[CW] RE: CW Digest, Vol 15, Issue 8

[John Geiger]

It is more reliable than PSK31, even under weak signal conditions.  Heck,
MFSK16 and Hellschreiber are more reliable than PSK31.

73s John NE0P
CW, That my final answer

----- Original Message -----
From: <fkamp at comcast.net>
To: "Sedlack Tom-CTS050" <Tom.Sedlack at motorola.com>
Cc: <cw at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 3:06 AM
Subject: Re: [CW] RE: CW Digest, Vol 15, Issue 8


>
>
> Sedlack Tom-CTS050 wrote:
> >
> > From: "Joe" <joecot at superlink.net>
> >
> > Another Slant On it...
> > With no more code tests,  maybe there will be less new licensees who
think
> > they can send when they really can't and the ones who can't now will
slowly
> > fade away, leaving the cw sub-bands for us guys who enjoy cw and can
> > actually send and recieve..
> >
>
> Morse code and its use is its own reward.  Next to
> PSK-31 it is the most reliable form of
> communication and it is so much simpler than that
> digital mode with the modest of equipment
> requirements.
>
> It does not bother me in the least that morse code
> seems to be spurned by some, or that there are no
> more testing requirements on morse sending and
> receiving capabilities.  Those who know and
> understand the advantages of CW will continue to
> use it.  Those who dont know or dont care would
> not have used it anyway.
>
> Regards,
> Frank Kamp
> K5DKZ
> _______________________________________________
> CW mailing list
> CW at mailman.qth.net
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/cw
>