[CW] Flavours of Morse

[k7wxw]

now *this* is interesting! I am learning CW now and my key of choice is a cootie, (though I also have a twin paddle that I really like). can someone explain why RBNs don't "hear" side swipers?

Thanks and 73 Bill K7WXW

_____________
brevity is beautiful.

From: Ring, Jr. D.J.J. <n1ea at arrl.net>
Reply: Reflector CW <cw at mailman.qth.net>
Date: February 20, 2017 at 3:02:33 PM
To: Reflector CW <cw at mailman.qth.net>
Subject:  Re: [CW] Flavours of Morse  

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?



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/cw/attachments/20170220/92cadd4e/attachment.html>