Xref: utzoo sci.electronics:16296 rec.ham-radio:28220
Path: utzoo!attcan!telly!problem!compus!lethe!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!lll-winken!unixhub!shelby!paulf@shasta.Stanford.EDU
From: paulf@shasta.Stanford.EDU (paulf)
Newsgroups: sci.electronics,rec.ham-radio
Subject: Re: morse code
Message-ID: <32@shasta.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 14 Dec 90 22:07:58 GMT
References: <1990Dec12.231058.23895@engin.umich.edu> <1990Dec14.012315.7858@zoo.toronto.edu> <1990Dec14.152659.8250@val.com>
Organization: The Three Packeteers
Lines: 23

In article <1990Dec14.152659.8250@val.com> ben@val.com (Ben Thornton) writes:
>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.

Branding CW as a "digital mode" is sort of like calling a bicycle an
automobile because it has wheels.  While the symbols take on discrete levels,
both the encoding process and the decoding process are very analog in
nature.

>If you are branding morse as obsolete because of the modulation techniques
>then HF packet, AMTOR, and RTTY are also obsolete.

The problem here is that you're confusing coding with modulation.  HF packet
et al are all FM in nature, which is somewhat superior to AM modes like CW
when it comes to decoding (orthogonality).

Old tech myths die hard...

-=Paul Flaherty, N9FZX      | Without KILL files,
->paulf@shasta.Stanford.EDU | life itself would be impossible.