I don't believe anyone said sending sloppy code is "desirable", only that it's sometimes a fact of life. What I, at least, am saying, is that I think that code that is somewhat less than perfect is OK. Well spaced code, well formed characters, are certainly desirable and a worthy goal. But I also think that using mechanical means of generating code of necessity means that there will be imperfections in characters and in spacing. -- Buddy Brannan, KB5ELV - Erie, PA Phone: (814) 860-3194 or 888-75-BUDDY
On Oct 29, 2011, at 1:20 PM, Ken Alexander wrote: > It sounds like everyone is saying sending sloppy code is desirable. How odd; > I always thought hams took pride in their sending. Well formed, well spaced > characters are much easier to copy. I find nothing quaint or charming about > sending dits at 30wpm and dahs at 10 wpm, which is typical of what I hear. > Either slow down the dits or speed up the manually sent dahs. I know there > are limits on how slow you can send dits with a bug, but if you can't slow it > down enough then consider using another instrument for sending code or resign > yourself to the fact that VE3HLS will never answer your CQ (that should be > pretty easy to live with)! :-) > > daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah dididit dididit > daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah! :-) > > Ken, > VE3HLS > > > On 29/10/2011 9:02 AM, Buddy Brannan wrote: >> GOtta agree with Ron re: "mangled" code. Code sent with a bug, straight key, >> or sideswiper is a bit like handwriting. Some people have very sloppy >> handwriting, or in this case, send sloppily. I think these things really add >> character and make the whole thing a lot less sterile. Heck, if I wanna talk >> to a machine, I'll get on the Internet. And I have enough mechanical voices >> in my head already, much as I like having them and helpful as they are to >> me. So give me a well-handled bug any day of the week; in my view, there's >> nothing nicer to listen to than that. And I've heard some fantastic ones >> really recently on 40 meters, so I, for one, am glad that there are still >> those practicing the art. >> >> Now if I can find time to get more comfortable with this cootie key I got >> from Stan a while ago. Oh, and get ahold of another bug one of these days to >> torture people with :-) >> -- >> Buddy Brannan, KB5ELV - Erie, PA >> Phone: (814) 860-3194 or 888-75-BUDDY >> >> >> >> On Oct 29, 2011, at 1:45 AM, Ron D'Eau Claire wrote: >> >>> With full respect Ken, it is NOT "mangled" code. A bug sends human Morse >>> code as opposed to machine-generated code that is about as friendly as >>> computer-generated voices. >>> >>> Mike, the military still required radiotelegraph operators on some of their >>> aircraft and the commercial airlines used CW for trans-Pacific flights. >>> >>> I worked for Lockheed and held a commercial radiotelegraph license for just >>> that purpose. >>> >>> I enjoy watching the "Pan Am" TV show because that was how flying was back >>> in the 50's and 60's. I did a lot of it then. Wow, have times changed! >>> >>> BTW, I still hold a current commercial radiotelegraph license, but I doubt >>> if I'll need it again, Hi! >>> >>> 73, >>> >>> Ron AC7AC >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> >>> Never been a big fan of bugs and the mangled code most people send with >>> them. ... >>> >>> 73, >>> >>> Ken Alexander >>> VE3HLS >>> >>> >>> On 29/10/2011 12:09 AM, Mike Morrow wrote: >>>>> Noted last episode a Vibroplex or similar was used >>>>> to send a telegram or cablegram >>>>> >>>>> http://beta.abc.go.com/shows/pan-am/jet-setter/104a-cablegram >>>> I wonder if, by the early 1960s, there were **any** commercial >>>> aircraft radiotelegrapher positions still used on US airlines. The >>>> Element 7 Aircraft Radiotelegraph Endorsement to the First or Second >>>> Class Radiotelegraph License was still available from the FCC even in >>>> the mid-1980s. But that was likely more than 25 years after all such >>>> positions had ceased to exist. >>>> >>>> Mike / KK5F >>>> >>> ______________________________________________________________ >>> Elecraft mailing list >>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft >>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm >>> Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net >>> >>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net >>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html >> >> ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
