[CW] Flavours of Morse

Mon Feb 20 17:59:06 EST 2017

Some ragchewers who live in rarer countries use mechanical keys to avoid
detection, many send readable code except for callsigns which they
intentionally send roughly.

I have a feeling Med might be one of these as Morocco isn't very common but
I'm just amazed how he never gets calls after the SSN.  The Reverse Beacon
Network (RBN) series of networked code reading receiving stations rarely
detects a sideswiper.  So using a sideswiper is akin to "flying under the
radar".

73

DR N1EA

On Feb 20, 2017 3:16 PM, "Bill Isakson AC6QV via CW" <cw at mailman.qth.net>
wrote:

> In the late 1980's an old guy friend told me that he sends the way he does
> because his intent was to defeat the computer code readers.  I thought he
> was sort of hard copy, but readable.
> Bill
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: D.J.J. Ring, Jr. <n1ea at arrl.net>
> Sent: Wed, Feb 15, 2017 7:17 am
> Subject: [CW] Flavours of Morse
>
> Originally sent to the sideswiper net group.
> 73
> DR N1EA
>
> From: "VK5EEE" <vk5eee at vkcw.net>
> Date: Feb 14, 2017 10:58 PM
> Subject: [SSN] Flavours of Morse
>
>
> Dear Side Sweepers whether single or double liver...
> A subject that has often riled me in the past, and still raises it's head,
> is the anti-bug anti-cootie, or rather, I should say anti-non-standard-CW
> arguments made by operators that I myself often find inferior in their
> abilities in CW -- but not always! There are those who are very skilled
> operators of CW but who dislike certain styles, or any wide deviation from
> standard CW.
> I posted in a forum today on this subject, and thought it may be of
> interest to other side swipers, so I think it worth sharing here. I am not
> preaching to the already converted, but I think this subject should be
> written about, and even some videos produced on it, that could do a lot to
> furthering the cause of bug and swing CW... Rhythm & Blues, Reggae, Soul
> and even Jazz...
> I also include a link at the end to a post I made on the Flavours of CW. I
> also have to confess, and I hope I'm not disliked for it, that I love
> "french CW" -- I find French cootie operators have a very lovely CW, partly
> assisted by the extra characters perhaps, and that when I was in England I
> noted some did not like that French CW :-)
> But I also like Russian QRQ CW in Russian Language, I even liked Arabic CW
> which was last used in Sudan and its overseas embassies right up until the
> 80s and sent on straight keys. In fact, I like all types of CW -- well --
> almost all: *personally* I draw the line at joining letters on an
> electronic keyer like C = TR or KE, but when sent on other keys some
> letters can be quasi-joined!
> An example is my callsign: on an electronic keyer I would send my callsign
> in perfect Gerke Code with 1:1:3 ratio: VK5EEE. But on a bug/cootie I could
> make the dah in the V shorter, and the dah in the K (one or the other or
> both) longer, and I could join the K to the 5 which could be sent at double
> the dit-speed, followed by EEE, and that would not detract from it's
> intelligibility.
> What lead me today to write on this subject (again) was a criticism
> levelled against AA4OO saying that his bug ration on
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-DGvvrCLIE was 20WPM dah and 25 WPM
> dits. WOW, seriously...!? It's lovely bug sending, nothing wrong with it,
> but because it varied from Official Gerke Code (International Morse Code
> actually), it attracted a criticism!?
> So I thought I'd not let the machine-CW-only have the final say, just as I
> would not let the Oxford-English-only have a final say over the Jamaican
> "Jomehkun", Thai English "Tinglish", Trinidadian "Trinni" and other
> variations, let alone other superior languages (French, Hungarian, Thai etc
> ;-) -- hehe I hope my fellow British friends can take a jab in the ribs now
> and then haha
> Please have a listen to my video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?
> v=gjqT8PSqG_w
>
> There as we all know we can demonstrate  that it is possible, at certain
> speeds, to send on a straight key, on a electronic keyer and on a bug,
> "perfect" CW that would be indistinguishable from "PC sent CW" and make all
> keys sound the exact same.
>
> After showing that with a CQ call on each of the keys, I then try to show
> off hot-swapping keys, with mixed success :-)
>
> Now I come, once again, on this particular issue, to counter KE6EE with
> both tripple E's having differing views. It is a horse that has been beaten
> before, but in the case of those who have not heard the argument before, I
> as one of those who has long "mastered CW" have a view that is held my many
> CW operators, but far from ALL CW operators:
>
> Official "perfect" CW has a ratio of 1:1:3:7 dit-inter-dah-space. Yet,
> American CW has a very different ratio, again officially, and I don't know
> them all, but the dit:dah is 1:2 not 1:3. This results in a very different
> sounding Morse, but it is still Morse, in fact, it IS MORSE. The one we all
> use today is not Morse Code but Gerke Code: See
> http://www.vkcw.net/cwtoday click on the 3rd issue of CW Today for the
> story.
>
> I'm only out to state some facts and my own opinion and that of many bug
> users and cootie users regarding dit:dah ratios. First, look at the font of
> this email: it's a font and it works, right? But it is not the only font,
> there are many fonts with different ratios, and they all work, though for
> some people a particular font is favoured and easier to read while others
> find that same font obnoxious at worst, or less than ideal at best.
>
> And so it is with music, and so it is with CW. I am one of those who
> believe that Morse is music and rhythm and what matters is -- between the
> operators on a particular circuit -- intelligibility and easy of sending
> and reception. Radio amateurs are generally not qualified to pass judgement
> on such matters as those that operate for 8 hours non stop these days in
> contest only push buttons, they are button pushers.
>
> Those who ARE qualified to talk on this topic are those of us who have in
> various services had to receive and/or send CW non-stop for 8 hours. And
> there are many different services: military, police, maritime, etc etc and
> each of these services had their own versions of "Morse" or rather "Gerke"
> code. The military, of which there are several ex members probably among us
> here too, by necessity generally had to use the OFFICIAL EXACT ratio in
> order for their to be zero sigint or little sigint to enemy that could be
> used.
>
> That does not mean that it is only military types who favour official
> Gerke code in its perfect form, no matter which key it is sent on, and
> advocate for the type of sending I have demonstrated in the above video-
> which, by the way, I ALSO ENJOY. I like the sound of keyboard CW but I also
> like the sound of various extreme fists, and even this Ludwig Van Beethoven
> -- great practice to try to emulate it in sync on your cootie:
> http://www.zerobeat.net/morse505.html
>
> But I can tell you that if you have to listen to endless CW for 8 hours
> non-stop and take it all down accurately, official Gerke code actually
> sends you to sleep!!! Unless you drink endless cups of coffee or chew a
> cola nut. On the other hand, a different type of Morse that evolves within
> a particular closed network of operators using cooties and/or bugs, at
> 25-30WPM even, but which has a variation of ratios depending upon the
> letter, is less stressful over long durations.
>
> This is why police networks, to take one example of a closed network of
> operators, developed their own styles. In fact, I'd say some of those
> styles notably that by INTERPOL LYON on cootie keys was the best CW ever,
> to MY ears.
>
> So yes, I could add the cootie to that video and also do a perfect CW
> Gerke Code transmission same as the other keys... but when I use cootie I
> used a different style, shorter inter-character gaps, some rhythm and
> swing, and when I use a bug the same, I vary that style, and I dare say
> some of my dit:dah ratios will be 1:7 not 1:3 -- and would NOT be
> understandable by many of the CW operators who were raised on Perfect Gerke
> Code and/or electronic keyers.
>
> Yet those of us who find that handwriting very easy, and pleasurable, find
> it VERY easy to copy such, and often much more relaxing and therapeutic (as
> with styles of music) than official Gerke Code. I should produce a video of
> this to PROVE that we send such code DELIBERATELY and I can easily do this:
> as I showed in the above video that I can send perfect Gerke Code, I can
> also send perfectly-repeatable bug-EEE-code: I can send each word twice in
> EXACTLY the same manner with a completely different and variable
> inter-character spacing and dah-durations.
>
> I think I should produce such a video at some point as I believe that a
> great many who hear bug CW (even cootie CW) simply assume we don't know how
> to send code, and we are SLOPPY and that our sending the way we do is
> because we can not do it perfectly, whereas for most OPs the very opposite
> is true: EVER dit, space, and dah, is deliberately CRAFTED. Don't some of
> you also get the feeling or impression or feedback or criticism from some
> who hear our sending and think we can improve it, even though we are
> sending (not necessarily always, but most of the time!) EXACTLY as
> intended? And crafting very detail deliberately?
>
> Yes, it means very often that our audience who can copy our (often
> non-standard CW) is severely reduced as only those who have truly mastered
> CW in all its forms can follow us when we use more severe variations, and
> even those that can often find our styles to their disliking. To be honest
> I am quite sure if there was a competition to decode a huge variety of CW
> styles including foreign CW, many of us here would be one of the winners,
> it's not something most CW operators have had to do, copy non-standard CW:
> those who operated in closed networks (military vs police) often find
> difficulty with other types of CW. However I do believe that ship sparks
> (R/O) are generally more skillful (unless they only worked on British ships
> and ONLY worked GKA:) at decoding a variety of fists, and also QSD from
> rolling ships, drunk sailors, etc.
>
> So in conclusion I am of the firm opinion, nay knowledge, that there IS NO
> ONE CW -- yes there is the Gerke Code that most of us use and it has an
> official version, and even that official version changed in most of our
> lifetimes from a 4 dit-duration interword spacing to a 7 dit-duration
> interword spacing, and most amateurs don't use that official "International
> Morse (Gerke) Code" as their interword spacing is often too short and their
> inter character spacing is often too long -- yet it MATTERS NOT. There are
> many legitimate CWs, languages, even different codes (American vs
> International), and styles, and they are valid.
>
> What matters is: can you read this?
>
> And: are you having fun?
>
> All best wishes,
> Lou VK5EEE
>
> Here are some more posts on Flavours of Morse and also a video of a cat
> sending Meourse (CatW): http://www.vkcw.net/forum/t-13
> 66733/flavours-of-morse
>
> --
> -- Appeal: maintaining the VKCW.NET site and furthering the interests of
> CW in Australia
> has been an expensive exercise for me in terms of time and loss of
> earnings, but worth it.
> There is now an Appeals Tab at VKCW.net. Donations however small will help
> me to help you
> enjoy your hobby more. *Please visit http://www.vkcw.net/donate
> <http://www.vkcw.net/donate> and consider a donation. *
>
> 73 es 77 de VK5EEE
> Lou.
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "SSN-ML" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to ssn-ml+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to ssn-ml at googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/ssn-ml.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> CW mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/cw
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:CW at mailman.qth.net <CW at mailman.qth.net?>
> CW List ARCHIVES: http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/cw/
> Unsubcribe send email to
> cw-unsubscribe at mailman.qth.net
> Subscribe send email to cw-subscribe at mailman.qth.net
> Support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>
> =30=
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> CW mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/cw
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:CW at mailman.qth.net
> CW List ARCHIVES: http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/cw/
> Unsubcribe send email to
> cw-unsubscribe at mailman.qth.net
> Subscribe send email to cw-subscribe at mailman.qth.net
> Support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>
> =30=
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/cw/attachments/20170220/4ca31c3a/attachment-0001.html>