[CW] Thoughts on receiving CW

Wed Apr 27 16:03:41 EDT 2022

    I wrote this because I have been struggling with code for a 
lifetime. I think I was better at it once but then had a long 
hiatus from ham radio and when I got back it was different. I am 
very interested in the psychology of code and read everything I 
can find about it. I have come to the conclusion that its not 
very well understood. Some people catch on right away and become 
extreme speed readers in short order. I mean being able to read 
Morse at 60WPM. I will never get there although sometimes I have 
managed 40 for short times. I don't have any magic answers but 
perhaps my experience will be of service to others.
    Secondly; it is often recommended that one learn to "copy 
behind". I think this is not only a good idea but a necessity for 
high speeds, if one can get to the point of being able to do it. 
Some of the elementary books recommend writing down each letter 
as it is heard without hesitation. Maybe when you are first 
learning and have just memorized the code but not later.
    There is a story somewhere about Ted McElroy, who was a code 
champ, taking a challenge and just sitting at his typewriter for 
several seconds after the test started before starting to type. 
He had some sort of mental buffer memory. I suspect that many of 
the best operators who made their livings from the telegraph 
could do the same. In any case, if one begins to recognize words 
its important not to anticipate them. If you hear THE is it THEN, 
THEM, or perhaps something else. If its a longer word you may get 
jarred out of being able to copy it at all.
     Also, many operators were required to copy encrypted code, 
often in the form of five letter or five number code groups. Not 
just in the military but in commercial service where "code books" 
were often used for long messages (money saver, one word could 
mean a whole sentence). This goes way beyond what hams ever have 
to do but its worth knowing it was done and not unusual.

On 4/27/2022 12:45 PM, N4JO wrote:
> Agreed... but we still have to accumulate the letters into words 
> /somehow/, whether in our"mind's ear" or our "mind's eye", so if 
> writing down /in our minds/ helps that process, is it bad?
> 
> I mentioned "cruel paradox" in a recent post, but it really is: 
> by the time we have actually learned to read CW, we will have 
> learned the best way for us, specifically, learn - because we're 
> all different, evidently (who'd have thought? ;-) . All we can do 
> is to keep sampling the advice of those who have walked the walk, 
> pick up and use what works, and leave aside that which doesn't.
> 
> "Some of the advice in the old books really does not make sense, 
> makes me wonder if the people who wrote them could actually read 
> code." I agree: there's some complete B.S. on YouTube on learning 
> CW these days, too: drawing dots and dashes on the the capital 
> letters, or memorizing phrases with matching cadence, to give two 
> examples... "Learning the code" (as in translating from letters 
> into code) is one thing: learning to copy at a workable rate is 
> something /completely /different.
> 
> j.
> 
> On 4/27/2022 2:21 PM, Richard Knoppow wrote:
>> The post I just sent got me thinking. Mainly about learning 
>> code entirely by sound as opposed to writing it down. Its 
>> interesting to me that the advice given in very old books is to 
>> learn by writing. I think this is because the majority of those 
>> interested wanted to get jobs as operators where writing was 
>> absolutely necessary. The method was long hand. I had an old 
>> military handbook (mostly just the ARRL "Learning the Code" 
>> book in disguise) which taught printing. It had a system of 
>> printing to increase the speed. Works up to maybe 15 WPM. Long 
>> hand is faster but you have to have a good "fist" to be 
>> readable. I think if you learn by writing it down you won't 
>> always be able to recognize letters when just heard without 
>> writing. I think being able to take code in writing is 
>> important but that one needs to be able to recognize letters by 
>> sound alone. Some of the advice in the old books really does 
>> not make sense, makes me wonder if the people who wrote them 
>> could actually read code.
>>     BTW, I have a couple of sounders. Code just sounds 
>> different on a sounder than as tones, not the difference 
>> between American and Continental code but the rendition on the 
>> instrument. Really two different things.
> 
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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=

-- 
Richard Knoppow
1oldlens1 at ix.netcom.com
WB6KBL