Opinions on using computers for decoding and encoding CW

[Alan Blackmon]

I read here and other places of people who have difficulty with learning code. I am one of those people. Years back I was given and foreign language aptitude test. Well I was told I would never have to worry about needing to be sent to a foreign country on any church mission. I would be assigned English only. I sucked at the test. My German teacher in high school personally asked me to transfer out of his class because I was dragging the grade curve down.

Anyway now we have these magical machines that do these wonderful tasks for us. They can hear, translate, speak foriegn languages. I would love to do code but would need to employ a computer program and associated electronics to get this done.

What is the opinion of those who are blessed with being able to do code by hand about such a set up? Have any of us employed this setup and what has been your success or failures doing it? Presently I have FT8 in my shack and I have to say it is a blast. Doing code with the setup can't be to much harder.

Thanks and 73.

 

[sp5it]

Use PC to transmit and decode with CW Skimmer.
For DXpedition work you have to learn to receive you callsign and 5nn. Easy peasy.
Mike

 

[Tallman]

I think it is a good idea. Lots of hams are using digital modes.Not much different in my opinion.

 

[Shadetree Mechanic]

When keying by hand, the operator can put emphasis on different words and keeps it from getting boring or dry. Would you rather talk to a person or a robot?

 

[Tallman]

When keying by hand, the operator can put emphasis on different words and keeps it from getting boring or dry. Would you rather talk to a person or a robot?

How do you emphasize dots and dashes?

 

[Hurricane145]

Learning Morse code is like anything else. If you want to badly enough you will. Determination and dedication to the task is what it takes.

Computer decoding of CW only works so well. In a perfect situation it should decode it perfectly but that is rarely the case.
It might do okay enough in an average contact with little to no interference but in a contest situation or a DX pileup I sure wouldn't expect much. It can't always suss out what it should be decoding from what it hears. .A computer would prefer to hear machine sent code not code sent from a bug or someone that is just not that good at sending. Much more problematic for the software to deal with than on machine sent digital modes.


You can give it a try, nothing ventured nothing gained and for the most part there is no cost to trying it out and seeing how it goes.
Nothing like an analog organic computer with unlimited memory and instantaneous pipelineing for decoding CW.

For DXpedition work you have to learn to receive you callsign and 5nn.

For the most part but if that is all you know, you may not know who you are working as the spots and such are not always correct as to the callsign. Also you may not know of any special instructions from the DX station like "up 5" or when they are only working certain areas like EU, JA or going by US call areas.
Nothing more annoying than screw ups trying to work a DX station in a pileup!! They make it miserable for everyone.

 

[Hurricane145]

How do you emphasize dots and dashes?

Sometimes spacing, more usually using a bug (banana boat swing) instead of electronic keying. I don't hear many bugs being used anymore but they are certainly out there. I have one but don't use it much. I might if I had an older transceiver I was messing with that didn't have an internal keyer.

Try sending with a cootie or double speed key sometime. THAT will mess your head up!
Banana boat swing;
http://www.telegraph-office.com/pages/swing.html

 

[sp5it]

Computer decoding of CW only works so well. In a perfect situation it should decode it perfectly but that is rarely the case.

CW skimmer is decoding signals barely over the background noise, works perfect in pile-ups. Try it. Worth every penny.
Mike

 

[Hurricane145]

CW skimmer is decoding signals barely over the background noise, works perfect in pile-ups. Try it. Worth every penny.
Mike

Never had a need for it. But if it works for some that is great!
I don't get into many pileups anymore after 40 years of chasing DX.
I'll know when P5, 3Y, and FT/G get on if they ever do!!
Pileups in contests are not that hard.

 

[sp5it]

During contest cw skimmer is very handy. Visual band map showing what is going on on the band right under mouse click.

Mike

 

[Captain Kilowatt]

How do you emphasize dots and dashes?

Pound a little harder?

 

[Mudfoot]

How do you emphasize dots and dashes?

I call them spastic keyers.

 

[binrat]

How do you emphasize dots and dashes?

You took the words out of my mouth.

 

[Mudfoot]

Sometimes spacing, more usually using a bug (banana boat swing) instead of electronic keying. I don't hear many bugs being used anymore but they are certainly out there. I have one but don't use it much. I might if I had an older transceiver I was messing with that didn't have an internal keyer.

Try sending with a cootie or double speed key sometime. THAT will mess your head up!
Banana boat swing;
http://www.telegraph-office.com/pages/swing.html

I prefer a swideswiper over a bug. A few years back, I nearly severed my right index finger and still suffer nerve issues. Now, I have tendinitis in both my elbows. Sending on a key is near impossible for any length of time. I didn't have much trouble adapting to a cootie, seemed sorta natural.

Sometimes, you can tell when one's being used. Some op's dit spacings are more compressed. Hard to describe, but each user's technique seems more unique using a cootie, then one using a key, bug or paddle.

 

[Shadetree Mechanic]

How do you emphasize dots and dashes?

From what I have read, the dots are always dots but the dashes can be slightly longer to add emphasis. In the wired telegraphy days, automatic keyers we're available that had a type writer keyboard on them. Nobody liked them because they were hard to listen to. I will try to dig up the information on Vibroplex where I read this.