[SixClub] comment on the morse testing

[six_club at comcast.net]

I have to disagree Gabriel, PSK is a form of modulated coding, just as is FSK. CW in its simple form is a carrier that is on or off and is a form of digital signal that the brain can decode, such as is voice. But PSK, FSK, usally infers a code the brain can't decode. PSK and FSK mean Phase and Frequency Shift Keying.


 -------------- Original message ----------------------
From: Gabriel Sierra <g_moonrec at yahoo.com>
> 
> 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