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

[Ron Youvan]

> Receiving should always be aural/brain though, surely? If you need the
> PC to decode, at whatever speed, then you're better off with a real
> data mode. Or have I missed another good reason for CW decoders being
> used. Perhaps there are OPs that can send with a key, and get pleasure
> from that side of it, but can no longer hear well enough to read the CW
> themselves?

   I disagree, cw is cw pulses of RF it is not aural, not something manual.
  cw is "Q" signs, our abbreviations our attitudes, the propagation of cw,
not the propagation of SSB, what ever that is.
Ham radio has long and deep roots that are buried in Morse code, but ham radio
is in no way limited to cw.
   Most of those reading this have "cw" in their psyche but Morse code is not
limited in any way to ears or the index finger.
   The idea that you must "pump brass" for it to be "cw" is to ignore even the
first improvement, a sideways key or the sideswiper which virtually eliminated
the "glass arm" (carpal tunnel syndrome or something a kin to it) is simply
limiting your vision.
   I love cw, but with a 5 year old in the house I can't find time to operate,
but if I were to RC (rag chew) with anyone that thinks "you must `pump brass'
for it to be cw" I would be going strong after 4 hours (allowing for brief
"sand box" breaks) and "old glass arm" would be hard pressed to make it.
I suspect most "pump brass" operators limit their operations to DX and
"touch and go" contacts (as I call it) not do multi hours of rag chewing
at 20 wpm.  Just my guess.

   I use an iambic paddle, I only think the word and my arm sends it,
I instinctively know when I have to spell words out in my mind,
I know what my hand knows how to send without additional help.

   I never said I send good code, I just love it.
-- 
    Ron  KA4INM - Spell check and proofread your messages to see if you any words out.