Nobody is saying 'sloppy code' is good! Just that you can send good code with a bug and it is more pleasing than code from a keyer.
You can send rotten code with any kind of key. I would much rather try to copy CW sent with an exaggerated dah/dit ratio than one of those guys who uses a shiny paddle but forgets to put in letter and word spaces! On 10/29/2011 10:20 AM, Ken Alexander wrote: > It sounds like everyone is saying sending sloppy code is desirable. How > odd; I always thought hams took pride in their sending. Well formed, > well spaced characters are much easier to copy. I find nothing quaint > or charming about sending dits at 30wpm and dahs at 10 wpm, which is > typical of what I hear. Either slow down the dits or speed up the > manually sent dahs. I know there are limits on how slow you can send > dits with a bug, but if you can't slow it down enough then consider > using another instrument for sending code or resign yourself to the fact > that VE3HLS will never answer your CQ (that should be pretty easy to > live with)! :-) > > daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah dididit dididit > daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah! :-) > > Ken, > VE3HLS > > > On 29/10/2011 9:02 AM, Buddy Brannan wrote: >> GOtta agree with Ron re: "mangled" code. Code sent with a bug, straight key, >> or sideswiper is a bit like handwriting. Some people have very sloppy >> handwriting, or in this case, send sloppily. I think these things really add >> character and make the whole thing a lot less sterile. Heck, if I wanna talk >> to a machine, I'll get on the Internet. And I have enough mechanical voices >> in my head already, much as I like having them and helpful as they are to >> me. So give me a well-handled bug any day of the week; in my view, there's >> nothing nicer to listen to than that. And I've heard some fantastic ones >> really recently on 40 meters, so I, for one, am glad that there are still >> those practicing the art. >> >> Now if I can find time to get more comfortable with this cootie key I got >> from Stan a while ago. Oh, and get ahold of another bug one of these days to >> torture people with :-) >> -- >> Buddy Brannan, KB5ELV - Erie, PA >> Phone: (814) 860-3194 or 888-75-BUDDY >> >> >> >> On Oct 29, 2011, at 1:45 AM, Ron D'Eau Claire wrote: >> >>> With full respect Ken, it is NOT "mangled" code. A bug sends human Morse >>> code as opposed to machine-generated code that is about as friendly as >>> computer-generated voices. >>> >>> Mike, the military still required radiotelegraph operators on some of their >>> aircraft and the commercial airlines used CW for trans-Pacific flights. >>> >>> I worked for Lockheed and held a commercial radiotelegraph license for just >>> that purpose. >>> >>> I enjoy watching the "Pan Am" TV show because that was how flying was back >>> in the 50's and 60's. I did a lot of it then. Wow, have times changed! >>> >>> BTW, I still hold a current commercial radiotelegraph license, but I doubt >>> if I'll need it again, Hi! >>> >>> 73, >>> >>> Ron AC7AC >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> >>> Never been a big fan of bugs and the mangled code most people send with >>> them. ... >>> >>> 73, >>> >>> Ken Alexander >>> VE3HLS -- Vic, K2VCO Fresno CA http://www.qsl.net/k2vco/ ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[email protected] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
