[TenTec] omni v short dits

[Ken Brown]

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 at contesting.com [mailto:tentec-bounces at contesting.com]
>On Behalf Of Ken Brown
>Sent: 25 July 2004 11:05
>To: tentec at 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 at contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
>
>_______________________________________________
>TenTec mailing list
>TenTec at contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
>
>  
>