Xref: utzoo sci.electronics:16285 rec.ham-radio:28202 Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!oakhill!val!ben From: ben@val.com (Ben Thornton) Newsgroups: sci.electronics,rec.ham-radio Subject: Re: morse code Message-ID: <1990Dec14.152659.8250@val.com> Date: 14 Dec 90 15:26:59 GMT References: <1990Dec12.231058.23895@engin.umich.edu> <1990Dec14.012315.7858@zoo.toronto.edu> Organization: Video Associates Labs Lines: 35 henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >In article <1990Dec12.231058.23895@engin.umich.edu> ssave@caen.engin.umich.edu (Shailendra Anant Save) writes: >> Say, why do people use morse nowadays anyway? >For conformance with antiquated regulations, because they're old-fashioned, >or because they're stranded on a desert island which is well-supplied with >analog electronic parts but has no digital parts. Morse is basically >obsolete, since digital modulation techniques are far superior at punching >clean signals through noise. Hold the phone (pun???). I thought that CW *is* a digital mode. BNF: := true; := false; Now, some digital modes are certainly superior to others, and some are more suited for usage in high-noise (QRM) radio circuits than others. Let's not confuse the issue by branding CW as an *ANALOG* mode, especially since most digital modes in use today on UHF and below are merely digitally modulated analog signals, like CW. If you are branding morse as obsolete because of the modulation techniques then HF packet, AMTOR, and RTTY are also obsolete. Ben -- Ben Thornton packet: WD5HLS @ KB5PM Video Associates Internet: ben@val.com Austin, TX uucp: ...!cs.utexas.edu!val!ben Did Schrodinger exist? ...or was that in another universe?