Hi Adam,
It depends on how you define "works better".
If you define "works better" as: using the minimum bandwidth, getting
through the noise better, being decodable using using just a receiver
and a skilled operator, without modem or computer, immediate copy with
no delay for equipment to get synched even when the receiver has not yet
been tuned to just the right frequency, then CW "works better".
If you define "works better" as able to exchange information without a
skilled operator (or any operator) present, able to resend parts of the
text that error correction cannot resolve, without the attention of an
operator, higher actual throughput speed over solid paths, then the
automated modes "work better".
For me, CW works better, because I enjoy being more a participant in the
process, than an observer of machines performing the process.
Have fun with whatever mode "works better" for you.
73 DE N6KB
Adam Farson wrote:
Hi Ken,
Then why did such modes as SITOR with ARQ error-correction replace Morse
radio-telegraphy on all point-to-point commercial radio-telegraph circuits
decades ago?
Cheers for now, 73,
Adam VA7OJ/AB4OJ
-----Original Message-----
From: tentec-bounces@contesting.com [mailto:tentec-bounces@contesting.com]
On Behalf Of Ken Brown
Sent: 25 July 2004 11:05
To: tentec@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TenTec] omni v short dits
If you just want to send text by
keyboard, use some other digital method that works better.
There isn't any such thing.
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
|