19 Apr
2011
19 Apr
'11
1:57 p.m.
I use Morse on a daily basis and am completely self taught (over 50years
ago). I don't think it=92s an "I can/can't do it situation." Learning
it =
is
another matter. If you can't pick it up yourself then find somebody
qualified to teach you.
Secveral people have tried with me -- and given up. You are welcome to try.
After all, the military and commercial shipping used
to train thousands =
of
20wpm morse operators. Provided you are not visually and or aurally =
Do you know that they had a 100% success rate? Otherwise, all that shows
is that they had enough applicants to be able to find sufficient people
who could handle morse.
impaired
(I am partially both and still have no problems) then CW is for you.
Why use CW? That=92s the easy one. It will always get through where =
voice will
not. =20
That, IMHO, is incorrect.
Firstly, it's obvious that there are times when no signal is received (or
there's so much noise that the wnated signal can't be found, or...). In
that case morse won't 'get through' (nor will voice, of course). So to
say that morse will 'always get throguh when voice will not' is nonsense
Seconmly, I am pretty sure that fsk gives a better perfomrance than
on-off keying aundr almost all circumstances. And that there are plenty
of better error correcting schemes than morse. So, no, CW morse is not
optimal in any respsect.
If you enjoy using morse, fine. I will be the first to defend your right
to do so. But I still feel it was correct that it was removed from the
licensing exams. The purpose of the license is to ensure that you are
able to desing/build/opeate a transmitter without causing harmful
interfernece to others (in much the same way that a driving test is to
ensure you can cotnro la motor vehicle on the public highway without
being a danger to yourself or other road users). The amatuur exam is not,
and should not, be a way of saying 'I'm a better ham than you are'. That
can be decied later.
-tony