[SixClub] comment on the morse testing

[Gabriel Sierra]

David,

How do you define "Real" This brings up the old tired
argument of what is radio, and you assertion only
mixes apples and bottles. PSK, admit it or not, is the
same as CW, or more exactly Morse code (CW is a form
of radio emission, just like SSB and AM). It is a
message encoded using a agreed method, and decoded by
the applicable means. This brings up how you encode
and how you decode. You can learn the code set up a
QSO and you merrily transmit and decode Morse with
your brain. BUT, what makes you sure the party at the
other end is doing the same? There are literally a
bunch of programs that let you encode and decode Morse
with....tada... your PC. For you it won't make a
difference unless you pay close attention at the
perfection of the received code! (you know the
difference!). PSK is the same, a message encoded not
in Morse, but with another standard transmitted, and
decoded. The same. But PSK is also a  technology and
has an advantage on its own such as using the same
exact frequency to convey a lot of QSO's at the very
same time. The thing is that PSK uses audio
frequencies, same as Morse, to convey the message. The
only difference is the method of encoding. You could
record a PSK transmission on a tape recorder and
connect the tape to the PC's sound card, fire up your
favorite PSK program (Digipan in my case), hit play
and boom! the text gets decoded. Did you use a radio
to convey the message from point A to point B? I rest
my case.

As for Echolink, D-Star, IRLP, etc..., they are
technologies, not modes, for information relay. They
are tools with a definite purpose. Your cell phone use
this all the time. Modern phones are like little PCs
on a network, when you turn on your phone, you are
connected sending data or not creates not extra
expense to phone companies as it did in the past cell
phone technologies. Does this says that a cell phone
now is not a phone but a computer? Roughly. But being
the purpose the same and the end result being the
same, yeah, call it a phone. Same with the
aforementioned technologies. While Echolink allows PC
to radio interaction, which I do not personally like
because of the potential of non hams getting in with a
fake Call sign, the other mentioned technologies are
radio to radio, RPT to RPT. I have used Echo and IRLP
nodes when I travel to the states, to check back into
local connected repeaters. The correct way of using
this is getting to the RPT, dial the node you want to
connect to, conduct your QSO, disconnect. It is a tool
that allows us to do more with what we have, to
advance the art. If a repeater is VOIP enabled, and
you are in a out of cell coverage zone within that
RPTs range, it does not matter if the control operator
is not there, or any local user for that matter, you
start dialing nodes and get connected with someone who
can help you out. You are using you radio and the
other party is using his/her. What is the fuzz about?

As a question I posted once in QRZ that never got
answered: If you have satellite Internet at your VOIP
enabled Radio and the receiving end is also has a
satellite VOIP enabled radio, is this radio or not,
since no copper line was involved in the process?
(remember we HAMs do use microwaves for conveying
voice and data!).

In the end, you choose what you want to use and that
is the beauty of HAM radio. But your preference is
yours and you have no right to bash other's choices.

73, Gabriel, WP3BM

 And at least
> it is REAL radio rather than Echolink and PSK and
> all that stuff that
> masquerades as radio - LOL
> 
> Happy Holidays to all!
> 
> David
> KG4ZLB/M0ZLB
> 
> 
>
______________________________________________________________
> SixClub mailing list
> Home:
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/sixclub
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/faq.htm
> Post: mailto:SixClub at mailman.qth.net
> 


Gabriel Sierra
Moondancer Recording Studios
moonrec at prtc.net
http://www.moondancer.freeservers.com
Listen to Bike Tourist Podcast
http://www.biketourist.podomatic.com