the best option or even available. Morse Code has been a standard messaging system for a long time and will continue to be for a long time to come. Those that seem to think Morse Code is an old dead useless technology might need to rethink their assessment.

I wonder how the “speed test” would have gone if the two ham operators had used a cell phone as well but as a flashlight and their hand to cover and uncover the screen instead to send Morse Code?

Oh, and for whoever wondered if there is a Morse Code IPhone App, yes there is one.

Re: Interesting speed test
 

I do recognize that CW rises to almost a form of natural language to the very proficient user, but my hunch is that it is not as fast or efficient and requires more concentration than: 1) talking and listening; or 2) typing text and reading text.

The idea of the Leno test was to demonstrate that: "CW and old guys rule!"

While these two things may be true, competing against a known-to-be-slow multi-tap cellphone is a copout.

The demonstration had the CW going at under 30 wpm because that was as fast as the receiving CWer could write legibly.
http://www.marc.on.ca/marc/hamradio/hr_cw_vs_sms.asp

Here is a blackberry going at 75 wpm: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Egie4ApwoUg&fmt=18

But since you want to choose your keyer, then I would like to choose my own keyboard and person, I would probably pick a bluetooth DVORAK keyboard, any bluetooth enabled cellphone and someone like Barbara Blackburn and make it a reasonable length message:
Mrs. Barbara Blackburn of Salem, Oregon maintained a speed of 150 wpm for 50 min (37,500 key strokes) and attained a speed of 170 wpm using the Dvorak Simplified Keyboard (DSK) system. Her top speed was recorded at 212 wpm. Source: Norris McWhirter, ed. (1985), THE GUINNESS BOOK OF WORLD RECORDS, 23rd US edition, New York: Sterling Publishing Co., Inc.

But if you really want speed in person to person message communication, how about 637 wpm?
http://members.fortunecity.com/talker2/talk.htm
Steve Woodmore can speak at 637 words per minute, which is 10.25 words per second.

The common practical purpose of sending a text message is send and forget, and not to require a person at the other end to spend immediate time and mental energy decoding it at the other end: I think it is generally accepted that most sighted people can read text much faster than they can learn to decode CW.

I do not expect to see a resurgence of people going to the telegram office or their local ham to send messages rather than just pulling out their cellphone. But I could be wrong.

I think it is generally accepted that the need for CW still exists but is waning a bit. How else would you explain the removal of CW testing for most if not all US licenses? The cynic in me would guess that the radio retailers want to sell more radios to people that are too lazy to learn some proficiency in the CW language and the retailers lobbied the FCC. The Elmers who would generally like to see CW proficiency remain a requirement lost out to the retailers.

Part of it could also be for the same reason teachers in more advanced math classes let students use calculators: because using machines instead of your brain to do more basic tasks frees the mind to concentrate on other things. Do you use a calculator or would you force yourself to compute long series of mathematical operations in your head?

Re: Interesting speed test
 

This analogy is flawed.(at least for my college) You are allowed to use a scientific calculator, but that is it. No graphing. In fact, in my second semester of calculus we weren't even allowed a four function calculator. Any higher then that, and you tend to not do calculations. Everything is in letters and the calculator becomes a hindrance. Also, I prefer to do the math in my head and then check with calculator. It keeps my mind busy and energized. I find that if I rely on a calculator for every problem, my thoughts become sluggish. I simply start not to care about the big things. Think about the quote I posted below. There is much truth to it.

Also, from my experience with calculators: The more you use them, the more likely you are to make a typo.

"Only those who have the patience to do simple things perfectly will acquire the skill to do difficult things easily."
-- Johann Schiller, poet and historian

Re: Interesting speed test
 

And the idea of <G14> is to penalize the teams that do really well.

Can't really prove it either way, can you? I'm not saying that this isn't true, I'm saying that it's kind of hard to guess intent from the results. (And yes, I read all of the <G14> debate, and I prefer an alternative explanation to the one above.)

So that's who does the "fine print" in the radio ads! (For those that don't listen to such ads much, it's a guy/gal talking way too fast to be fully understood. It's like the fine print in newspaper ads--has to be there, but is kept out of the way as much as possible.)

My math classes vary. Diff? Nope, not on tests. Calc 1 and 2? Yep, though we did have to learn Maple. Calc 3? I don't remember. I use a calculator, or, for Physics, Maple.

I think you may mean engineering courses... My engineering courses allow calculators, but for some parts, certain functions are barred. (A recent Intro to Solid Mechanics test on stress analysis comes to mind--no using eigenvalue or eigenvector functions--neither of which I have anyway, to my knowledge.)

Re: Interesting speed test
 

wow, In a way I'm not surprised, when you think about it, someone who is experienced can make a series of dots, and dashes faster than the time it would take to type and transmit a message via sms...

Re: Interesting speed test
 

As we all know, there are far faster methods of sending messages than Morse code, or even SMS for that matter. Anyone have a gigabit LAN? And boomergeek has designed network equipment for even faster messaging.

Considering that, the contention here is not that CW is fast. It's faster than the world-champion texters on the Leno show, compared to two moderately proficient Hams. But, as boomergeek stated, it was contrived. Please.:p

It was an interesting discussion, but now it's getting a little contentious for me.

Re: Interesting speed test
 

The world record is a gimmick because the Guinness World Record requires a 12 key keypad. Anyone serious about fast cellphone texting for at least the past 8 years uses a full keyboard: basically cloned from blackberries which was the real portable emailer of the 1990s. We can agree to disagree that that makes any difference as to whether the Leno demo is showing a nostalgic convenience winning against a modern one or just two nostalgic conveniences. I don't think you could convince anyone that actually uses a qwerty cellphone or a blackberry that the texting race included a realistic or even interesting set of competitors.

Maybe I'm all wet: Any qwerty texters out there impressed with texting speed races against 12 key keypads?

BTW, Here is a 25 second run of the world record sentence using qwerty by a random youtuber (as compared to the 40+ second "world record" with a 12 key). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2YqG...eature=related



:)