Interesting speed test
 

All the Ham Radio Operators on Chief Delphi will find this interesting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hc5j4Bia9nI

If you're going to Atlanta check out www.w4doc.org

73
WA1MOW

Re: Interesting speed test
 

That was an interesting idea. I'm really not that surprised though. The question is, what do you attribute it to? I personally think it is user interface. He didn't have to search for the keys. He had one button. He just had to push it wisely.

Re: Interesting speed test
 

Without really knowing for sure, I would guess that the Ham was sending at something like 20 words per minute by the sound of the code. It took about 18 seconds to send the message via Morse Code. It looked like they were using one of my favorite rigs, a Yaesu FT-817 as well. Code operators, by the way, have been using short hand (abreviations) in sending messages for a long time. One of the nicest things about using code in ham radio is that it can still transmit a message even when signal conditions are so bad that the noise is louder than the signal. This is impossible for analog voice communications.

Re: Interesting speed test
 

Of course, the two Morse code guys were very experienced. 38 and 43 years, competing against a pair of guys in their teens/twenties. Something to be said for practice.

Re: Interesting speed test
 

Scott,
Even out of practice I can do between 5 and 10 WPM. Give me a few minutes and I can get back up higher. Prior to April 2007 (I think) all ham license classes except Technician, required a code test. Novice was 5 WPM, General and above was 13 WPM both for send and receive. Many years ago, the upper classes also required higher code proficiency. Extra as I remember may have 20 WPM. Radio operators in WWII were required to copy 5 letter nonsense groups at 35WPM or above, some while typing. The traffic was coded so nonsense was intentional.

Re: Interesting speed test
 

They weren't sending that fast, just smart. Good fist.
I wonder if there is an I-phone morse code app?
KQ6Y

Re: Interesting speed test
 

Is that a new oxymoron?

Re: Interesting speed test
 

Here are some background details on the video clip:
http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/05/16/3/?nc=1

What really drives me nuts is I have friends who can sit there and work CW at 30+ wpm in a contest, while talking to whoever is sitting next to them. I struggle at 5 wpm :(

73 de K0JSP

Re: Interesting speed test
 

The cellphone users do not seem to have been FIRST material.

I would have clicked a picture of the message card and had the pic message on the other cellphone in less than 5 seconds (trouncing the speed of the Morse Code guys).

Or even better, I could have had a pair of eight year olds do it.

;)

Re: Interesting speed test
 

Jeff,
Remember contesting uses a limited vocab.

Re: Interesting speed test
 

Which is outside the box, like a 150 lb robot without the batteries or bumpers, I'm sure. Does it do the job? Yeah. Is it legal? Nah. Why? It's sending TEXT, not pictures.

If you're going to use a pic message, then I'll just use voice and have it there faster. I can read that message into the phone in less than 5 seconds, and it'll be understandable. And yes, that is still using "old" technology.

Re: Interesting speed test
 

If you're going to use the voice on the phone, I'll just run over and give him the message. (I could just shout it out, but then the other guy would hear it too!)

Re: Interesting speed test
 

I know, but it's still annoying to those of us who struggle to be able to do it at all :)

People with musical inclination take to CW much better than those of us who struggle to play "Mary Had A Little Lamb". The military actually came on campus and recruited some of my wife's college classmates who were music or music therapy majors as high speed CW intercept operators. They were taught to be able to receive nonsense character groups at 50+ WPM (since anything they would be copying off the air would be encoded). That was "a few" years ago, I don't know if they still do that.

Re: Interesting speed test
 

Must say i'd prefer texting, because I'm completely familiar with my qwerty keyboard and can use that familiarity for other things, morse code on the other hand would still be nifty


KDOHFT (very recently became licensed for the solar car team)

Re: Interesting speed test
 

wow,

seems like alot of people have their liscence........

my dad and his dad used to do this. we still have all the equipment...

I should probobly go get my liscence.......

Re: Interesting speed test
 

Yes,
Please do. What kind of equipment might they have? he asked with a smile.

Re: Interesting speed test
 

A bunch;)
1 receiver and transmitter and 1 "transciever"...
And alot of other random parts
And we have a large(50ft.)antenna pole......

.....I wanted to get it last year but never got around to signing up....

Re: Interesting speed test
 

When one asks this question, the other replies with models like Heath HW101, or Collins S-Line. Then the other smiles and replies with low whistles and "I used to have one like that." or "I wanted one of those when I was younger!"

Re: Interesting speed test
 

I never got around to learning code, I probably should have....oh well....

and my boat anchor BC-348-Q sits right over my computer. It was converted to 120 VAC by a previous owner, I've had it over 20 years now.

Re: Interesting speed test
 

Someone (not me) should consider organizing a FIRST-net in Atlanta, if nothing else, so we can all say "hi". I'm not sure what repeaters are available in Atlanta (or which are reachable from within the bowels of the Georgia Dome), but I'd vote for something in either the 144 or 440 band. Perhaps 15 minutes before the pit opens, Thursday, Friday & Saturday?

I believe the official rules specify "no radios in the pit, field or spectator areas", but several exceptions have been officially made. Perhaps someone could post to the Q&A asking for an explicit exception allowing Ham Radios?

I'll happily bring my HT, if anyone else is likely to do the same.

N8UOB

Re: Interesting speed test
 

Cell phones should come with a morse code capability. That could be fun.

Re: Interesting speed test
 

you can text dots and dashes :)

Re: Interesting speed test
 

i think it should be noted the guy with teh cell phone wasn't using a qwerty keyboard...

even with my HTC TyTN (ATT 8525... unfortunately my BlackBerry 8800 passed away tonight...) im able to type that message in under 30 seconds

im sure with my 8800, it would be somewhere between 18-22 seconds

Re: Interesting speed test
 

Yes, but you have a few unfair advantages. For one, you knew the message at least a minute before you ever started texting. This would lead to a possible 5 second difference. Furthermore, use of a qwerty keyboard would be typing not texting. There is a difference.

Besides if you watch the video closer, you will notice that the morse code team did it in 20 seconds. Even with the use of a keyboard, advance notice of the message, and your own approximation it would still be a toss up.

Further break down: The message was 11 words long and transferred in about 20 seconds. This means that he was sending at about 1.8 sec/word. That is 39 letters. So approximately 2 letters every second. This is an amazing pace. All of this is neglecting any spaces and such. Now, I realize that in reality he probably abbreviated alot. Even if he was able to break it down to 20 letters.(which would be very hard to do and still leave the message legible) He would still be sending at 1 letter a second.

I, for one, think we have to admit it. For absolute speed, old school has our tech beat. For now, that is. This is one of those cases where you win some, you lose some. But you learn a lot more from the losses.

A side note: I would be interested to see how far along the kid was to finishing the message. Wish they told that.

Re: Interesting speed test
 

He still had two words left to enter. There's an FAQ here

Re: Interesting speed test
 

I like to see that code is still in use. I have had my license for 3 years now, and never had any interest in it. I was very glad that they did drop the requirement so that I could get the higher license without the need to learn code that I would never use. I have a lot of respect for people who know it, since I tried to learn many times and failed.

Re: Interesting speed test
 

That would be great...Someone please post times and freq info and I will be there, 144 or 440

Re: Interesting speed test
 

I sent email to the president and outreach chair of the Atlanta Radio Club (http://www.w4doc.org/) asking for permission and information about their repeaters. I haven't heard back yet, but I'll certainly let everyone know if/when I do.

What time do you think works best? The pits open at 7:15, 7:30 & 7:30 on Thurs, Fri & Sat, so I was thinking either 7am each day, or 15 minutes before the pits open each day, or when the pits close on Thurs & Fri, and nothing on Saturday.

Re: Interesting speed test
 

Yes. Yes, you should. Even if you never use Morse Code, having a small radio to communicate over several miles, just spending time talking on shortwave, or any of the new digital modes which really CAN easily decode a signal that is really inaudible under the noise.
I assume you mean the texter, not the Morse code guys. I read an interview with the radio guys that appeared in a ham radio magazine a few months after, and they said that they sent every single letter, and they sent it slowly on purpose. As mentioned, 35 WPM (that's almost 3 letters per second!) is not terribly unusual.
Oh yes, just listen in the CW portion of the band anytime. In fact, there is more activity now than before.
(And, for all you kids out there - Morse Code is a great secret language)


The key thing to remember is that CW has had several decades to be optimized. Pressing a key up to four times to get out a letter is highly sub-optimal - especially when you consider the most common letter - E - as requiring two presses. Highly inefficient.

What makes me laugh the most is that the kid receiving the message makes a motion like "oh darn, we lost" - he actually thought that they would win!

What remains important to remember, though, is that Morse Code requires some skill, while texting does not.

Don

Re: Interesting speed test
 

I just had a thought that maybe we should do it at night. I would not like to have to deal with my HT all day and have to worry about it getting broken :ahh: We could all get on from our hotel rooms :cool:

Re: Interesting speed test
 

i think a fairer test would be morse code verus a stenograph.

Re: Interesting speed test
 

The demonstration only proves that using a 12 key keypad is inefficient for encoding a text message. So what? I get annoyed with it when I just to had to enter a name into a phone list let alone try to do a 50 character message. When I gave in to texting for my teenagers we all got qwerty cellphones.

Best case scenario for the telegraph was to send telegrams; typically a customer would write down the message of 50 words or less and hand it off to the local telegraph operator that would send it electronically to a telegraph operator at the other end who would then write it down and hand it off to someone else. Both telegraph operators would make money on the deal.

The average person that likes texting has already switched over to a qwerty keyboard and easily does over 3 letters per second, and typically use text slang to dramatically reduce letter count.

If someone hands me a note with a message to get to someone else, then I typically snap a picture of it and send it to them because it takes less than 5 seconds of my mental energy to get it done. Unlike the telegraph operators, I usually don't make money on the deal.

I used to have to know how to toggle in binary machine language for the card reader program on to a IBM 1130.
http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/ex...130_intro.html
(I love the picture: I think the guy is wearing FIRST safety glasses).

So if we agree that Morris code is a technology whose applications still include the practical as well as the nostalgic: Can we make the same judgement about smoke signals?


I wonder if FIRST participants are more or less likely than the general public to have:
1) cellphones
2) texting on their cellphone (that they use)
3) picture capability on their cellphones (that they use)

My bet is "more likely".

If we limit it to the FIRST participants that practice Morris Code, then I wonder it the percentages would change. Should I start a poll?

Re: Interesting speed test
 

boomer, you are missing the point. The entire thought of this thread is that old technologies can be competitive with modern technology. Besides, to disregard the historical Morse code is to forget one's roots.

I honestly don't know where my family is from. I don't care either. To me, my roots are that of the Morse, Archimedes, Einstein, and Descartes. Any person that has dramatically changed the history of man deserves a spot in the history that he has changed.

As a fellow mentor, I believe it is our job to not only prepare students for the future. But to also to teach them a deep respect for the past. I sincerely hope that this message is passed on to all the students of FIRST.

Note: I am sure I have no biological tie to any of the great minds mentioned.

Re: Interesting speed test
 

Spelling note: I don't know who this Morris character is, but Samuel Morse is the inventor of Morse code.

As for the history, you're correct. Also note that in terms of speed, it was the fastest way to get a message coast-to-coast; seconds/minutes instead of the 10 days-6 weeks that you'd otherwise get, until the telephone came around.

Smoke signals are a different ball game. You can't compare apples and oranges.

As for the question, I have a cell phone, but I only use it for voice communications (as telephones and cell phones were originally designed). I have texting capability, but I don't use it; I have a camera and use it, but don't send picture messages. I don't know much Morse code, but I do know this:

Cell phones lose to flashlight (Morse code optional) signals between mountains when there isn't cell service! If I don't have cell service and I need emergency help, I will probably use a dot-dot-dot dash-dash-dash dot-dot-dot pattern with a signal mirror or a flashlight until I get somebody's attention.

Yep, cell phones have one disadvantage: they're useless if you can't get a signal. Telegraph had that, but they also had messengers to take the message to you from the station.

Re: Interesting speed test
 

I could not agree more..... "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." (George Santayana) As both mentors and parents we need to teach the past, as well as helping them learn the skills that will lead them to the future.

A long the lines of the Delphi web hug, maybe we should get all the Amateur Radio Operators together to promote our hobby to the FIRST community.

Re: Interesting speed test
 

Be sure to include team 842....several of them have licenses

Re: Interesting speed test
 

In fact, the point of this thread is to nostalgically throw a bone to an old technology that was critical in its day and yet has very limited practical use today. The parlor trick is that the txt encoding on a 12 key cellphone was designed for simplicity and not for speed. A qwerty keyboard on a cellphone is many times faster, and snapping a photo or reading it over the phone is even faster and easier technology.

As far as I know, most people don't even use Morse code, but use continental code invented by Friedrich Clemens Gerke in 1848. Translating letters into codes had existed for centuries- Braille came out in the 1820s; I Ching had a systematic encoding scheme over 2000 years ago.

Don't get me wrong: Morse's mechanical inventions and his encoding scheme played a huge role in the growth of this country. I do not heard enough of Morse accomplishments to rate the significance of his science/engineering with the greats like Einstein, Bell, Edison, Marconi, Tesla, Newton, Descartes, Da Vinci, etc.

I found this online...http://books.google.com/books?id=k3X...m=8#PPA2 5,M1

I never said it was appropriate to disregard the international Morse Code, as a piece of history and for its practical application if you are in to licensed radio.
Navajo code talkers had their place in history as well.

But gimmick parlor tests are easily seen as both contrived and irrelevant by students. Pretending that human operated single key coding is faster than two finger keying on a QWERTY keyboard is just a piece of propaganda.

Granted, for emergencies, some people at some point in their lives possibly could be aided by knowing Morse Code. I did know it at one point: maybe I'll keep a MC chart and a mirror in my wallet in case of emergencies next time I go through the wilderness... or I could get that SATphone or a Ham radio:)

Re: Interesting speed test
 

An interesting story:

One day in drafting class, the teacher suggested that Inventor was superior to AutoCAD. A student in the class disagreed. He challenged the teacher to a duel. The rules were set. The first person to draw a front, side, top, and isometric view of a cube would win.(cube due to time limit) So, the two of them agreed to the terms and started. AutoCAD loaded pretty quickly and the student had an early lead. Once Inventor had finally opened, the teacher was off. The student drew the basic square around the time the teacher opened the ipt file. The student had the three views done in the time it took for the teacher to extrude. Before the teacher could open the idw file, the student was finished with the isometric.

This happened my Sophomore year. The class was shocked by the outcome. However, it wasn't the better tool that prevailed. It wasn't the better draftsmen. It was the better team. You see, when person gets to be one with their tool, they can do amazing things. Its almost as if the two work in perfect harmony.

The same can be said for this race. The reason the two men beat the texters didn't have to do with the technology. It has nothing to do with the people. It has to do with the way the men and the machine work together.

Please visit the link that Vikesrock posted. The numbers there suggest that the record holders for CW could possibly even beat your camera or qwerty pad. Depending on the rules.

Re: Interesting speed test
 

Interesting story. Thanks for sharing.
The real rules to the real game are those of the market place.
The market place has spoken: if speed is most important, the loud and annoying push-to-talk feature on cellphones is currently the fastest way for the masses to "get more done now". http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...arch&plindex=0

Most savvy message senders do not view their urgency is worth annoying everyone in hear shot of the recipient, and graciously decide to use txt or e-mail: the message is faster and more convenient to be read at the recipient's discretion as opposed to leaving an audio message on an answering service. I can't wait til some jokester decides to add audio Morse code to my voicemail.

But don't despair: the market place still includes the commerce of winning free drinks at the local bar with contrived competitions.

One nice thing about FIRST competitions is the rules aren't intentionally slanted to "prove" one technology is better than another one. Or are they and I just have not realized it yet???

Re: Interesting speed test
 

Mr. D et al,
I think it is important here to add a few things that can bend the impression a little. In deference to the new technology,
Radio CW, Morse encoded messages, can be transmitted and received with rudimentary, home built in a day from parts you can obtain at Radio Shack, simple but effective equipment. And this equipment can be built with as few parts as three or four transistors. Such equipment is in use everyday, for world wide communications without the use of local "cells" or repeaters and without special encoding/decoding circuitry. It can be understood even when the noise to signal (not signal to noise) is as high as 20 dB. The codes and abreviations used worldwide can be understood by all foreign operators without translation. In addition, coded morse messages can still be received and transmitted without the need to understand the message or information being passed. This equipment is used at all frequencies currently open to licensed operators. Operators of this "antiquated" mode are also the fathers of modern day techno improvments like the use of microwaves, single side band, digital modes, repeaters and yes even cell phones. Yes, it is sometimes hard to learn, hard to improve to high speed without practice, but it gets the job done. BTW, there is a contest/award for transmitting and receiving a message for the longest distance and lowest transmitted power called the "Milliwatt per Mile" award. As I remember the current record is something like 4000 miles on 0.0005 watts. I currently have three radios that make 5 watts or less output. Heath HW-8 @1.2 watts output max on 80 meters, Wilderness Radio Sierra 3 watts max depending on band @350ma transmit, and a Yaesu FT-817 @ 5 watts maximum. The first two are home built. All of these radios are 4 band minimum and the last one does 6M, 2M and 440 MHz as well.

Don should be able to give us accurate details on milliwatt per mile.

Re: Interesting speed test
 

Mr. D.: You might get a better response from me if you stop using excessive sarcasm.

Al has already pointed out something you missed.

FRC rules are not slanted to prove that one technology is better than another, no.

However, something you should realize is that the telegraph is the FOUNDATION of the (now "outdated") landline telephone (which, by the way, is still very effective when cell phones don't have reception, assuming there is one handy). Said landline telephone is the forerunner of the cellular telephone (and the texting machine, which is simply a cell phone that is used primarily for texting instead of voice communications), which is the forerunner of tomorrow's technology.

Without the telegraph and the codes used to transmit on it, you WOULD NOT have the modern cell phone. Oh, you might, but it would still be in development.

Oh, and I tend to use the voicemail feature and vibrate feature of my cell phone. Keeps it quiet when it goes off.

Re: Interesting speed test
 

I'd like to apologize to everyone that views my postings as filled with excessively sarcasm. The intent of my jokes was just a friendly jibe. Certainly, not intended to target any persons here: it was just to characterize the contrived nature of the test from my perspective.

I think everyone in FIRST has much to contribute and a free exchange of ideas is a good thing.

I have been a communications engineer for close to 30 years, architecting and engineering digital and fibre optic telecommunications systems for Bell Labs. It's probably an even bet or better, that the packets you received to be reading this posting, have traveled over one or more systems I helped develop.

My personal opinion is Claude Shannon did dramatically more, for the progress of communications theory, than Morse ever did: (Shannon did so much more engineering based on mathematics). Morse and many others were doing great work in the electrical telegraph field: Morse engineered a great recorder, got a key patent and a good business plan and made the most of it. But that is just my perspective and I hope you don't take offense because I choose to express it. BTW, I've got coworkers that I lunch with that are big into Ham radio: plenty of them spend many times more on their radios than on their cellphones: I simultaneously rib them and envy them too.:) One Elmer uses a spud cannon to shoot lines to pull antennas through the trees. (A non-destructive practical use for a spud cannon!) I also have one engineering friend that has his own half ton steam engine locomotive that he drives around his backyard.

I think older technology is great and stands on its own without contrived tests. I've seen a horse beat a race car in a speed race too: but that is certainly not why I appreciate horses.

Great older technology certainly does not need contrived tests offered by stand-up comics. The engineer in me cringes at such gimmicks that are intentionally spun to demonstrate an outcome and have no serious analog to practical application: but salesmen tend to love such unfair hooks because it gets attention. For radio/MC, an emergency message sending demonstration is much more appealing to the engineering side of my brain.

From my experience, most engineers tend to gristle at gimmicks.

Re: Interesting speed test
 

...or at least what we use today is named after him.
Nyet Comrade, that's a fact: Perhaps you can get out 40 words per minute with no errors using 2 fingers on your desktop keyboard at work - but you really gotta be fast. 40 WPM is really the low end of the upper speeds seen in regular use. I looked up the world speed record and it's a little over 75 WPM. There are many who cannot type with 10 fingers at that speed. It is in the tens of millions of miles per watt. But that's a different topic, since modern digital techniques exceed that by nature of their coding gain.
Well, I most certainly disagree with several of your statements, but that one I don't think anyone can dispute. Shannon - a mathematician! - was simply brilliant.

Oh, and to amplify Al's comments: I don't know why he needs so many transistors (three or four!:ahh: ), I can send code using a battery and some wire, maybe some carbon to simplify things. Not legal any more, because it pollutes the radio spectrum badly, but in a pinch, any electrical source and some conductors will allow me to send a signal several hundred miles.

Oh, and EricH - it is best to write Morse code like it sounds: "Dididit dah dah dah dididit" for SOS - your brain doesn't hear the tones as 'dot' and 'dash' but as dit and dah, writing it like it sounds helps increase understanding. Just a trick I've learned.

--... ...-- -.. . -. ..--- .. .-. --..

Don

PS: FIRSTers, if there's somehting you didn't understand - google it. You might be surprised.

Re: Interesting speed test
 

Don,
I was pointing to you in case you had your finger on the latest low power long distance record from your other life.

Re: Interesting speed test
 

Some data that runs contrary to your statements
http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/hand...pdf?sequence=1

Table 1: Ranges of Novice, Expert and Predicted typing speeds (in WPM) of various typing systems*
Novice Expert Predicted
Standard QWERTY 24 50-100 150 (typist)
Mini-QWERTY 29-35 58-62 27.7
Multi-tap 2-8 5 21-27
T9 3-10 8-20 45-50
FASTAP 6-8 9 Not calculated
Grafiti/Unistroke 1-10 14 Not calculated


The data shows that miniQWERTY is ten times faster for the experts and 3-15 times faster for the novices as compared to multi-tap: multitap was used in the Leno youtube.

According to wiki on Morse Code: The fastest speed ever sent by a straight key was achieved in 1942 by Harry Turner W9YZE (d. 1992) who reached 35 WPM in a demonstration at a U.S. Army base. Fastest speeds are a result of "hearing" phrases and sentences rather than words.

mini-QWERTY is fast and accurate for experts and there is no phrase recognition or sentence recognition (or mis-recognition) in the process.

BTW, there are several MC to text message apps popping up on different phones.

mini-QWERTY texters can compete to win $50K to prove how good they are:
How much do the fastest MCers get for their championships?
http://www.lgtexter.com/lgtexter/nationals.html

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



:)

Re: Interesting speed test
 

Sorry I have not posted in the last week but it was an exciting one. Just to add a little note about QWERTY. My wife was given an award by Olivetti/Underwood when she graduated for achieving 115 WPM for 15 minutes without error. For those of you older guys who remember the original IBM Selectric Typewriters, she would burn one up in about 3 months of work as a legal secretary. And to add insult to injury, that work was transcribing shorthand to finger stroke for a final printed copy. That takes even more concentration than CW to pencil. The firm eventually went to electronic typing to tape (predecessor to modern computers for text) and that machine was able to keep up with her speed without breaking.

Re: Interesting speed test
 

If you're using a full keyboard, you aren't "texting", you're typing.

Re: Interesting speed test
 

ha!

Re: Interesting speed test
 

I thought that might get your attention!

Re: Interesting speed test
 

Was there ever a net during the nationals? I was so busy when I left that I ended up not grabbing my radio to listen in.

Re: Interesting speed test
 

By "full keyboard", I really meant an approximately 44 key keypad, not necessarily "full" as in full-sized 44+ keyboard. (Sorry for my sloppy phrasing).

The definitions of texting, chatting, emailing are fairly well accepted: if you receive the message as a phone system text on your cellphone (commonly referred to as SMS or short message service), then the sender was "texting": even if the sender was scribbling the text in with Graffiti). If you are using a window to see a continuous text dialog, typically over the Internet, then you are "chatting".

If you receive the message on an email account without going through an SMS service, then the sender emailed you.

The definitions of the terms "typing" and "keying" may have to do with the number of keys involved or the number of digits used: is someone that uses with one finger on a full sized keyboard, typing or keying?

I usually think of "typing" as something one does at a full-sized 44+ key keyboard using all (or at least most) of the fingers on both hands. Someone that does not use all the fingers on both hands or needs to look at the keys to find them is usually characterized as not knowing how to type. I.e., someone whom would be flunked by a typing class is actually keying and not typing.

Re: Interesting speed test
 

At our house, texting is when you write a note on a scrap of paper and leave it laying on the kitchen table.

Typing is done on a typewriter. Manual, electric, standard, portable, doesn't matter.

Pretty much everything else is considered to be using a computer. It could be one of the modern ones, or maybe a Zenith SuperSport, or a Kaypro, or whatever (there are about a hundred to chose from).

I wonder if all robotics homes are this strange?

Re: Interesting speed test
 

New gimmicks on texting and a new world record...

http://www.textually.org/textually/a.../03/025670.htm

Want to try to beat this challenge with Morse Code?

Re: Interesting speed test
 

With my decades-rusty Morse skills and a virtual "straight key", it took me 95 seconds. That's about 16 WPM (exactly the speed I practiced at when I was a teen). The winning texter was about 45 WPM. I never practiced with an iambic keyer, but for those who use them, 50 WPM does not seem like a stretch.

Re: Interesting speed test
 

Proper capitalization and punctuation is a necessary part of the phone texting challenge. Did you consider that in your 95 seconds trial or your 50 WPM estimate?

I thought that typical Morse Code did not include lower case letters nor punctuation.(?)

Re: Interesting speed test
 

Team 3234 is all most all hams

Mentors WZ8T, WW8WW, AA8JR
CW rocks.

Re: Interesting speed test
 

With Rockwell Collins as a sponsor we should be able to get a special event station at the Championship.

How many of you are going to do the VHF contest or field day?

WZ8T

Re: Interesting speed test
 

Partly correct, the International (Morse) Code does not allow for character case but punctuation is no problem.

Edit: Punctuation is included in Morse Code (Thanks Al)

Re: Interesting speed test
 

Don meant that punctuation is included in Morse Code.