[Elecraft] Vibroplex - seen on ABC Pan Am (OT)

[Ken Alexander]

It sounds like everyone is saying sending sloppy code is desirable.  How 
odd;  I always thought hams took pride in their sending.  Well formed, 
well spaced characters are much easier to copy.  I find nothing quaint 
or charming about sending dits at 30wpm and dahs at 10 wpm, which is 
typical of what I hear.  Either slow down the dits or speed up the 
manually sent dahs.  I know there are limits on how slow you can send 
dits with a bug, but if you can't slow it down enough then consider 
using another instrument for sending code or resign yourself to the fact 
that VE3HLS will never answer your CQ (that should be pretty easy to 
live with)! :-)

daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah  daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah dididit     dididit 
daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah  daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah! :-)

Ken,
VE3HLS


On 29/10/2011 9:02 AM, Buddy Brannan wrote:
> GOtta agree with Ron re: "mangled" code. Code sent with a bug, straight key, or sideswiper is a bit like handwriting. Some people have very sloppy handwriting, or in this case, send sloppily. I think these things really add character and make the whole thing a lot less sterile. Heck, if I wanna talk to a machine, I'll get on the Internet. And I have enough mechanical voices in my head already, much as I like having them and helpful as they are to me. So give me a well-handled bug any day of the week; in my view, there's nothing nicer to listen to than that. And I've heard some fantastic ones really recently on 40 meters, so I, for one, am glad that there are still those practicing the art.
>
> Now if I can find time to get more comfortable with this cootie key I got from Stan a while ago. Oh, and get ahold of another bug one of these days to torture people with :-)
> --
> Buddy Brannan, KB5ELV - Erie, PA
> Phone: (814) 860-3194 or 888-75-BUDDY
>
>
>
> On Oct 29, 2011, at 1:45 AM, Ron D'Eau Claire wrote:
>
>> With full respect Ken, it is NOT "mangled" code. A bug sends human Morse
>> code as opposed to machine-generated code that is about as friendly as
>> computer-generated voices.
>>
>> Mike, the military still required radiotelegraph operators on some of their
>> aircraft and the commercial airlines used CW for trans-Pacific flights.
>>
>> I worked for Lockheed and held a commercial radiotelegraph license for just
>> that purpose.
>>
>> I enjoy watching the "Pan Am" TV show because that was how flying was back
>> in the 50's and 60's. I did a lot of it then. Wow, have times changed!
>>
>> BTW, I still hold a current commercial radiotelegraph license, but I doubt
>> if I'll need it again, Hi!
>>
>> 73,
>>
>> Ron AC7AC
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>>
>> Never been a big fan of bugs and the mangled code most people send with
>> them.  ...
>>
>> 73,
>>
>> Ken Alexander
>> VE3HLS
>>
>>
>> On 29/10/2011 12:09 AM, Mike Morrow wrote:
>>>> Noted last episode a Vibroplex or similar was used
>>>> to send a telegram or cablegram
>>>>
>>>> http://beta.abc.go.com/shows/pan-am/jet-setter/104a-cablegram
>>> I wonder if, by the early 1960s, there were **any** commercial
>>> aircraft radiotelegrapher positions still used on US airlines.  The
>>> Element 7 Aircraft Radiotelegraph Endorsement to the First or Second
>>> Class Radiotelegraph License was still available from the FCC even in
>>> the mid-1980s.  But that was likely more than 25 years after all such
>>> positions had ceased to exist.
>>>
>>> Mike / KK5F
>>>
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> Elecraft mailing list
>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>> Post: mailto:Elecraft at mailman.qth.net
>>
>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>
>