Elecraft › [HAM]

Re: Vibroplex - seen on ABC Pan Am (OT)

Classic

List

Threaded

14 messages Options

Mike Morrow-3

Re: Vibroplex - seen on ABC Pan Am (OT)

> Noted last episode a Vibroplex or similar was used
> to send a telegram or cablegram
>
> http://beta.abc.go.com/shows/pan-am/jet-setter/104a-cablegram

I wonder if, by the early 1960s, there were **any** commercial
aircraft radiotelegrapher positions still used on US airlines. The
Element 7 Aircraft Radiotelegraph Endorsement to the First or Second
Class Radiotelegraph License was still available from the FCC even in
the mid-1980s. But that was likely more than 25 years after all such
positions had ceased to exist.

Mike / KK5F

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

Ken Alexander-2

Re: Vibroplex - seen on ABC Pan Am (OT)

Never been a big fan of bugs and the mangled code most people send with
them. But since we're barrelling off topic, I DO like the Rolex GMT
Master a few slides previous. I bought one for $35 from a watch vendor
on Sukhumvit Road in Bangkok a few years ago. It ran for the next 2
years then quit.

It's main distinguishing feature was that it said "Oyster Pertual Date"
instead of Perpetual. I wore it on the flight home and got stopped in
Customs in Toronto. "Where'd you get the Rolex?" I laughed, took it
off and handed it to the guy and said it cost $35. Then I told him he
could keep it if he wanted to. He grinned, handed it back and I was on
my way!

73,

Ken Alexander
VE3HLS

On 29/10/2011 12:09 AM, Mike Morrow wrote:

>> Noted last episode a Vibroplex or similar was used
>> to send a telegram or cablegram
>>
>> http://beta.abc.go.com/shows/pan-am/jet-setter/104a-cablegram
> I wonder if, by the early 1960s, there were **any** commercial
> aircraft radiotelegrapher positions still used on US airlines. The
> Element 7 Aircraft Radiotelegraph Endorsement to the First or Second
> Class Radiotelegraph License was still available from the FCC even in
> the mid-1980s. But that was likely more than 25 years after all such
> positions had ceased to exist.
>
> Mike / KK5F
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>
>

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

Buddy Brannan

Re: Vibroplex - seen on ABC Pan Am (OT)

GOtta agree with Ron re: "mangled" code. Code sent with a bug, straight key, or sideswiper is a bit like handwriting. Some people have very sloppy handwriting, or in this case, send sloppily. I think these things really add character and make the whole thing a lot less sterile. Heck, if I wanna talk to a machine, I'll get on the Internet. And I have enough mechanical voices in my head already, much as I like having them and helpful as they are to me. So give me a well-handled bug any day of the week; in my view, there's nothing nicer to listen to than that. And I've heard some fantastic ones really recently on 40 meters, so I, for one, am glad that there are still those practicing the art.

Now if I can find time to get more comfortable with this cootie key I got from Stan a while ago. Oh, and get ahold of another bug one of these days to torture people with :-)
--
Buddy Brannan, KB5ELV - Erie, PA
Phone: (814) 860-3194 or 888-75-BUDDY

On Oct 29, 2011, at 1:45 AM, Ron D'Eau Claire wrote:

> With full respect Ken, it is NOT "mangled" code. A bug sends human Morse
> code as opposed to machine-generated code that is about as friendly as
> computer-generated voices.
>
> Mike, the military still required radiotelegraph operators on some of their
> aircraft and the commercial airlines used CW for trans-Pacific flights.
>
> I worked for Lockheed and held a commercial radiotelegraph license for just
> that purpose.
>
> I enjoy watching the "Pan Am" TV show because that was how flying was back
> in the 50's and 60's. I did a lot of it then. Wow, have times changed!
>
> BTW, I still hold a current commercial radiotelegraph license, but I doubt
> if I'll need it again, Hi!
>
> 73,
>
> Ron AC7AC
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> Never been a big fan of bugs and the mangled code most people send with
> them. ...
>
> 73,
>
> Ken Alexander
> VE3HLS
>
>
> On 29/10/2011 12:09 AM, Mike Morrow wrote:
>>> Noted last episode a Vibroplex or similar was used
>>> to send a telegram or cablegram
>>>
>>> http://beta.abc.go.com/shows/pan-am/jet-setter/104a-cablegram
>> I wonder if, by the early 1960s, there were **any** commercial
>> aircraft radiotelegrapher positions still used on US airlines. The
>> Element 7 Aircraft Radiotelegraph Endorsement to the First or Second
>> Class Radiotelegraph License was still available from the FCC even in
>> the mid-1980s. But that was likely more than 25 years after all such
>> positions had ceased to exist.
>>
>> Mike / KK5F
>>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

stan levandowski

Re: Vibroplex - seen on ABC Pan Am (OT)

In reply to this post by Mike Morrow-3

Hey Buddy - glad you're enjoying that Cootie.

Maybe we can 'mangle' a Cootie QSO on 40M one of these days. I now use
my HST for 'swiping (it has a switch for that).

73, Stan WB2LQF

On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 9:02 AM, Buddy Brannan wrote:
So give me a well-handled bug any day of the week; in my view, there's
nothing nicer to listen to than that. And I've heard some fantastic ones
really recently on 40 meters, so I, for one, am glad that there are
still those practicing the art.
>
> Now if I can find time to get more comfortable with this cootie key I
> got from Stan a while ago. Oh, and get ahold of another bug one of
> these days to torture people with :-)
> --
> Buddy Brannan, KB5ELV - Erie, PA
> Phone: (814) 860-3194 or 888-75-BUDDY
>
>
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

Ken Alexander-2

Re: Vibroplex - seen on ABC Pan Am (OT)

In reply to this post by Buddy Brannan

It sounds like everyone is saying sending sloppy code is desirable. How
odd; I always thought hams took pride in their sending. Well formed,
well spaced characters are much easier to copy. I find nothing quaint
or charming about sending dits at 30wpm and dahs at 10 wpm, which is
typical of what I hear. Either slow down the dits or speed up the
manually sent dahs. I know there are limits on how slow you can send
dits with a bug, but if you can't slow it down enough then consider
using another instrument for sending code or resign yourself to the fact
that VE3HLS will never answer your CQ (that should be pretty easy to
live with)! :-)

daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah dididit dididit
daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah! :-)

Ken,
VE3HLS

On 29/10/2011 9:02 AM, Buddy Brannan wrote:

> GOtta agree with Ron re: "mangled" code. Code sent with a bug, straight key, or sideswiper is a bit like handwriting. Some people have very sloppy handwriting, or in this case, send sloppily. I think these things really add character and make the whole thing a lot less sterile. Heck, if I wanna talk to a machine, I'll get on the Internet. And I have enough mechanical voices in my head already, much as I like having them and helpful as they are to me. So give me a well-handled bug any day of the week; in my view, there's nothing nicer to listen to than that. And I've heard some fantastic ones really recently on 40 meters, so I, for one, am glad that there are still those practicing the art.
>
> Now if I can find time to get more comfortable with this cootie key I got from Stan a while ago. Oh, and get ahold of another bug one of these days to torture people with :-)
> --
> Buddy Brannan, KB5ELV - Erie, PA
> Phone: (814) 860-3194 or 888-75-BUDDY
>
>
>
> On Oct 29, 2011, at 1:45 AM, Ron D'Eau Claire wrote:
>
>> With full respect Ken, it is NOT "mangled" code. A bug sends human Morse
>> code as opposed to machine-generated code that is about as friendly as
>> computer-generated voices.
>>
>> Mike, the military still required radiotelegraph operators on some of their
>> aircraft and the commercial airlines used CW for trans-Pacific flights.
>>
>> I worked for Lockheed and held a commercial radiotelegraph license for just
>> that purpose.
>>
>> I enjoy watching the "Pan Am" TV show because that was how flying was back
>> in the 50's and 60's. I did a lot of it then. Wow, have times changed!
>>
>> BTW, I still hold a current commercial radiotelegraph license, but I doubt
>> if I'll need it again, Hi!
>>
>> 73,
>>
>> Ron AC7AC
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>>
>> Never been a big fan of bugs and the mangled code most people send with
>> them. ...
>>
>> 73,
>>
>> Ken Alexander
>> VE3HLS
>>
>>
>> On 29/10/2011 12:09 AM, Mike Morrow wrote:
>>>> Noted last episode a Vibroplex or similar was used
>>>> to send a telegram or cablegram
>>>>
>>>> http://beta.abc.go.com/shows/pan-am/jet-setter/104a-cablegram
>>> I wonder if, by the early 1960s, there were **any** commercial
>>> aircraft radiotelegrapher positions still used on US airlines. The
>>> Element 7 Aircraft Radiotelegraph Endorsement to the First or Second
>>> Class Radiotelegraph License was still available from the FCC even in
>>> the mid-1980s. But that was likely more than 25 years after all such
>>> positions had ceased to exist.
>>>
>>> Mike / KK5F
>>>
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> Elecraft mailing list
>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>>
>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>
>

Mike Markowski-2

Re: Vibroplex - seen on ABC Pan Am (OT)

Hi Ken,

I think it's safe to say no one likes sloppy code, and the comments were
saying only that less than perfect code is pleasing to the ear. But
less than perfect doesn't mean sloppy. The tiny imperfections add a
human quality to an otherwise somewhat stark method of communication.

Shoot high, as the saying goes. That is, I always strive to send
perfect, computer-like code but know that I never will. That little
difference - hopefully very little! - is what makes the ab3ap fist
different from the others. That said I'm completely with you on poor
bug fists. Learn to send, learn to adjust a bug, and -then- get on the
air with it.

Back to Pan Am, I have an circular slide rule with a big Pan Am logo
taking up the entire back. Almost tempting to put it on ebay, but I
could never part with it!

73,
Mike ab3ap

On 10/29/2011 01:20 PM, Ken Alexander wrote:
> It sounds like everyone is saying sending sloppy code is desirable. How
> odd; I always thought hams took pride in their sending. Well formed,
> well spaced characters are much easier to copy.
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

Vic Rosenthal

Re: Vibroplex - seen on ABC Pan Am (OT)

In reply to this post by Ken Alexander-2

Nobody is saying 'sloppy code' is good! Just that you can send good code with a bug and it
is more pleasing than code from a keyer.

You can send rotten code with any kind of key. I would much rather try to copy CW sent
with an exaggerated dah/dit ratio than one of those guys who uses a shiny paddle but
forgets to put in letter and word spaces!

On 10/29/2011 10:20 AM, Ken Alexander wrote:

> It sounds like everyone is saying sending sloppy code is desirable. How
> odd; I always thought hams took pride in their sending. Well formed,
> well spaced characters are much easier to copy. I find nothing quaint
> or charming about sending dits at 30wpm and dahs at 10 wpm, which is
> typical of what I hear. Either slow down the dits or speed up the
> manually sent dahs. I know there are limits on how slow you can send
> dits with a bug, but if you can't slow it down enough then consider
> using another instrument for sending code or resign yourself to the fact
> that VE3HLS will never answer your CQ (that should be pretty easy to
> live with)! :-)
>
> daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah dididit dididit
> daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah! :-)
>
> Ken,
> VE3HLS
>
>
> On 29/10/2011 9:02 AM, Buddy Brannan wrote:
>> GOtta agree with Ron re: "mangled" code. Code sent with a bug, straight key, or sideswiper is a bit like handwriting. Some people have very sloppy handwriting, or in this case, send sloppily. I think these things really add character and make the whole thing a lot less sterile. Heck, if I wanna talk to a machine, I'll get on the Internet. And I have enough mechanical voices in my head already, much as I like having them and helpful as they are to me. So give me a well-handled bug any day of the week; in my view, there's nothing nicer to listen to than that. And I've heard some fantastic ones really recently on 40 meters, so I, for one, am glad that there are still those practicing the art.
>>
>> Now if I can find time to get more comfortable with this cootie key I got from Stan a while ago. Oh, and get ahold of another bug one of these days to torture people with :-)
>> --
>> Buddy Brannan, KB5ELV - Erie, PA
>> Phone: (814) 860-3194 or 888-75-BUDDY
>>
>>
>>
>> On Oct 29, 2011, at 1:45 AM, Ron D'Eau Claire wrote:
>>
>>> With full respect Ken, it is NOT "mangled" code. A bug sends human Morse
>>> code as opposed to machine-generated code that is about as friendly as
>>> computer-generated voices.
>>>
>>> Mike, the military still required radiotelegraph operators on some of their
>>> aircraft and the commercial airlines used CW for trans-Pacific flights.
>>>
>>> I worked for Lockheed and held a commercial radiotelegraph license for just
>>> that purpose.
>>>
>>> I enjoy watching the "Pan Am" TV show because that was how flying was back
>>> in the 50's and 60's. I did a lot of it then. Wow, have times changed!
>>>
>>> BTW, I still hold a current commercial radiotelegraph license, but I doubt
>>> if I'll need it again, Hi!
>>>
>>> 73,
>>>
>>> Ron AC7AC
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>
>>> Never been a big fan of bugs and the mangled code most people send with
>>> them. ...
>>>
>>> 73,
>>>
>>> Ken Alexander
>>> VE3HLS

--
Vic, K2VCO
Fresno CA
http://www.qsl.net/k2vco/
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

stan levandowski

Re: Vibroplex - seen on ABC Pan Am (OT)

In reply to this post by Mike Morrow-3

For those who may be unaware, Vibroplex sells a "Vari-Speed" for both
round and flat arm bugs. I have one and it works quite well. K4VIZ
also produces a vertical bug at
a modest cost which slows down remarkably. And the Begali INTREPID has
a unique mechanical action with two weights that also provide extensive
speed control.

No one is ever going to "win" this argument of 'perfect code' vs.
'human-sent code'. Perhaps it's not worth the effort to argue it.

I recently had a few CW ham friends to my house this past summer. Of
course we all were the first to claim that we had near perfect fists. I
brought out my Begali CW Machine, faced the monitor away from them, and
handed them some newspaper text to send. No one, including me, sent a
single line of 'perfect code'. Yet we all stood there copying in our
heads and agreeing that the code sounded 'good.'

Apparently, our brains do a pretty good job of helping us to cope with
all but the completely inept 'fist'.

On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 2:06 PM, Ron D'Eau Claire wrote:

> One cause of fast dits is that many Vibroplex bugs require extreme
> measures
> to slow them down below 30 WPM.
He did it by replacing the Vibroplex weights with a
> cable clamp!

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

Ken Alexander-2

Re: Vibroplex - seen on ABC Pan Am (OT)

Yeah I know. It's like debating about the best equalizer setting for
optimum transmit audio...very subjective. Anyway, I've said my piece
and Eric will probably be happy to see we've moved on without any
prompting on his part! :-)

73 - Ken, VE3HLS

On 29/10/2011 2:50 PM, stan levandowski wrote:

> For those who may be unaware, Vibroplex sells a "Vari-Speed" for both
> round and flat arm bugs. I have one and it works quite well. K4VIZ
> also produces a vertical bug at
> a modest cost which slows down remarkably. And the Begali INTREPID has
> a unique mechanical action with two weights that also provide extensive
> speed control.
>
> No one is ever going to "win" this argument of 'perfect code' vs.
> 'human-sent code'. Perhaps it's not worth the effort to argue it.
>
> I recently had a few CW ham friends to my house this past summer. Of
> course we all were the first to claim that we had near perfect fists. I
> brought out my Begali CW Machine, faced the monitor away from them, and
> handed them some newspaper text to send. No one, including me, sent a
> single line of 'perfect code'. Yet we all stood there copying in our
> heads and agreeing that the code sounded 'good.'
>
> Apparently, our brains do a pretty good job of helping us to cope with
> all but the completely inept 'fist'.
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 2:06 PM, Ron D'Eau Claire wrote:
>
>
>> One cause of fast dits is that many Vibroplex bugs require extreme
>> measures
>> to slow them down below 30 WPM.
> He did it by replacing the Vibroplex weights with a
>> cable clamp!
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>
>

Buddy Brannan

Re: Vibroplex - seen on ABC Pan Am (OT)

In reply to this post by Ken Alexander-2

I don't believe anyone said sending sloppy code is "desirable", only that it's sometimes a fact of life. What I, at least, am saying, is that I think that code that is somewhat less than perfect is OK. Well spaced code, well formed characters, are certainly desirable and a worthy goal. But I also think that using mechanical means of generating code of necessity means that there will be imperfections in characters and in spacing.
--
Buddy Brannan, KB5ELV - Erie, PA
Phone: (814) 860-3194 or 888-75-BUDDY

On Oct 29, 2011, at 1:20 PM, Ken Alexander wrote:

> It sounds like everyone is saying sending sloppy code is desirable. How odd; I always thought hams took pride in their sending. Well formed, well spaced characters are much easier to copy. I find nothing quaint or charming about sending dits at 30wpm and dahs at 10 wpm, which is typical of what I hear. Either slow down the dits or speed up the manually sent dahs. I know there are limits on how slow you can send dits with a bug, but if you can't slow it down enough then consider using another instrument for sending code or resign yourself to the fact that VE3HLS will never answer your CQ (that should be pretty easy to live with)! :-)
>
> daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah dididit dididit daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah! :-)
>
> Ken,
> VE3HLS
>
>
> On 29/10/2011 9:02 AM, Buddy Brannan wrote:
>> GOtta agree with Ron re: "mangled" code. Code sent with a bug, straight key, or sideswiper is a bit like handwriting. Some people have very sloppy handwriting, or in this case, send sloppily. I think these things really add character and make the whole thing a lot less sterile. Heck, if I wanna talk to a machine, I'll get on the Internet. And I have enough mechanical voices in my head already, much as I like having them and helpful as they are to me. So give me a well-handled bug any day of the week; in my view, there's nothing nicer to listen to than that. And I've heard some fantastic ones really recently on 40 meters, so I, for one, am glad that there are still those practicing the art.
>>
>> Now if I can find time to get more comfortable with this cootie key I got from Stan a while ago. Oh, and get ahold of another bug one of these days to torture people with :-)
>> --
>> Buddy Brannan, KB5ELV - Erie, PA
>> Phone: (814) 860-3194 or 888-75-BUDDY
>>
>>
>>
>> On Oct 29, 2011, at 1:45 AM, Ron D'Eau Claire wrote:
>>
>>> With full respect Ken, it is NOT "mangled" code. A bug sends human Morse
>>> code as opposed to machine-generated code that is about as friendly as
>>> computer-generated voices.
>>>
>>> Mike, the military still required radiotelegraph operators on some of their
>>> aircraft and the commercial airlines used CW for trans-Pacific flights.
>>>
>>> I worked for Lockheed and held a commercial radiotelegraph license for just
>>> that purpose.
>>>
>>> I enjoy watching the "Pan Am" TV show because that was how flying was back
>>> in the 50's and 60's. I did a lot of it then. Wow, have times changed!
>>>
>>> BTW, I still hold a current commercial radiotelegraph license, but I doubt
>>> if I'll need it again, Hi!
>>>
>>> 73,
>>>
>>> Ron AC7AC
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>
>>> Never been a big fan of bugs and the mangled code most people send with
>>> them. ...
>>>
>>> 73,
>>>
>>> Ken Alexander
>>> VE3HLS
>>>
>>>
>>> On 29/10/2011 12:09 AM, Mike Morrow wrote:
>>>>> Noted last episode a Vibroplex or similar was used
>>>>> to send a telegram or cablegram
>>>>>
>>>>> http://beta.abc.go.com/shows/pan-am/jet-setter/104a-cablegram
>>>> I wonder if, by the early 1960s, there were **any** commercial
>>>> aircraft radiotelegrapher positions still used on US airlines. The
>>>> Element 7 Aircraft Radiotelegraph Endorsement to the First or Second
>>>> Class Radiotelegraph License was still available from the FCC even in
>>>> the mid-1980s. But that was likely more than 25 years after all such
>>>> positions had ceased to exist.
>>>>
>>>> Mike / KK5F
>>>>
>>> ______________________________________________________________
>>> Elecraft mailing list
>>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
>>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>>> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>>>
>>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>>
>>

Albers

Re: Vibroplex - seen on ABC Pan Am (OT)

In reply to this post by Mike Morrow-3

Yeah, it’s getting the dits under control that seems to be the most frequent problem.

Wish I had a buck for every time I’ve heard someone send my call as K25YD

73
Ray K2HYD
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

drewko

Re: Vibroplex - seen on ABC Pan Am (OT)

In reply to this post by Ken Alexander-2

With good CW ops you can just save all the dah's till the end and send
them all at once; if the other guy is any good he knows how to put
them all back in the right place. [See QST March 1964 "Love them
Dits..."

73,
Drew
AF2Z

On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 13:20:49 -0400, Ken VE3HLS wrote:

Lee Herbst

Re: Vibroplex - seen on ABC Pan Am (OT)

I have just signed up to this list, so I have not seen this whole
thread, but I have to say that I am disapointed with what I am
hearing. I agree that hams should take pride in their sending, but I
also believe that hams should encourage new hams by helping them out,
not by shunning them just because their code is sloppy.

I have been out of the hobby since the early 80's and am just now
getting back in as my kids want to learn. I had a great elmer and my
code was descent and I will make sure my kids do the same, however,
not everyone has that luxury. There are a lot out there learning on
their own, even more so that the morse code requirement is gone.
Shunning newbies because of poor code is not what amateur radio is
about, answer their CQs and help them out. I know I wasn't perfect
when I first put my hand to the key and I would bet that most of you
were not either. I wonder how many abandoned the hobby because nobody
would answer their CQ. To me, its sad.

73,
Lee
Currently Expired (was N4RKI)

On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 8:51 AM, drewko <[hidden email]> wrote:

> With good CW ops you can just save all the dah's till the end and send
> them all at once; if the other guy is any good he knows how to put
> them all back in the right place. [See QST March 1964 "Love them
> Dits..."
>
> 73,
> Drew
> AF2Z
>
>
> On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 13:20:49 -0400, Ken VE3HLS wrote:
>
>>It sounds like everyone is saying sending sloppy code is desirable. How
>>odd; I always thought hams took pride in their sending. Well formed,
>>well spaced characters are much easier to copy. I find nothing quaint
>>or charming about sending dits at 30wpm and dahs at 10 wpm, which is
>>typical of what I hear. Either slow down the dits or speed up the
>>manually sent dahs. I know there are limits on how slow you can send
>>dits with a bug, but if you can't slow it down enough then consider
>>using another instrument for sending code or resign yourself to the fact
>>that VE3HLS will never answer your CQ (that should be pretty easy to
>>live with)! :-)
>>
>>daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah dididit dididit
>>daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah! :-)
>>
>>Ken,
>>VE3HLS
>>
>>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>

Jim Dunstan

Re: Vibroplex - seen on ABC Pan Am (OT)

In reply to this post by drewko

At 08:51 AM 11/7/2011 -0500, you wrote:
>With good CW ops you can just save all the dah's till the end and send
>them all at once; if the other guy is any good he knows how to put
>them all back in the right place. [See QST March 1964 "Love them
>Dits..."
>
>73,
>Drew
>AF2Z

A lot of truth to the above statement. I worked professional CW
communications on
point to point land nets and all the ops used bugs (no electronic keyers in
those days)
and all had recognizable fists. The fists that were the most comfortable
emphasized
the dashes and speeded up the dots.

How they did this really created the distinctiveness of the individual's
'fist'. All were
recognizably different from one another but certainly not variable on a
scale of
sloppinesss'.

Pride came from ability to communicate not from the similarity to perfectly
formed
characters. Normal text was sent as in normal speech. However if sending
special
non-normal information ... such as a serial number ... the op would slow
down and
send well formed letters .... just as in normal voice one slows down and
gives attention
to clear enunciation.

If all the text was sent this way (computer like characters) i can assure
you it would
be found boring. Something like listening to slowly enunciated speech in
language
lessons on Voice of America. That is okay for someone learning the
language but
really boring for someone who knows it. The CW equivalent would be the
code practise
sessions on W1AW .... a CW op would have to really 'pay attention' to copy it.

So calling someone's fist sloppy would be like saying someone with a
different accent
speaks with sloppy language.

Someone just learning the language CW or otherwise is considered a 'novice'
and
they speak as a novice. Likewise not really 'sloppy'.

There are 'purists' who have fixed ideas of what the language should sound like
and consider their idea of the ideal should be a developmental goal. I
assure you that
in reality that goal is futile.

Learn the language and develop your facility to communicate in whatever
community
you frequent .... that is the only goal. If you change the
community/environment then
you no doubt will have to adjust your language facility.

If you leave the 'novice' CW community and move in to a higher speed
community I assure
you will have to adjust ... and almost certainly perfectly formed
speech/characters will fall
by the wayside.

As usual a lot of listening comes before venturing some input of your own!!!

CU

Jim, VE3CI

>On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 13:20:49 -0400, Ken VE3HLS wrote:
>
> >It sounds like everyone is saying sending sloppy code is desirable. How
> >odd; I always thought hams took pride in their sending. Well formed,
> >well spaced characters are much easier to copy. I find nothing quaint
> >or charming about sending dits at 30wpm and dahs at 10 wpm, which is
> >typical of what I hear. Either slow down the dits or speed up the
> >manually sent dahs. I know there are limits on how slow you can send
> >dits with a bug, but if you can't slow it down enough then consider
> >using another instrument for sending code or resign yourself to the fact
> >that VE3HLS will never answer your CQ (that should be pretty easy to
> >live with)! :-)
> >
> >daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah dididit dididit
> >daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah! :-)
> >
> >Ken,
> >VE3HLS
> >
> >
>
>______________________________________________________________
>Elecraft mailing list
>Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
>Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
>This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html