[CW] Flavours of Morse

Tue Feb 21 03:05:14 EST 2017

Hi  Bill,
I guess some of RBNs cant read code sending by side-swipers, bugs or keys because they operate within the frame of standard code reading programs.  But R/Os, radio telegraphers, HAMs can read it with no troubles. I mean those of them who work without programs but brain.
73  Valery / UA3AO
PS = One can listen to my sending on BUG or Side-swiper  at  YouTube UA3AO BUG - Sending

>Вторник, 21 февраля 2017, 3:08 +04:00 от k7wxw <k7wxw at arrl.net>:
>
>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?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>______________________________________________________________
>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=

-- 
Валерий Пахомов
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/cw/attachments/20170221/5ae3e0b2/attachment-0001.html>