BLIND-HAMS Archives

For blind ham radio operators

BLIND-HAMS@LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Steve Dresser <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
For blind ham radio operators <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 13 Oct 2006 22:54:24 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (19 lines)
On Wednesday 9/13/06 19:39 Colin McDonald wrote:
>And the idea that CW is the one and only method of communication that can
>get through when nothing else can is also a very outdated theory.
>Any digital mode will accomplish the same task, and offen with much lower
>error rate then a typical CW operater who is attempting to pull a signal out
>of the noise, or below the noise floor.
You're absolutely right, in a perfect world.  However, the times when 
CW is most effective are usually times when digital decoding 
equipment either is unavailable, or can't be used because of power 
constraints.  How much digital communication came out of the areas 
hit hardest by Katrina?  There are times when the simplest method is 
the most effective, and CW is the simplest way to communicate.  In 
worst case, you don't even need a key - you can just short two wires 
together to turn the transmitter on and off.  I've even heard of 
cases where an operator sent CW by keying the mic on an HT.  Ever try 
simulating PSK31 by whistling into a microphone?

Steve 

ATOM RSS1 RSS2