[digitalradio] Re: CW - last resort?

BRAVO!!! BZ to NAVMARCORMARS!!! Commenting late because of computer outage. Rick W3BI/NNN0GKF --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Sholto Fisher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Here's some food for thought for digimode only ops. > > DE NNN0ASA ZUJ CMB06-08: > RR NOALL > DE NNN0ASA 050 > R 29

Re: [digitalradio] Re: CW - last resort?

Go to Africa and learn the drums. They work too and are effective over a large area. At 03:28 PM 6/1/2008, you wrote: Could be true Chuck. I guess to take it just a step further, we need to ask Simon to start looking into writing another mode into his great software to decode/operate the ham

[digitalradio] Re: CW - last resort?

Could be true Chuck. I guess to take it just a step further, we need to ask Simon to start looking into writing another mode into his great software to decode/operate the hammers to hit the trees like the old natives in the jungle do. Oops, somebody would have to go cut down trees and the "hu

Re: [digitalradio] Re: CW - last resort?

Do not laugh. It could come to pass that we (mankind) will need to reinvent spark gap.Who knows what evil lurks in the minds Chuck AA5J At 02:39 PM 6/1/2008, Jack Hamilton wrote: >On Sun, 01 Jun 2008 15:07:17 -0400, "Paul L Schmidt, K9PS" ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> s

Re: [digitalradio] Re: CW - last resort?

Very good Simon. Years ago we had racing pigeon's. To bad I still don't have the loft. Have a good day. George K1OLS PS I thing your program is great. > UK members of this list are already constructing pigeon lofts. > > Simon Brown, HB9DRV > > --

Re: [digitalradio] Re: CW - last resort?

Even when I have nothing against DV, people have to recognize that it is not a QRP activity. I see quite a few signals I can never decode because they do not exceed the threshold. FDMDV is not PSK31. 73, Jose, CO2JA --- Jim Dear wrote: > Amen, and hopefully someday soon, come into the 21st

Re: [digitalradio] Re: CW - last resort?

UK members of this list are already constructing pigeon lofts. Simon Brown, HB9DRV -- From: "Jack Hamilton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > I guess it's time for us all to learn how to build spark gap > transmitters, just in case. >

Re: [digitalradio] Re: CW - last resort?

On Sun, 01 Jun 2008 15:07:17 -0400, "Paul L Schmidt, K9PS" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Andrew O'Brien wrote: > > My reading of the message is that Morse code is "authorized" NOT > > mandated. It seems a reasonable decision for a organization often > > dependent on volunteers, if they want to use

Re: [digitalradio] Re: CW - last resort?

Andrew O'Brien wrote: > My reading of the message is that Morse code is "authorized" NOT > mandated. It seems a reasonable decision for a organization often > dependent on volunteers, if they want to use it.. let'em. MARS will > continue to use MT63, ALE, PSK, and many other digital modes. > > A

Re: [digitalradio] Re: CW - last resort?

I have to concur with Charlie. I did not see anything negative in the MARS reappraisal of CW. In fact, it seemed bizarre and counterproductive to me when they decided to not only drop CW, but to prohibit its use on MARS channels some years back! I do agree that there are almost no new hams who

[digitalradio] Re: CW - last resort?

David, If you feel so inferior because you lack CW skills perhaps you should make the effort and develop them. Mocking someone for having something you do not is so very lame. 73, Charlie --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "David Little" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Isn't this just precious

Re: [digitalradio] Re: CW - last resort?

Amen, and hopefully someday soon, come into the 21st century by instituting digital voice, as well as the other digital modes currently used. Pax, Jim Dear W5LOG NNN0RKQ Andrew O'Brien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: My reading of the message is that Morse code is "auth

[digitalradio] Re: CW - last resort?

My reading of the message is that Morse code is "authorized" NOT mandated. It seems a reasonable decision for a organization often dependent on volunteers, if they want to use it.. let'em. MARS will continue to use MT63, ALE, PSK, and many other digital modes. Andy K3UK --- In digitalradio@yaho

Re: [digitalradio] Re: CW vs PSK = Brain vs Machine Decode

I've read that our ears and brains are not sensitive to phase error so would think that psk31 would not be possible in our heads. But that single tone FSK should be possible. 73, Tom n4zpt kd4e wrote: >> I have to disagree Gabriel, PSK is a form of >> modulated coding, just as is FSK. CW in its

RE: [digitalradio] Re: CW vs PSK = Brain vs Machine Decode

PM To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: CW vs PSK = Brain vs Machine Decode You can indeed learn to "copy" a bit of rtty. I used to be able to set and hear someone call my government call sign in it. It is simply 5 level code, and I have heard of one or two guys who coul

Re: [digitalradio] Re: CW vs PSK = Brain vs Machine Decode

While I see a possibility in copying FSK with some coding, or ASK, I don't see how the ear could discern PSK. ASK may be identified as presence or absence of a tone, FSK as the presence of one of two tones, but PSK is the SAME tone, with just key clicks during phase jumps, but with no way for

Re: [digitalradio] Re: CW vs PSK = Brain vs Machine Decode

On Sat, 2006-12-23 at 14:02 -0500, kd4e wrote: > > I have to disagree Gabriel, PSK is a form of > > modulated coding, just as is FSK. CW in its simple > > form is a carrier that is on or off and is a form > > of digital signal that the brain can decode, such > > as is voice. But PSK, FSK, usall

[digitalradio] Re: CW vs PSK = Brain vs Machine Decode

> A brain does not make radio waves, a radio > does! Gabriel, WP3BM Oddly enough I believe that the brain actually does generate modulated radio waves. Serious weak signal stuff, though! -- Thanks! & 73, doc, KD4E ... enjoying a sunny CHRISTmas in Florida :-) ~

Re: [digitalradio] Re: CW vs PSK = Brain vs Machine Decode

You can indeed learn to "copy" a bit of rtty. I used to be able to set and hear someone call my government call sign in it. It is simply 5 level code, and I have heard of one or two guys who could copy messages, but never saw anyone do so. The REVS is quite easy to recognize. Just set rtty to i

[digitalradio] Re: CW vs PSK = Brain vs Machine Decode

> I have to disagree Gabriel, PSK is a form of > modulated coding, just as is FSK. CW in its simple > form is a carrier that is on or off and is a form > of digital signal that the brain can decode, such > as is voice. But PSK, FSK, usally infers a code > the brain can't decode. PSK and FSK me

[digitalradio] Re: CW software?

Have a look at this site: http://www.hotamateurprograms.com/downloads.htm 73 Ted G0TED --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, KV9U <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > With the non-paid version of Multipsk you only have 5 minutes to test > the enhanced CW mode. I admit that I did not try a very s

Re: [digitalradio] Re: CW decoder

You might also like http://pocketdigi.sourceforge.net -- download the x86 version for a PC or the Arm version for a Windows PDA (Pocket PC). It is the same CW decoder as in gMFSK for Linux, and fldigi (though fldigi might be a later revision), originally based on the VE7IT engine, and the unix

Re: [digitalradio] Re: CW decoder

Hello again I reread your post and you said the CWget program doesn't like you. I assume you are having trouble with the program (if not forgive the post) so try clicking with the mouse on the spikes in the spectrum. Then it will decode the sender. My rig has a 700 hz tone so when I tune the s

Re: [digitalradio] Re: CW decoder

Hello, CWget can be a great aid in learning the code if you use it as a backup. Find somebody on the air doing slow speed code or try to hook up with a patient ham like Andy then tune in with CWget and while it is decoding you decode on paper. That way if you miss anything CWget will help you f

[digitalradio] Re: CW decoder

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "REAL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I have started using a new program and It doesnt like me very much. I > am trying to learn code and have started using this CWget. Can anyone > help? > CW Get is not helpful for "learning" code. I learned CW by doing thr

Re: [digitalradio] Re: CW program???

Except for a very expensive CW software reader program ($60), I have not found a better CW reader software than Multipsk. 73, Rick, KV9U jhaynesatalumni wrote: > MultiPSK does CW > > > Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Re

[digitalradio] Re: CW program???

MultiPSK does CW Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Reflector : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup/ DigiPol: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Digipol (band plan policy discussion) Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit you

[digitalradio] Re: CW program???

To decode CW, the program that I found that is the most powerful is called CWGet. If you do a google search for CWGet, you'll find it. There are many settings for it in RX mode which make it very good at copying cw and it is shareware. 73--Scott WY3X --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew O

Re: [digitalradio] Re: CW Decoding Software

I compared the ability to copy CW by simultaneously watching the print of both Multipsk and AGND's program and was surprised how much better the Multipsk algorithm works. 73, Rick, KV9U Need a Digital mode QSO? Connect to Telnet://cluster.dynalias.org Other areas of interest: The MixW Refl

[digitalradio] Re: CW Decoding Software

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "martinbradford2001" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Having tried several programs, I now use an ancient Pakratt PK-232 > which I picked up on eBay for virtually nothing. The software has got > to be at least twenty years old and running on a CPU with less p

[digitalradio] Re: CW Decoding Software

WinWarbler will provide more modern software support for your PK232, Martin -- macros, logging, and an interface to the rest of the DXLab Suite. If you're also interested in RTTY, WinWarbler will run your PK232 and the MMTTY engine in parallel, yielding panoramic tuning and diversity decoding.

[digitalradio] Re: CW Decoding Software

Having tried several programs, I now use an ancient Pakratt PK-232 which I picked up on eBay for virtually nothing. The software has got to be at least twenty years old and running on a CPU with less power than most modern pocket calculators, but it still digs out signals that the others miss a

[digitalradio] Re: CW (Transmit and Receive) program??

Try MULTIPSK Version 3.13 http://f6cte.free.fr/ De LA5VNA --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Migliari Adriano" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Can Somebody provide me with web site address from where i can download a > FREE > CW (Transmit and Receive) program?? > I tried MIXW and Hamsc

[digitalradio] Re: cw

Let me echo that if you want to copy fast and conversationally, throw away your pencil and paper. On most traffic nets, folks only send about 25 wpm since that is all you can reliably copy down on paper. I've found most slow down to whatever speed you send at since it assumed that is also what

[digitalradio] Re: cw

Are you copying in your head, or writing it down? What I found really helped me make the switch to copying in my head was to let a digital unit copy along with me. Normally I wouldn't look at the screen but if I missed something important, I could look up at it so that I could carry on an intel

[digitalradio] Re: CW ?

If you are interested in cw, here is a posting from the Straight Key Century Club. Since early January more than 1200 have signed up and more cw is being heard on many of the ham bands. Most operators are more than willing to send at any speed and conversations are encouraged. There is an acti

[digitalradio] Re: CW ?

OK John, I will look for you. Andy K3UK --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Bradley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I've started to do the same thing, and have been lurking around 3700-3715 nites getting my speed up > > usually around 0300-0400Z > > John > - Original Message -

[digitalradio] Re: CW decoding comparison (MPSK, Mixw, Hamscope)

The practice of referring to "problems" as "issues" began during the early minicomputer days, when disk drives were both small and expensive. The cumulative saving of two bytes per instance was significant, given the rate of occurence. Note that disk drive manufacturers continued to use "proble

Re: [digitalradio] Re: CW decoding comparison (MPSK, Mixw, Hamscope)

Hello Jose, Joe and Rick, Thanks for all information. I'm not sure that the way to decode with a simple threshold and simple way to determine speed can give good results... A ham told me that it compares an external decoder with a modern decoder (no publicity), regarding the S/N level. He t

Re: [digitalradio] Re: CW decoding comparison (MPSK, Mixw, Hamscope)

--- Patrick Lindecker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello Martin, > > 8 bit or 16 bits is not the problem, only the > algorihm used or the hardware > processing makes the difference. One of the problem > is the automatic > determination of the speed. Did the old Pakrat > determines the CW speed

Re: [digitalradio] Re: CW decoding comparison (MPSK, Mixw, Hamscope)

Rick,   Only tried it a couple of times. Don't guess I gave it a fair shake.   Joe W4JSI - Original Message - From: Rick Williams To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 5:27 PM Subject: RE: [digitalradio] Re: CW decoding compa

RE: [digitalradio] Re: CW decoding comparison (MPSK, Mixw, Hamscope)

gitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Joe IveySent: Monday, October 10, 2005 17:02To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.comSubject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: CW decoding comparison (MPSK, Mixw, Hamscope) Patrick,   I have used the Pakrat software and you can have the

Re: [digitalradio] Re: CW decoding comparison (MPSK, Mixw, Hamscope)

Lindecker To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 3:02 PM Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: CW decoding comparison (MPSK, Mixw, Hamscope) Hello Martin,8 bit or 16 bits is not the problem, only the algorihm used or the hardware processing makes the

Re: [digitalradio] Re: CW decoding comparison (MPSK, Mixw, Hamscope)

it is better. 73 Patrick - Original Message - From: "martinbradford2001" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 4:05 PM Subject: [digitalradio] Re: CW decoding comparison (MPSK, Mixw, Hamscope) >I have an old PakRatt which seems to do a far better jo

Re: [digitalradio] Re: CW decoding comparison (MPSK, Mixw, Hamscope)

martinbradford2001 wrote: >I have an old PakRatt which seems to do a far better job than any >modern CW decoder I have tried - its a bit picky about its input >level but once you have that set that correctly it seems to cope with >some pretty poor morse... That is software which must be close t

[digitalradio] Re: CW decoding comparison (MPSK, Mixw, Hamscope)

I have an old PakRatt which seems to do a far better job than any modern CW decoder I have tried - its a bit picky about its input level but once you have that set that correctly it seems to cope with some pretty poor morse... That is software which must be close to twenty years old and running