Farnsworth Method

[AC7AC]

CONTENTS DELETED

The author has deleted this message.

[Tom McCulloch]

Hi Ron,
 I absolutely agree with your comments and observations.  If I might
respectfully add a third step might be to "hear words".  I think once we can
copy a qso in heads we are well on our way to increasing our copy speed.

A beginner would do well not to right down every letter.  Common things like
"RST" and "QTH" are a good place to start and then move on from there.

Nice thread, tnx
Tom

WB2QDG
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron D'Eau Claire" <[hidden email]>
To: "Elecraft e-mail list" <[hidden email]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 7:31 PM
Subject: [Elecraft] Farnsworth Method


Over the years I've spoken with many Hams who were unable to break through
to decent CW proficiency until they encountered the Farnsworth method. Until
I actually got on the air and was "talking" with CW, it was hard for me too.
For their success, I'm happy to see the Farnsworth method practiced.

Success with Farnsworth code requires TWO steps be completed. I've run into
many Hams who are frustrated to the point of quitting CW because they only
completed the first step.

The first step is to be able to read individual characters at some chosen
target speed. To do that, relatively large spaces are left between
characters - long enough for the brain to finally go "Aha!" and recognize
each character before the next one is sent.

The second step is to reduce the spaces between characters to match the
target speed, so the CW flows properly. Just as there's the important 3:1
ratio between dits and dahs, there are equally important ratios between
elements, characters and words.

I've run across many Hams how never learned to copy with the right character
and word spacings. For them, on-air CW from most operators is a confusing
string of dits and dahs.

Because they never learned to copy CW characters at various speeds, they
can't copy even if the sending station slows down, lengthening the dits and
dahs correctly while maintaining the correct spacing and cadence. For them,
CW at 8 or 10 WPM is just gibberish sent very slowly.

If you choose to learn using Farnsworth spacing, understand that it's
critical you learn to copy with the correct character/word spacing as well,
and then you learn to copy a range of speeds with the correct spacing, at
least over the range of 8 or 9 WPM up to perhaps 20 WPM. Some of the new
Hams I've helped found learning to copy correctly-sent CW at least as
difficult as learning the characters initially.

I'm still happy I learned with the correct spacing from the start,
struggling to get my copy up to 5 WPM to pass the Novice exam, then the 13
WPM General, 20 WPM Extra Amateur license, and the 20 WPM Second Class
Commercial Radiotelegraph operator's license using all the punctuation marks
(anyone remember what a dollar sign is in CW? How about parenthesis,
brackets or a semicolon? - I know you do Phil! You're just an FCC "bear" in
retired Ham's clothing!) Nowadays I take great pleasure in being able to
copy those with very... Er... "obscure" fists <G>.

I didn't realize the ARRL was sending code practice using Farnsworth, but
I've *never* heard them send bulletins or other material with anything but
the correct spacing.

Of course, "Farnsworth" spacing is perfect is perfect CW, once the spacing
is corrected for the target speed.

Fun with CW is to get that proficiency, copying with the proper spacing and
with an ever-increasing range of speeds.

Ron AC7AC

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com 

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Bill VanAlstyne W5WVO]

Tom McCulloch wrote:

> I think once we can copy a qso in our heads we are well on our way to
> increasing our copy speed.

Absolutely.

> A beginner would do well not to right down every letter.  Common
> things like "RST" and "QTH" are a good place to start and then move
> on from there.

This is well said and heeded. IMO, the way I first learned code as a kid --  
the traditional "Novice" way, writing down each letter in block caps -- is
completely wrong-headed.

I believe I learned proper Morse despite the way I learned it, not because of
it. During practice, the beginner should not write any decoded characters
down, but gradually learn to understand what is sent in his/her head. This is
equivalent to the "immersion" method of learning a foreign language. Once
fluency has been achieved at a reasonable speed, writing the text down is
easily added because it is a skill you already have, and the brain can cope
with it "in the margins".

This was all impressed upon me at a tender age (albeit not before I had
already learned the code the wrong way) by the legendary Clara Reger, W2RUF
(SK), where I heard her lecture on CW at a meeting of the Rochester [NY]
Amateur Radio Association, probably in 1963 or 1964. Google her to get an idea
of just why she was legendary in her own time, as now.

Bill W5WVO

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[N5GE]

On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 16:31:28 -0700, you wrote:

>Over the years I've spoken with many Hams who were unable to break through
>to decent CW proficiency until they encountered the Farnsworth method. Until
>I actually got on the air and was "talking" with CW, it was hard for me too.
>For their success, I'm happy to see the Farnsworth method practiced.
>
>Success with Farnsworth code requires TWO steps be completed. I've run into
>many Hams who are frustrated to the point of quitting CW because they only
>completed the first step.
>
>The first step is to be able to read individual characters at some chosen
>target speed. To do that, relatively large spaces are left between
>characters - long enough for the brain to finally go "Aha!" and recognize
>each character before the next one is sent.
>
>The second step is to reduce the spaces between characters to match the
>target speed, so the CW flows properly. Just as there's the important 3:1
>ratio between dits and dahs, there are equally important ratios between
>elements, characters and words.
>

[snip]

A lot of Farnsworth learners never catch onto the rhythm part of it.

They did not use the Farnsworth method in the U.S. Army when I learned Morse
Code in 1962.  One of the hardest things for me to learn after (and during) my
training was to copy clear text, because all of our practice was with five
character groups (five characters and a space, then five more and a space,
etc.).  When someone threw a space in after the fourth character or sixth
character, it would really mess me up ;o)  I have the same problem now with
"Farnsworth Senders" who put too much space between words and characters.  It
usually ends up being a short QSO.

In the military classes we had phrases that were designed to help us recognize
individual characters.  "Grandma did it" was for 'Z',  "The Darned Old Jay" was
for 'J' and "Pay Day Today" was for 'Q'.

One will never learn to head copy if they don't throw away the spacing learned
from the Farnsworth method and learn the sound (rhythm) of real Morse Code.
Copying in the head is when rag chewing really becomes quite satisfying.

Tom, N5GE - SWOT 3537 - Grid EM12jq

"They that can give up essential liberty
to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety."

--Benjamin Franklin 1775


Support the entire Constitution, not
just the parts you like.

http://www.n5ge.com
http://www.eQSL.cc/Member.cfm?N5GE

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[AC7AC]

CONTENTS DELETED

The author has deleted this message.

[Julian, G4ILO]

I'm glad it's not just me that has this problem. I struggled with Morse for years due to the way I learned it to pass the test, running each letter through a "lookup table" in my head, which was too slow a method for anything above 12wpm.

Thanks to using what I understood was the Koch method (which seems pretty much like your Farnsworth method) I have re-learnt the code so that I can now instinctively recognize letters, numbers and common punctuation at around 20-25wpm. But I still get hung up converting the letters to words at that speed.

If you spelt something out phonetically to me, I would copy it letter by letter and would have to have a second look at the whole thing when you finished, to get the word itself. It's the same in CW, and by the time I have done that I have missed the first couple of letters of the next word and get flustered and it takes a while to pick it up again. I don't seem to be able to copy letters AND be working out what the word could be at the same time. (The XYL says it's because men can only do one thing at a time, women can multi-task...)

It's easier copying on the air because the actual vocabulary used in most contacts is quite limited and you recognize words like like NAME, QTH, RST and so on. But I can get thrown if someone has a QTH I've never heard of. I stick to contests or working DX where the exchange is predictable. I'm afraid to return to a CQ, never mind call CQ myself, in case I get someone who wants to chat and I can't follow the conversation.

[M0XDF]

My understanding is that the Koch method is about learning code at  
full speed from the outset, but starting with just two characters and  
building up from there. I'm using G4FON's Koch program, but kinda  
mixing the two; koch & Farnsworth - I'm learning characters at 20  
wpm , but with Farnsworth spaceing which reduces the actual speed to  
about 10 wpm.

And I'm working up from there. The one problem is trying to understand  
chars sent at 10 wpm - all the timing of each character seem wrong.

--
Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons,
For you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

On 26 Mar 2008, at 10:21, G4ILO wrote:

> Thanks to using what I understood was the Koch method (which seems  
> pretty
> much like your Farnsworth method) I have re-learnt the code so that  
> I can
> now instinctively recognize letters, numbers and common punctuation at
> around 20-25wpm. But I still get hung up converting the letters to  
> words at
> that speed.
> (The XYL says it's because men can only do one thing at a time,
> women can multi-task...)

Yes, thats correct, my wife can sit, and drink coffee, and smoke a  
cig. and read a book, while thinking about getting dressed, and what  
to cook for dinner - all at the same time. Me, I just think about one  
thing ....
Radio!
  :-)
_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[ac0h]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

You are correct.

The Koch method is about learning morse at full speed 25wpm characters
spaced correctly for 25wpm overall speed. With the G4FON software you
can choose any speed you want. Learn two characters to 95% then add one
or two till you get those "mastered".

I was also a Farnsworth victim. I could copy characters pretty well but
if you messed with the spacing to speed it up or slow it down I went in
the tank. I actually flunked my first code test because of it. They
started with the V's which I copied perfectly then the test started
13wpm characters, 13wpm spacing. I went into brain lock. I couldn't make
my hand write anything. Before I snapped out of it totally the test was
over. I was so mad I didn't even sit the 5wpm test.

That was an early volunteer examiner session and it was a mess from the
start. The room they chose for the CW testing was a 60ft long conference
room with 12 ft ceilings at a local hospital. The "sound system" was a
worn out portable cassette player at the front of the room. I did have
two opportunities to copy what was being sent, the first as it passed my
ears from the front, and the second was the echo off the back wall.

After intensive on air copy with my fathers rig, no Farnsworth anything,
I did finally pass my 13wpm test, then 20. I didn't start to build speed
till I discovered G4FON's software.

I'm convinced newby's should be using the Koch method rather than
Farnsworth. It forces you to recognize characters rather than individual
elements of characters and translating. You don't have time to translate
so you never get into that bad habit. When someone has learned code with
the Farnsworth method, reducing the spacing to increase the overall
speed takes away precious milliseconds that they were using to translate
what was being sent into characters then finally stitching those
characters together into something meaningful.


David Ferrington, M0XDF wrote:
| My understanding is that the Koch method is about learning code at full
| speed from the outset, but starting with just two characters and
| building up from there. I'm using G4FON's Koch program, but kinda mixing
| the two; koch & Farnsworth - I'm learning characters at 20 wpm , but
| with Farnsworth spaceing which reduces the actual speed to about 10 wpm.
|
| And I'm working up from there. The one problem is trying to understand
| chars sent at 10 wpm - all the timing of each character seem wrong.
|

- --
R. Kevin Stover, ACØH
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFH6kZ911jxjloa2wsRAjBXAJ9MBcQT/6oBjs4NhkdVQtHTjcWIUQCeJAUP
zFXB0hb4ROQluhZMdwCzsPQ=
=foHg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Dan Romanchik KB6NU]

I'm glad to hear someone say this. I can copy at least 30 wpm now,  
and I rarely hear words. I suppose I do hear some of the more common  
ones, such as "FER" or "THE", but for everything else it's still  
letter-by-letter for me, too.

I'd also like to echo the comment someone else made about head copy  
being "satisfying." That's the way I feel about it, too. Being able  
to do this makes working CW so much less of a task and so much more  
enjoyable.

73!

Dan KB6NU
----------------------------------------------------------
CW Geek and MI Affiliated Club Coordinator
Read my ham radio blog at http://www.kb6nu.com
LET'S GET MORE KIDS INTO HAM RADIO!



On Mar 25, 2008, at Mar 25, 11:10 PM, Ron D'Eau Claire wrote:

> I never learned to hear "words". I ran my speed up to 35 WPM,  
> copying on a
> mechanical typewriter, and decided it wasn't fun going any faster.  
> To this
> day, copying in my head while puttering around the shack, I still copy
> letters, not words, so that's why I didn't add think about the  
> third step.
>
> And, I submit, hearing "words" is a relatively recent phenomena for  
> most
> operators since, until recently, copying CW meant accurately  
> copying each
> character onto paper was needed for message handling. The  
> characters might
> be plain text, numbers or code groups.
>
> I made the transition from paper or mill copy as you describe: by not
> copying every letter but only the key stuff. Pretty soon I wasn't  
> writing
> anything at all and just listening.
>
> But it's still letter-by-letter for me.
>
> Ron AC7AC

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Gary D Krause]

The Koch method may be why I've noticed a change in CW over the last few
years.  To me, it used to be very smooth and flowing and now it seems to be
very choppy.  The letters are faster but, the spacing between the letters
seems to be wider.  I've noticed that the ARRL code practice isn't like this.
 They still have that nice flow to the code even at the higher speeds.  I use
to teach code at a local community college for ham radio licensing.  I noticed
that people with any kind of musical ability picked it up very quickly.  In
other words, you've got to have the rhythm ;-)  Perhaps the Koch method is
good for those that lack that ability.

Gary, N7HTS


On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 07:50:06 -0500
  "R. Kevin Stover" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> You are correct.
>
> The Koch method is about learning morse at full speed 25wpm characters
> spaced correctly for 25wpm overall speed. With the G4FON software you
> can choose any speed you want. Learn two characters to 95% then add one
> or two till you get those "mastered".
>
> I was also a Farnsworth victim. I could copy characters pretty well but
> if you messed with the spacing to speed it up or slow it down I went in
> the tank. I actually flunked my first code test because of it. They
> started with the V's which I copied perfectly then the test started
> 13wpm characters, 13wpm spacing. I went into brain lock. I couldn't make
> my hand write anything. Before I snapped out of it totally the test was
> over. I was so mad I didn't even sit the 5wpm test.
>
> That was an early volunteer examiner session and it was a mess from the
> start. The room they chose for the CW testing was a 60ft long conference
> room with 12 ft ceilings at a local hospital. The "sound system" was a
> worn out portable cassette player at the front of the room. I did have
> two opportunities to copy what was being sent, the first as it passed my
> ears from the front, and the second was the echo off the back wall.
>
> After intensive on air copy with my fathers rig, no Farnsworth anything,
> I did finally pass my 13wpm test, then 20. I didn't start to build speed
> till I discovered G4FON's software.
>
> I'm convinced newby's should be using the Koch method rather than
>Farnsworth. It forces you to recognize characters rather than individual
> elements of characters and translating. You don't have time to translate
> so you never get into that bad habit. When someone has learned code with
> the Farnsworth method, reducing the spacing to increase the overall
> speed takes away precious milliseconds that they were using to translate
> what was being sent into characters then finally stitching those
> characters together into something meaningful.
>
>
> David Ferrington, M0XDF wrote:
> | My understanding is that the Koch method is about learning code at full
> | speed from the outset, but starting with just two characters and
> | building up from there. I'm using G4FON's Koch program, but kinda mixing
> | the two; koch & Farnsworth - I'm learning characters at 20 wpm , but
> | with Farnsworth spaceing which reduces the actual speed to about 10 wpm.
> |
> | And I'm working up from there. The one problem is trying to understand
> | chars sent at 10 wpm - all the timing of each character seem wrong.
> |
>
> - --
> R. Kevin Stover, AC&#344;H
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFH6kZ911jxjloa2wsRAjBXAJ9MBcQT/6oBjs4NhkdVQtHTjcWIUQCeJAUP
> zFXB0hb4ROQluhZMdwCzsPQ=
> =foHg
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> _______________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Post to: [hidden email]
> You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
> Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   
>
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
> Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[AC7AC]

CONTENTS DELETED

The author has deleted this message.

[n6wg]

Hi Ron
Looks like we are of the same vintage.
I was a 1952 Novice too.

I remember working every day on my code, sturggling up to 13 wpm.
The night before I took the bus into Seattle for the General test, I
had a buddy send me some code practice for a final tune up.

So, he launched into this string of stuff that made no sense to me
at all.  I had to ask him, what was he sending?  Turns out he was
sending the index to the tube tables in the back of the handbook! :-)
Really had me going 'til I understood what was coming at me.

Great days those were.
73, Bob N6WG

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron D'Eau Claire" <[hidden email]>
To: <[hidden email]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 6:58 AM
Subject: RE: [Elecraft] Farnsworth Method


This is a very interesting thread to me because it seems like us
"dinosaurs"
really went through the same process you folks are experiencing, but
we had
a different venue.

I doubt if I could copy *anything* but 5 WPM CW when I got my Novice
ticket.
But I had a whole slice of 80 meters where almost everyone was sending
at 5
WPM! 1952 was a l-o-n-g time ago and I won't pretend I remember it
well, but
I suspect most of us had very little tolerance for sending at various
speeds. I do recall the challenge of working "that guy" who normally
sent a
bit too fast for me, and finally having a nice QSO.

Like you folks today, we could copy CW in our way, but had very little
flexibility in what we heard and how we heard it. That came only with
lots
of practice.

We were lucky in that regard: we had the Novice bands where everyone
was
practicing together and, when I got my Novice ticket, those bands were
*busy* with stations. We weren't working DX (most of us were running a
couple of watts on 80 meters and happy to work stations 100 miles
away!). We
were just trying to have a good QSO and get ready for the 13 WPM
General
license test before our Novice license expired (Back then the Novice
was
granted for one year and could not be renewed: it was upgrade of go
silent.)
I managed it during my summer school break that year, thanks to all
those
guys on the Novice bands.

We no longer have the huge number of new CW operators all concentrated
into
a 50 kHz segment of the CW band trying to figure out what each other
is
sending. FISTS and similar organizations do yeoman service helping new
operators build their speed, but it still takes practice, practice and
more
practice. It was years before I could be working on a rig at the bench
while
"reading the mail" on the CW bands in my head from a receiver going
across
the room.

It's a situation where the process of becoming proficient in CW has to
be of
as much interest as actually operating CW. In that way CW is like
learning
any second language.

And you have some tools we didn't have. A few lucky guys back in the
50's
had access to an "Instructograph": a code sending machine with a
wind-up
motor that passed perforated paper tape over a set of contacts that
keyed a
code practice oscillator. My neighbor and I were able to use one
briefly:
and quickly memorized the few tapes that came with the machine! Then
his Ham
Dad took pity on us and put his brand new state-of-the-art tape
recorder to
work recording some CW for us to practice on: all sent by hand on a
straight
key, no doubt. In subsequent years I helped a number of newcomers get
their
Novice tickets by holding code practice sessions in which I sent CW by
hand
on a straight key to groups of students in the yard on pleasant summer
evenings.

I hope for you who are building CW proficiency it's as much fun in its
own
way as it was for us. I'm sure that it's as satisfying once you have
the
flexibility to jump into a CW QSO with 90% of the Hams out there.

It's a never-ending process. I've related here before the story of
visiting
KPH, a coastal radio station in California, and one of the operators
jumped
up from his position to chat for a bit. I could hear CW bleating away
from
his phones. After a bit he turned and sent "R" on the key and the
bleating
continued. Then he excused himself to return to work. Then he sat down
at
the mill (typewriter) and hammered out the rest of message he had been
copying in his head: not plain text but dates, addresses, phone
numbers and
the like. He ripped that message blank out of the machine, put in
another
and furiously pounded out the start of the next message until he
"caught
up".

I was amazed. I still am. Clearly he wasn't copying words, but
characters,
and remembering them while carrying on a conversation with me. Such
operators typically wore their phones back off of their ears so they
could
hear what was going on around them, and carry on conversations with
others
as needed while copying CW. Like most commercial operators, the speed
wasn't
all that fast -- usually something between 10 and 25 WPM -- but he
could
copy virtually any fist, no matter how bad. In the maritime service
with
shipboard operators of all proficiency levels, many of whom spoke
English as
only their second, third or fourth language, the ability to copy the
most
abysmal fists on the first try was an important skill.

I can't match that ability, any more than I can chew the rag at 70
WPM. Not
yet anyway. But what I can do on CW is a huge amount of fun for me. It
has
been ever since I passed the 5 WPM Novice test years ago.

Isn't that what Ham radio is all about?

Ron AC7AC


_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[AC7AC]

CONTENTS DELETED

The author has deleted this message.

[Kurt Cramer-2]

Ron & All,
 
I too was a novice in the early '50s. In fact I received the ticket in late December '51. What a Christmas present! At about that same time I finished the first semester of my freshman year in high school. I was taking a music class. The teacher gave me a good grade and then suggested that I change to a shop class next semester. I still can't dance, or send/receive CW very well. I did operate quite a lot and got the General ticket by the next Summer. It took two trys. The first I had some strings of characters in the lower 60s, but none of 65! I'm sure you will tell me I just didn't stick to it long enough. This may have happened because my father was licensed and there was the 75A2 receiver Harvey-Wells AM transmitter on ten meters during one of the best sun spot cycles of all time.
 
Kurt



> From: [hidden email]> To: [hidden email]> Subject: RE: [Elecraft] Farnsworth Method> Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 07:58:50 -0700> > This is a very interesting thread to me because it seems like us "dinosaurs"> really went through the same process you folks are experiencing, but we had> a different venue.> > I doubt if I could copy *anything* but 5 WPM CW when I got my Novice ticket.> But I had a whole slice of 80 meters where almost everyone was sending at 5> WPM! 1952 was a l-o-n-g time ago and I won't pretend I remember it well, but> I suspect most of us had very little tolerance for sending at various> speeds. I do recall the challenge of working "that guy" who normally sent a> bit too fast for me, and finally having a nice QSO. > > Like you folks today, we could copy CW in our way, but had very little> flexibility in what we heard and how we heard it. That came only with lots> of practice.> > We were lucky in that regard: we had the Novice bands where everyone was> practicing together and, when I got my Novice ticket, those bands were> *busy* with stations. We weren't working DX (most of us were running a> couple of watts on 80 meters and happy to work stations 100 miles away!). We> were just trying to have a good QSO and get ready for the 13 WPM General> license test before our Novice license expired (Back then the Novice was> granted for one year and could not be renewed: it was upgrade of go silent.)> I managed it during my summer school break that year, thanks to all those> guys on the Novice bands. > > We no longer have the huge number of new CW operators all concentrated into> a 50 kHz segment of the CW band trying to figure out what each other is> sending. FISTS and similar organizations do yeoman service helping new> operators build their speed, but it still takes practice, practice and more> practice. It was years before I could be working on a rig at the bench while> "reading the mail" on the CW bands in my head from a receiver going across> the room. > > It's a situation where the process of becoming proficient in CW has to be of> as much interest as actually operating CW. In that way CW is like learning> any second language. > > And you have some tools we didn't have. A few lucky guys back in the 50's> had access to an "Instructograph": a code sending machine with a wind-up> motor that passed perforated paper tape over a set of contacts that keyed a> code practice oscillator. My neighbor and I were able to use one briefly:> and quickly memorized the few tapes that came with the machine! Then his Ham> Dad took pity on us and put his brand new state-of-the-art tape recorder to> work recording some CW for us to practice on: all sent by hand on a straight> key, no doubt. In subsequent years I helped a number of newcomers get their> Novice tickets by holding code practice sessions in which I sent CW by hand> on a straight key to groups of students in the yard on pleasant summer> evenings.> > I hope for you who are building CW proficiency it's as much fun in its own> way as it was for us. I'm sure that it's as satisfying once you have the> flexibility to jump into a CW QSO with 90% of the Hams out there. > > It's a never-ending process. I've related here before the story of visiting> KPH, a coastal radio station in California, and one of the operators jumped> up from his position to chat for a bit. I could hear CW bleating away from> his phones. After a bit he turned and sent "R" on the key and the bleating> continued. Then he excused himself to return to work. Then he sat down at> the mill (typewriter) and hammered out the rest of message he had been> copying in his head: not plain text but dates, addresses, phone numbers and> the like. He ripped that message blank out of the machine, put in another> and furiously pounded out the start of the next message until he "caught> up". > > I was amazed. I still am. Clearly he wasn't copying words, but characters,> and remembering them while carrying on a conversation with me. Such> operators typically wore their phones back off of their ears so they could> hear what was going on around them, and carry on conversations with others> as needed while copying CW. Like most commercial operators, the speed wasn't> all that fast -- usually something between 10 and 25 WPM -- but he could> copy virtually any fist, no matter how bad. In the maritime service with> shipboard operators of all proficiency levels, many of whom spoke English as> only their second, third or fourth language, the ability to copy the most> abysmal fists on the first try was an important skill.> > I can't match that ability, any more than I can chew the rag at 70 WPM. Not> yet anyway. But what I can do on CW is a huge amount of fun for me. It has> been ever since I passed the 5 WPM Novice test years ago. > > Isn't that what Ham radio is all about?> > Ron AC7AC > > > _______________________________________________> Elecraft mailing list> Post to: [hidden email]> You must be a subscriber to post to the list.> Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft > > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm> Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[AC7AC]

CONTENTS DELETED

The author has deleted this message.

[Phil Kane-2]

Robert Tellefsen wrote:

> Hi Ron
> Looks like we are of the same vintage.
> I was a 1952 Novice too.

Count me in that year as well.  I learned my 5 wpm from and
Instructograph that the HS radio club had.  Engineering school and grad
school/employment took up much of my time after that and I stayed a Tech
until 1962, took the Advanced in 1968 when it again became available,
and 20+ wpm Extra in 1974.

> I remember working every day on my code, sturggling up to 13 wpm.
> The night before I took the bus into Seattle for the General test, I
> had a buddy send me some code practice for a final tune up.
>
> So, he launched into this string of stuff that made no sense to me
> at all.  I had to ask him, what was he sending?  Turns out he was
> sending the index to the tube tables in the back of the handbook! :-)
> Really had me going 'til I understood what was coming at me.

I was TDY in New York at the time so copying W1AW's code practice to get
to 13 wpm was a snap.  They sent tube tables as "pseudo-groups" and text
from QST consisting of whole words starting at the left-hand side of the
line and going backwards to avoid "copying ahead".  It worked!
>
> Great days those were.

Amen, brother.

73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane
Elecraft K2/100   s/n 5402
_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Bob Nielsen-2]

On Mar 26, 2008, at 3:19 PM, Phil Kane wrote:

> Robert Tellefsen wrote:
>
>> Hi Ron
>> Looks like we are of the same vintage.
>> I was a 1952 Novice too.
>
> Count me in that year as well.  I learned my 5 wpm from and  
> Instructograph that the HS radio club had.  Engineering school and  
> grad school/employment took up much of my time after that and I  
> stayed a Tech until 1962, took the Advanced in 1968 when it again  
> became available, and 20+ wpm Extra in 1974.
>
>> I remember working every day on my code, sturggling up to 13 wpm.
>> The night before I took the bus into Seattle for the General test, I
>> had a buddy send me some code practice for a final tune up.
>> So, he launched into this string of stuff that made no sense to me
>> at all.  I had to ask him, what was he sending?  Turns out he was
>> sending the index to the tube tables in the back of the handbook! :-)
>> Really had me going 'til I understood what was coming at me.
>
> I was TDY in New York at the time so copying W1AW's code practice  
> to get to 13 wpm was a snap.  They sent tube tables as "pseudo-
> groups" and text from QST consisting of whole words starting at the  
> left-hand side of the line and going backwards to avoid "copying  
> ahead".  It worked!
>> Great days those were.
>
> Amen, brother.

Add me to the list of those licensed in 1952 (there are a bunch of  
us).  I borrowed an Instuctograph and had it up to a little over 10  
wpm when I went to take the tech test several months later.  I  
figured I would take the 13 wpm code test at the same time, intending  
for it to just be practice.  That which resulted in a no-pressure  
session and I passed (I did the same thing 25 years later, getting  
Extra class instead of Advanced).

73, Bob N7XY (originally WN6SWE)

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[dave.wilburn]

I'm just starting to move away from where you describe.  Been stuck
there for too long.  Koch helped me a bunch.  Using the G4FON
software, when I was traveling, I would sit in front of the TV at
night and every commercial (there are a lot) I would mute the TV and
start G4FON sending common words, and I would type them.  It helps
that I can touch type.  I would often have to go back and read what I
had copied, and was amazed at some of the complicated words.

Three things have helped me, though as far as QSO's digressing from
the script, I still have trouble.
*Contesting
*MP3 player
*Listening while otherwise occupied

Contesting - they go fast, and I have to often sit there and listen
over and over.  But it is a chance to get a lot of practice in a short
period of time.  You are listening for your call, and then any
exchange, this is all after you figure out their call.  Start at the
top of the CW band (where they are going slower) and work your way
down.  Morse runner is good for this too.

MP3 player - I get the archived MP3's from W1AW and load them on my
cell phone MP3 player.  I can then, when driving, on when I have a
moment, sit and listen to them.  Often at a faster speed than I can
copy everything.  Makes me stretch my abilities.  Even if I just copy
pieces, I am happy.  Then when I go back in speed, it seems much
easier.  I will often let this play at night when I go to bed.  Have
to watch that though, as too much code at night, and I start dreaming
in morse, and that is REALLY weird.

Listening to the radio while doing other stuff - I have a rig in the
car, mainly for listening to 20m cw.  I work from home and will, at
times, let the rig run and just listen and copy bits and pieces.  Just
today, with the rig on in the vehicle, and driving along, I was
copying good chunks of a QSO, in my head.  Guy's name was Evan, and he
lived in Horseshoebay, TX (that was a tough QTH to copy by the way)
and I _think_ that is near Austin.

It is funny you mention copying words.  I first noticed that when I
was active on FISTS.  The sound of the word FISTS is _very_
distinctive, and I learned that first.  But then I started noticing
other words.  One that was initially quite painful was "his".  The,
is, and hr came to me pretty quick, followed by fb.  To this day, Q
still messes me up.  You put a C in front of it, and I am just fine.

Great thread.  Know I'm a bit late, but really enjoying it.



Dave Wilburn
K4DGW
K2/100 - S/N 5982

"A dead enemy is a peaceful enemy.....blessed be the peacemakers."


G4ILO wrote:

> I'm glad it's not just me that has this problem. I struggled with Morse for
> years due to the way I learned it to pass the test, running each letter
> through a "lookup table" in my head, which was too slow a method for
> anything above 12wpm.
>
> Thanks to using what I understood was the Koch method (which seems pretty
> much like your Farnsworth method) I have re-learnt the code so that I can
> now instinctively recognize letters, numbers and common punctuation at
> around 20-25wpm. But I still get hung up converting the letters to words at
> that speed.
>
> If you spelt something out phonetically to me, I would copy it letter by
> letter and would have to have a second look at the whole thing when you
> finished, to get the word itself. It's the same in CW, and by the time I
> have done that I have missed the first couple of letters of the next word
> and get flustered and it takes a while to pick it up again. I don't seem to
> be able to copy letters AND be working out what the word could be at the
> same time. (The XYL says it's because men can only do one thing at a time,
> women can multi-task...)
>
> It's easier copying on the air because the actual vocabulary used in most
> contacts is quite limited and you recognize words like like NAME, QTH, RST
> and so on. But I can get thrown if someone has a QTH I've never heard of. I
> stick to contests or working DX where the exchange is predictable. I'm
> afraid to return to a CQ, never mind call CQ myself, in case I get someone
> who wants to chat and I can't follow the conversation.
>
> -----
> Julian, G4ILO  K3 s/n: 222 K2 s/n: 392
> G4ILO's Shack: www.g4ilo.com
> Zerobeat Ham Forums: www.zerobeat.net/smf

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com