If you're going to use a computer to decode a signal, there are far better,
faster and more efficient methods to relay information than with Morse code.
Although Samuel F. B. Morse envisioned his code being deciphered by
machines, it has been done primarily by ear for the last 100+ years. I'm all
for keeping the tradition.
73, Zack W9SZ
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 12:50 PM, Paul O'Kane <pokane@ei5di.com> wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Steve London" <n2icarrl@gmail.com>
>
> > I think of CW as a digital mode, just like RTTY.
>
> Sure it's a digital mode, but only when when you treat it
> that way.
>
> CW operators decode CW by ear, and that's what distinguishes
> them from digital operators. If you didn't copy it by ear,
> you can call it what you like but you can't call it a CW QSO.
>
> I suggest DM1 (Digital Mode One) might be a suitable description.
> Then we could all aspire to DM1 endorsements for DXCC.
>
> 73,
> Paul EI5DI
>
> ps - since there are quite a lot of digital modes, perhaps
> we should plan for the future and call it DM01?
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|