User name:
Password:

Forgot password? - Sign up

ac8yh bakn bebey Ben2233 BG7YOT bx2akp Diaze feetusbeetus georgcat gqhsy HB9SWR jf3ijq2025 JL7MQN JoeNR7Z JR4QKP kameakio kk7wtr nbfX PH9MV polygonum proctor py Reckerlang t0811 test wxzhoufn

Hi folks...

I have been training with a bug for the last few months, off-line at first, but I now do QSO's on-air with both my Vibroplex Bug, and my Begali Intrepid.

I can send OK and understandable CW at around 22wpm, which I can also easily headcopy.

Now to my question. I have been wondering WHY are so many bug operators making their dah's sooo long?? It is almost as if they are doing this at purpose to make the bug sound special? This sounds perculiar to me, because CW sent in such manner is harder to copy...? For me at least.

I'm practising really hard to make my bug sound as close to my paddle as possible, and my goal is to reach a level where the receipient wont be able to tell that I'm using a bug.

Is my aproach wrong? Is what I'm hearing on the bands really wrong use of bug, or have I misunderstood the concept behind the bug?

Thank u all in advance...

Long dashes are possibly a method to identify the personality of the sender. It is just like handwriting, you immediately recognise the writer, is it aunt Abigail or uncle John that is congratulating you with your bithday.

Your effort to resemble with a Vibroplex as much as possible perfect code is honourable and at high speed Morse it makes the difference between readability and rubbish,that requires a pse QRS.

To my mind that's exactly the correct thing to be doing. What other people do is up to them...

A little bit of a 'swing' (or whatever) might sound OK, but (in my experience) people always over-do these things.

The bug was designed to enable faster sending of correct morse code without causing pain and discomfort to the operator, simple.

So, I think you've understood perfectly and should carry on as you are - striving to send perfect morse using your bug.

eg.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYhrSEERvbI

Hmm.... but Chris..., do you think Lady Dah is sending perfect code...?

It is exactly what I mean with this thread. You are not a second in doubt that you are listening to a bug when listening to that movie of legendary Lady Dah...

But why not send correct code with the bug, instead of those looong dahs...?
Is it not just at question of practise?

And don't get me wrong here, I may be totally mistaken on this subject, because I'm not saying that Lady Dah isn't proficient in her sendig, she is probably the best. But certainly it is not the same rythm of code as sent with a paddel and keyer.

And then my question again..., why..?! Is it really impossible to send code that sounds exactly as paddle and keyer, with a bug...??

Her manual code is good.

You can eventually tell always the operator from any manual keying - so hardly any OPs can produce machine morse for any period of time

No point in trying to pretend you are a keyer then . . .




Probably it's an aesthetic, else everyone does it this way so follow on with actual practice.



It's not impossible - but other OPs will still be able to tell it's you, so you won't get it right 100% of the time . .


I thought you were talking about:-

Lake Erie Swing, Banana boat swing etc

http://ac6v.com/morsetid.php
http://www.9h1mrl.org/ukrae/arc_cd/extra/morse/html/c15.htm


Probably not much to be gained from HAMS criticizing professional telegraphists actual working practices . .

cb

A point may be that code with longer dashes is better copyable when 12 till 15 dB below noise level of a regular ssb receiver.

Possibly, but it will only sound perfect within your ability to make the (manual) dahs exactly 3 times longer than the (automatic) dits. It will also be subject to imperfections arising from the bugs dit mechanism.

Both of these things (human error, mechanical error) will probably combine to mean that it is practically impossible to send precisely perfect code with a bug.

I suspect that, like many things, with much practice, you would be able to send code from a bug that is almost indistinguishable from perfect code.

So, if you want to do that, why not? It sounds like you have made a good start.

It's not at al impossible to send normal-sounding code with a bug. My dad mostly uses a straight key or a bug, and takes pride in sending as clean code as possible.

My guess is that bugs are a bit deceptive: They produce streams of dits automatically, like an electronic keyer, but require as much practice as a straight key to get the timing right.

What a wonderful forum this is…!
Thank you very much for all your replies.

And no disrespect meant towards all those professionals and other talented bug users.
I’m only a humble but curious newbie who wants to learn things from the bottom, and I respect all those talents and look up to them.

I now have a little better understanding of why the bug distinguishes from the paddle in its use, and I think I will be a little bit more relaxed using it in QSO from now on.

Thank U all :)

73 es happy Easter
OZ1SPS

Sebastian,

Most of us have a readable hand-writing - but most of us are far from writing calligraphy.

Maybe you remember when you learned to read? It was easier to read printed text, and still easier if the characters were printed a bit larger. Now you have much more tolerance for little characters, bad printing quality or bad hand writing and read all that effortlessly most of the time. And if not you make an educated guess.

I think it is the same for morse code. With time the sanitized 100% correct morse code may become a bit boring to listen to (try listening to cw ebooks or contests for hours) and hand keyed morse code may be a refreshing break.

Of course not an excuse to key unreadable code, but your tolerance to decode will raise with time.

And as said above: a bit longer dots may be easier to read under adverse conditions. Same for slightly extended character- and word spaces if you are RST 229.

Happy Easter!

Gerd.

Thank you very much for that one DR Gerd.
Your analogy with reading printed text vs. handwrited text is really good, and really explains everything in short.

I'm much more relaxed now, when using my bug. I still try to make it sound as much as possible as clean machine-code, but now see my bug as a much more versatily instrument, making my possibilities of being understood, also in harsh conditions, better, if used correctly (as also Nonagenarian noted).

Agn tu everyone!

From a thrilled es hpi new bug user!
OZ1SPS

Hello,

I did the same a decade ago. I chose the Vibroplex because it was very challenging. I was even able to be decoded by a robot (for instance F5KCK/ROBOT) and I was very happy with that.



To me, it's either lasiness or lack of capabilities / training, both of which are reversed into a vertue : Beethoven or Mozard style, which is surely not if it needs more effort to be decoded than any other mecanical key. Why a straight key is easier to decode than a bug key ? Because the latter needs much more training to reach a very readable sounding and because, one day, a sloth, decided to spread the myth that their musicallity was in reality the sign of a extremely high experience instead of a very high laziness.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZ9AHhv3CYQ

Nice video on how to use the "rolling fist" to key the bug. Fist rolls, fingers don't move.

73

Gerd.

Surprised to see how close the thumb is to the index finger - that likely causes some extra hand tension.

Youtube search for N1EA David Ring's Bug sending and you will really see the wrist roll and high speed; also his straight key adjustment video shows a rather different finger use.

Yes, I think the speed is quite limited sending this way. I don't really expect to reach much higher speed this way indeed, or at least just for 5NN QSOs.

Thanks, I'm going to have a look at N1EA videos!