[CW] Re: Digital CW (was Numbers Stations)

[Danny Douglas]

CW should be for the "skilled".  I do have capability of CW send via
computer, but use it simply as a auto CQ or during a contestor expedition
use the MACROS for calling the other station, over and over and over and
.........

Danny Douglas
N7DC
ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA
SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB
All 2 years or more (except Novice)
Pls QSL direct, buro, or LOTW preferred,
I Do not use, but as a courtesy do upload to eQSL for
those who do.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "D. Chester" <k4kyv at charter.net>
To: <cw at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Friday, September 12, 2008 3:40 PM
Subject: [CW] Re: Digital CW (was Numbers Stations)


> >>   Computers can send and receive cw, and at very high speeds,
> >> lower speeds are more noise immune.
> > >
> > Then why bother with CW.  If they were going to use computers, why not
> > just
> > go to a digital mode such as Packet/RTTY, PSK?
>
> > Danny Douglas   N7DC
>
> I have often asked the same thing myself when I hear  hams talk about
> "working" each other on cw, when each one is sending with a keyboard and
> receiving with a code reader.  One of the modern digital modes, designed
for
> the purpose, would be much more efficient.
>
> Don  k4kyv
>
> _______________________________________________
> CW mailing list
> CW at mailman.qth.net
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/cw


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.6.21/1669 - Release Date: 9/12/2008
2:18 PM