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
paulf@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.
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
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.
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