ssave@caen.engin.umich.edu (Shailendra Anant Save) (12/13/90)
Does anyone have the morse code in ascii?
I am studying for my radio operators licence, and
I just wrote a program to send me some beeps and
bops for dots and dashes by reading from a text file.
The problem is that I don't have codes for each
of the letters and the numbers and special characters.
Could someone send these to me? eg:
o - - -
s . . .
Also, could someone tell me what the delay in terms
of unit time that one has to have between letters
(characters). And between words?
I'll probably put this up for anonymous ftp after
I have done with it. Eventually it should be able
to take *in* morse and give the characters. It will
also have a noise includer. Something that will "forget"
to beep one or two dots or dashes in a word during
transmission. Good for real-time simulation.
Say, why do people use morse nowadays anyway?
--Shailendra
--
Physical: Shailendra Save, Logical: ssave@caen.engin.umich.edu
2303 Conger Baits II, UUCP: ...!umix!caen.engin.umich.edu!ssave
Ann Arbor. MI 48109. Audible: 313-763-1627(H) 313-764-8033(O)
ICBM: 42 33'W 83 71'N Fax: 313-747-1781
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
(For those who don't know, a weasel is a wolverine)henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (12/14/90)
In article <1990Dec12.231058.23895@engin.umich.edu> ssave@caen.engin.umich.edu (Shailendra Anant Save) writes: > Say, why do people use morse nowadays anyway? For conformance with antiquated regulations, because they're old-fashioned, or because they're stranded on a desert island which is well-supplied with analog electronic parts but has no digital parts. Morse is basically obsolete, since digital modulation techniques are far superior at punching clean signals through noise. -- "The average pointer, statistically, |Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology points somewhere in X." -Hugh Redelmeier| henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
reed@mozart.amd.com (David F. Reed) (12/14/90)
In article <1990Dec14.012315.7858@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >In article <1990Dec12.231058.23895@engin.umich.edu> ssave@caen.engin.umich.edu (Shailendra Anant Save) writes: >> Say, why do people use morse nowadays anyway? > >For conformance with antiquated regulations, because they're old-fashioned, >or because they're stranded on a desert island which is well-supplied with >analog electronic parts but has no digital parts. Morse is basically >obsolete, since digital modulation techniques are far superior at punching >clean signals through noise. Silly me, Henry, all this time of being an old fart, I thought cw was the first digital (on and off, modulated by keying) modulation technique... and as far as punching signals through the noise, you will find it hard to beat (without the military budget) that active filter most humans have between the ears, occupying the cranial cavity. hmmm, where did I go wrong all those years??? cheers! -- ____________________________________________________________________ "...just my opinion, not speaking for AMD." KK5D, 7J1AGO, XE1ZDR David F. Reed 4512 Clarno Austin TX 78749 packet: KK5D@KB5PM driving by? try 442.150 repeater
ben@val.com (Ben Thornton) (12/14/90)
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >In article <1990Dec12.231058.23895@engin.umich.edu> ssave@caen.engin.umich.edu (Shailendra Anant Save) writes: >> Say, why do people use morse nowadays anyway? >For conformance with antiquated regulations, because they're old-fashioned, >or because they're stranded on a desert island which is well-supplied with >analog electronic parts but has no digital parts. Morse is basically >obsolete, since digital modulation techniques are far superior at punching >clean signals through noise. Hold the phone (pun???). I thought that CW *is* a digital mode. BNF: <tone> := true; <silence> := false; Now, some digital modes are certainly superior to others, and some are more suited for usage in high-noise (QRM) radio circuits than others. Let's not confuse the issue by branding CW as an *ANALOG* mode, especially since most digital modes in use today on UHF and below are merely digitally modulated analog signals, like CW. If you are branding morse as obsolete because of the modulation techniques then HF packet, AMTOR, and RTTY are also obsolete. Ben -- Ben Thornton packet: WD5HLS @ KB5PM Video Associates Internet: ben@val.com Austin, TX uucp: ...!cs.utexas.edu!val!ben Did Schrodinger exist? ...or was that in another universe?
touch@dsl.cis.upenn.edu (Joe Touch) (12/15/90)
In article <1990Dec14.152659.8250@val.com> ben@val.com (Ben Thornton) writes: >henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >I thought that CW *is* a digital mode. > >BNF: ><tone> := true; ><silence> := false; > Depends on what you call digital. Actually, time is part of the BNF (dot = 3 * dash, etc). Time is also quantized, so it is digital in the true sense, just NOT binary. The BNF would be: dot := tone-for-dot-interval no-dot := silence-for-dot-interval dash := dot dot dot intra-letter-space := no-dot no-dash := no-dot no-dot no-dot inter-letter-space := no-dash ? inter-wordspace := no-dash no-dash no-dash I'm sure the space between dots and dashes is one dot time, and the spaces between letters is one dash, and three dot times are one dash time. I'm not sure about the space between words, or if there even is one defined (I think you may just parse the letter stream into words by context alone). Joe Touch PhD Candidate Dept of Computer and Information Science Univ of Pennsylvania
mack@frc2.frc.ri.cmu.edu (Clark McDonald) (12/15/90)
> Say, why do people use morse nowadays anyway?
1) Because it allows the ability to send/receive intelligence
from almost anywhere to almost anywhere with a minimum of
equipment. Never know when you might need to do just that.
Back when the students were protesting in China, some of the
only *real* inside information to get out of the country
was done with simple (below 30 mHz) Morse equipment.
2) Morse is *fun*. folks who have never sat up all night long
pounding the key on a flea power rig have trouble with this
one. (just ask mah XYL er, uh, wife.... :-) )
3) Simplicity has many virtues, one of them being low cost.
I for one would never have learned much about radio electronics
in my youth if Amateur Radio gear cost then (late '50s, early
'60s) what it does today. There's so much knowledge gained in
"rolling your own" equipment. Code is cheap. Code is cool.
--mack
Disclaimer: Claim 'er? I don't even *know* 'er!
--
Clark (Mack) McDonald ARPA: mack@frc.ri.cmu.edu
Field Robotics Center
Carnegie Mellon University (412) 268-6555
Pittsburgh, PA 15213paulf@shasta.Stanford.EDU (paulf) (12/15/90)
In article <1990Dec14.152659.8250@val.com> ben@val.com (Ben Thornton) writes: >Now, some digital modes are certainly superior to others, and some are >more suited for usage in high-noise (QRM) radio circuits than others. >Let's not confuse the issue by branding CW as an *ANALOG* mode, especially >since most digital modes in use today on UHF and below are merely digitally >modulated analog signals, like CW. Branding CW as a "digital mode" is sort of like calling a bicycle an automobile because it has wheels. While the symbols take on discrete levels, both the encoding process and the decoding process are very analog in nature. >If you are branding morse as obsolete because of the modulation techniques >then HF packet, AMTOR, and RTTY are also obsolete. The problem here is that you're confusing coding with modulation. HF packet et al are all FM in nature, which is somewhat superior to AM modes like CW when it comes to decoding (orthogonality). Old tech myths die hard... -=Paul Flaherty, N9FZX | Without KILL files, ->paulf@shasta.Stanford.EDU | life itself would be impossible.
karn@envy.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) (12/15/90)
In article <MACK.90Dec14152455@shovel.frc.ri.cmu.edu>, mack@frc2.frc.ri.cmu.edu (Clark McDonald) writes: |> Back when the students were protesting in China, some of the |> only *real* inside information to get out of the country |> was done with simple (below 30 mHz) Morse equipment. Funny, I thought it was all done with FAX machines and standard dialup phone lines. Phil
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (12/16/90)
In article <1990Dec14.150737.2609@mozart.amd.com> reed@mozart.amd.com (David F. Reed) writes: >and as far as punching signals through the noise, you will find it hard >to beat (without the military budget) that active filter most humans have >between the ears, occupying the cranial cavity. For digital communications purposes, much better active filters can be, and already are, implemented in silicon at amateur prices. Ask some of the folks doing digital satellite communications with modern modulation techniques. -- "The average pointer, statistically, |Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology points somewhere in X." -Hugh Redelmeier| henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
ins_atge@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU (Thomas G Edwards) (12/18/90)
In article <1990Dec14.012315.7858@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >In article <1990Dec12.231058.23895@engin.umich.edu> ssave@caen.engin.umich.edu (Shailendra Anant Save) writes: >> Say, why do people use morse nowadays anyway? > >For conformance with antiquated regulations, because they're old-fashioned, >or because they're stranded on a desert island which is well-supplied with >analog electronic parts but has no digital parts. Also because of nasty ITU regulations. More reasonably, code is exceedingly useful in low-power operations. Yes, DSP is going to change everyones life who can afford it, but morse code still serves a serious need for efficient communication with exceedingly small bandwidths (important on shrinking ham bands). If you have ever tried to work a satellite on battery power (like I did last field day), you'd see that morse is about the only reasonable way of pulling it off. Of course, I really haven't used code since then... -Tom N3HAU
lyndon@cs.athabascau.ca (Lyndon Nerenberg) (12/18/90)
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >> Say, why do people use morse nowadays anyway? >For conformance with antiquated regulations, because they're old-fashioned, >or because they're stranded on a desert island which is well-supplied with >analog electronic parts but has no digital parts. Morse is basically >obsolete, since digital modulation techniques are far superior at punching >clean signals through noise. Conformance with regs has nothing to do with it. Nobody will force you to go anywhere near a key after you get your license. Besides, some of us *like* CW. You know, if I changed the above question to: Say, why do people use 16 bit architectures nowadays anyway? your answer would still apply. Come on, Henry - you've only had a "no code" computer for a year or so :-) -- Lyndon Nerenberg VE6BBM / Computing Services / Athabasca University {alberta,cbmvax,mips}!atha!lyndon || lyndon@cs.athabascau.ca Packet: ve6bbm@ve6mc [.ab.can.na] The only thing open about OSF is their mouth. --Chuck Musciano
k3tx@wells.UUCP (Dave Heller) (12/18/90)
In article <7197@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU>, ins_atge@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU (Thomas G Edwards) writes: > In article <1990Dec14.012315.7858@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: > >In article <1990Dec12.231058.23895@engin.umich.edu> ssave@caen.engin.umich.edu (Shailendra Anant Save) writes: > >> Say, why do people use morse nowadays anyway? N3HAU seems to have learned the code just to get his Tech ticket (assume he's a Tech from the makeup of his call). Doesn't anyone realize that some of us (which includes a large proportion of the real good amateur operators) use CW by choice as the most relaxing and interesting mode? And for the traffic nets CW seems to work better - we tried just the other night to pass the same message both on 2 meter FM (local, repeater) and on 80 CW. The 80 CW pair got done much faster. - - may I draw an alalogy: some of the boat hobbiests seem to like sailboats, when everyone knows sailboats are obsolete as all hell. (As for me I would prefer never to see or hear about anything involving boats.)> > > >For conformance with antiquated regulations, because they're old-fashioned, > >or because they're stranded on a desert island which is well-supplied with > >analog electronic parts but has no digital parts. > > Also because of nasty ITU regulations. Try usisng it. You might like it.> More reasonably, code is exceedingly useful in low-power operations. > Of course, I really haven't used code since then... Nothing to brag about.
ccopjss@cc.brunel.ac.uk (John Smith) (12/18/90)
>>In article <1990Dec12.231058.23895@engin.umich.edu> ssave@caen.engin.umich.edu (Shailendra Anant Save) writes: >>> Say, why do people use morse nowadays anyway? > >>For conformance with antiquated regulations, because they're old-fashioned, The other remarks made by the various posters are all relevant and (sometimes) humorous. There is a point no-one seems to mention, the concept of "filtering out the noisy". Unfortunately it is not one hundred percent successful but it does make a lot of difference. Anyone who has listened to the quality of the conversations on both amature radio bands and the so called "citizen" radio bands have noticed the difference in the mentalities involved. As long as the difficulties of learning Morse code in order to get a licence, continues to keep to a minimum the number of the ignorant and foul mouthed types allowed to use certain frequencies I have no doubt it will be used. The days when in order to use radio communication one had to build ones own transmitter ( and hence be intelligent) have (some might say unfortunately) passed, and the result of allowing the only barrier to this form of communication to be money or theft can be heard on any CB channel. (shudder) So let us hope that "the powers that be" keep obstacles such as the technical exam and the morse code test, for the benefit of those who can use radio sensibly. I do not have an amature radio licence, but I know people who do and on the whole they are better than the CB types who dont. John.
ins_atge@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU (Thomas G Edwards) (12/19/90)
In article <691@wells.UUCP> k3tx@wells.UUCP (Dave Heller) writes: >In article <7197@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU>, ins_atge@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU (Thomas G Edwards) writes: >N3HAU seems to have learned the code just to get his Tech ticket (assume he's actually I learned it to get my novice :) >a Tech from the makeup of his call). Doesn't anyone realize that some of us >(which includes a large proportion of the real good amateur operators) use CW >by choice as the most relaxing and interesting mode? Oh yeah. There are alot of serious CW hams. It's near impossible to make voice contacts on HF any more with all the QRM. CW lets you blow through all that stuff for regular reliable communication. Besides, HF bandwidth needs conserving and CW is a good way to do it. >And for the traffic nets CW seems to work better Than voice. Especially in emergency situations. Alot of people forget that a serious emergency could wipe a whole lot of Packet BBS's off the air, making packet NTS a little more difficult. (I'm not downing packet, this is just reality). >>{Hitting RUDAK sats with 5 watts on CW} >> Of course, I really haven't used code since then... >Nothing to brag about. Probably not...I think the only way one can build code speed up from the 6-8 WPM level is serious on-air practice, and I just haven't had the time recently to get on HF. Even though HF allows world-wide contacts and such, the QRM makes is fairly unappealing to me. Occasionally I glide by the shack, but I can talk to hundreds of people on 2m FM voice or packet with almost no noise. Yes, someday I want to do 20 WPM, but that day is far off when I have more liesure time. -Tom N3HAU
mack@frc2.frc.ri.cmu.edu (Clark McDonald) (12/20/90)
In article <1990Dec14.204853@envy.bellcore.com>, karn@envy.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) writes: >Funny, I thought it was all done with FAX machines and standard >dialup phone lines. > >Phil -.-- --- ..- - .... --- ..- --. .... - .-- .-. --- -. --. Yeah, there was a lotta FAX going on. That's why I said *some* of the only real inside information to get out of the country was done with simple Morse equipment. Whut's the beef, Phil? --mack -- Clark (Mack) McDonald ARPA: mack@frc.ri.cmu.edu Field Robotics Center Carnegie Mellon University (412) 268-6555 Pittsburgh, PA 15213
gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) (12/20/90)
In article <1916@Terra.cc.brunel.ac.uk> ccopjss@cc.brunel.ac.uk (John Smith) writes: > >There is a point no-one seems to mention, the concept of "filtering >out the noisy". > >Unfortunately it is not one hundred percent successful but it does >make a lot of difference. > >Anyone who has listened to the quality of the conversations on both >amature radio bands and the so called "citizen" radio bands have >noticed the difference in the mentalities involved. > >As long as the difficulties of learning Morse code in order to >get a licence, continues to keep to a minimum the number of the >ignorant and foul mouthed types allowed to use certain frequencies >I have no doubt it will be used. > >So let us hope that "the powers that be" keep obstacles such as >the technical exam and the morse code test, for the benefit of those >who can use radio sensibly. > >I do not have an amature radio licence, but I know people who do >and on the whole they are better than the CB types who dont. > The average age of amateur radio operators is 50. The average age of CB operators is between 20 and 30 (no one knows for sure since licensing for CB is now nonexistant). The number of CB operators is at least 10 times the number of amateur operators and they are all crowded into 40 channels. The classic generation gap between the more mannerly oldsters and the young rowdies is a reflection of social change not differing licensing requirements. The huge numbers and the extreme crowding make the problems heard on CB seem much worse than they are. If you confined your amateur operations to 14.313 Mhz and certain portions of the 75 meter band and certain 2 meter repeaters, you would think that amateur radio was as bad as CB. We must wake up to the fact that amateur radio inevitably will face the effects of social change as the older generation dies off and new blood trickles in whether there is a code test or not. Now that there is not a code test for one class of license, this trickle may accelerate a bit. We must prepare to deal with these changes. Fortunately, we still have a bit of room so the intense crowding that CB suffers won't be a big factor in making things worse. Also we have the advantage that we out- number the newcomers and will for some years to come. CB's problems started with an explosion of new operators who overwhelmed the few early users. There was no chance to introduce the newcomers to established operating practices. We have that chance, if we don't blow it. Things will change as the demographics and size of the operator pool changes. We have the opportunity to guide the changes that will inevitably come to amateur radio, if we are willing to get out and work to do so. Not all of the changes will be bad. We will either learn new ways ourselves, or be relegated to the old fossil's corner. Times of change are times of opportunity if you have an open mind. Only dead things don't change. As a positive example of what you can do. In your licensing classes, spend the time you would have taken teaching Morse to prospective Techs, teaching good operating practice. On the air, welcome the newcomers and demonstrate by example good operating practice. At your club meetings, seek out newcomers and welcome them. Invite newcomers to participate in your activities. To handle the inevitable troublemakers found in any new barrel of apples, dust off that DF equipment. Organize a group of turkey hunters. Bring social pressure to bear against the bad guys. As a last resort, work through the ARRL monitoring system to aid the FCC in shutting them down. Become a part of the ARRL monitoring system yourself, make it work. We have the power to make amateur radio better than it is, if we are willing to work at it. Sitting on the sidelines gripping and whining won't do the job. Gary KE4ZV
kitagawa@will.ntt.jp (Masahiro Kitagawa) (12/25/90)
CW/Morse-code itself may not be so interesting as a modulation/coding technique any more. But how experienced operators decode morse-code is very interesting. After operating CW intensively in those contests, every hiss sound is decoded as Morse-code for me. Even wind seems calling like 'DE ....'. This symptom continues almost for a day, until I get enough sleep. My ear/nerve/brain system seems over adaptive to morse-code :-) Some kind of matched filter must be formed in my brain. Or it has been already built in my brain after years of over dose to CW. (addictive) And a hour of intensive operation may activate it. As a little bit old-fashioned ham operator, I like CW very much. As a scientist, I am very much interested in how human brain is adapted to CW/Morse-code. (Though I am amature in neuro science.) As an engineer, I want to emulate CW decoding mechanism of human brain by electronics such as DSP, neural network, software, ... Interesting enough ! As someone pointed at, CW is like bicycle. Both are easy for human, but very difficult for machine to manipulate. Is there already a robot which can ride bicycle very well ? masa *--- **** ***-- *--* *-* *-* Masahiro Kitagawa (JH3PRR) NTT Research Labs. Tokyo Japan kitagawa@will.ntt.jp
gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) (12/26/90)
In article <13605@will.ntt.JP> kitagawa@will.ntt.jp (Masahiro Kitagawa) writes: >CW/Morse-code itself may not be so interesting as a modulation/coding >technique any more. But how experienced operators decode morse-code is >very interesting. > >After operating CW intensively in those contests, every hiss sound is >decoded as Morse-code for me. Even wind seems calling like 'DE ....'. >This symptom continues almost for a day, until I get enough sleep. My >ear/nerve/brain system seems over adaptive to morse-code :-) Some kind >of matched filter must be formed in my brain. Or it has been already >built in my brain after years of over dose to CW. (addictive) And a >hour of intensive operation may activate it. > >As a little bit old-fashioned ham operator, I like CW very much. > >As a scientist, I am very much interested in how human brain is >adapted to CW/Morse-code. (Though I am amature in neuro science.) > >As an engineer, I want to emulate CW decoding mechanism of human brain >by electronics such as DSP, neural network, software, ... >Interesting enough ! > >As someone pointed at, CW is like bicycle. Both are easy for human, >but very difficult for machine to manipulate. Is there already a robot >which can ride bicycle very well ? I haven't heard of an anthropomorphic robot that could mount a bicycle built for humans and ride off. I have seen a child's toy motorcycle that rides about by itself. I have even seen a toy unicycle that can stay upright. And of course there are model helicopters that can hover under gyro control, a three axis stablization problem. It would be terribly inefficient to design an anthropomorphic robot to ride a bicycle. There is no need to go to such Rube Goldberg lengths when a robot can be directly connected to the wheels. It would be terribly inefficient to design a machine to read on-off keyed Morse Code. It's been done, but there are other non-human readable codes that are more efficient for a machine to use. PSK encoded ASCII with FEC for example. Gary KE4ZV
rambler@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Dan Meyer) (12/28/90)
Gawd! I abandoned rec.ham-radio because of the code wars! Pleeaase take it
somewhere else!
-- Dan Meyer
N0KFB
(grumble grumble grumble...)
Remember: " Buffalo never Oink " Seen on a South Dakota travel brocure.
Advertisment: Try the Railway Post Office , a railfan BBS ! (612) 377-2197.
UUCP: {crash tcnet}!orbit!pnet51!rambler
ARPA: crash!orbit!pnet51!rambler@nosc.mil
INET: rambler@pnet51.orb.mn.org