Talk:Morse code

Woow.....

If you were trying to write HI "......" it could be EEEEEE "......" because there arent any spaces, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.224.188.66 (talk) 21:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry wrong. H is .... and I is .. Both written and sent you would leave a space between the letters. Thus it would look like; .... .. Not ...... (which represents nothing in morse code.Watchkeeper (talk) 16:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

W8IMP submission on aviation

The following was added to the "Applications for the general public" section, but it really doesn't belong there, and I wasn't sure if it fits in anywhere else:

Morse was an integral part of aviation. According to airline authorites, Anne Morrow Lindbergh had an efficient and famous "fist", developed during flights with her husband. Into the 90's aeronautical charts listed the three letter ID of each airport in Morse. During WWII army pilots were required to "head copy" 10WPM. After the war and into the 60s some navigational beacons gave continuous signals of the three letter code, as well as an A (dit-dah) and a N (dah-dit) leg. Depending on which leg Pilots were on, they copied an A or an N, and in the middle heard a steady buzz mixed with weather reports from many airports. More sophisticated aircraft had a pair of needles on the dash, enabling pilots to follow the beam by keeping the needles pointing at each other. Morse is frequently heard as repeater ID's, minimally required at ten minute intervals, by public service and amateur services.

I'm not sure this kind of detailed review belongs in a general overview of Morse code. Instead, the various facts could be split between pages on Lindbergh, military aviation, general aviation, etc. Its also not clear whether this information is exclusively about U.S. practices or international standards. And some of the summary information would need to be better explained for a general audience, since while it would be instantly understandable by pilots, as a non-pilot I'm not really clear what the review is referring to when it talks about "head copy", "A and N legs", "repeater ID's", etc.Thomas H. White 22:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Mr. White,

Thank you for your concerned and timely input on this page. I question your contention that my contribution is inappropriate for inclusion. When I submitted, I did so directly above a rather detailed rendition of how SMS text messaging competes with Morse. I have been a Morse operator and amateur co-pilot since 1962, and a cell phone user for over five years, yet I had no idea what SMS text messaging was, until I read this page.

I agree that my submission is somewhat specialized and technical, but is the SMS information any less so? Why would my submission belong on the Lindbergh, Military or General Aviation pages, (unless, of course, they are already there), if every aeronautical chart I have seen, used by ALL aviators; commercial, military, and general, has Morse code printed on it? I believe "head copy" is referenced elsewhere in the article, but did I fail to explain "legs" or "repeater ID's"? Your question about whether these are strictly US practices is somewhat naive. In their book, The Story of English, Robert MacNeil and Robert McCrum well document the fact that American English is overwhelmingly the World-wide language of trade, commerce and aviation.

I cannot understand your contention that my contribution does not belong in the "Applications for the general public" section. Are the general public not at least secondary consumers of the aviation and public service radio systems?

This article is very much in need of balance. If it includes technology about SMS text messaging, how does my submission fail as an attempt to balance it? As a member of the amateur radio community, I feel obligated to point out that very little communication technology, including cell phones, would not exist if not for the volunteer efforts of hams. --W8IMP 07:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I think W8IMP has a point about Morse being significant to aviation, however it might be better suited to the history section, right before maritime use is mentioned. Since the article is already very long, I added an edited version, leaving out extraneous details. Hope this works for everybody. --- LuckyLouie 08:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

dits and dahs vs. dots and dashes

I just noticed that the article seems to use the words dit/dot and dash/dah interchangeably. The article should be consistent. Which should it be? Dits and dahs, or dots and dashes? If we go with Dits and dahs, the first picture used in the article might stand to be changed since it uses dot and dash. If I understand it correctly, "dot" and "dash" is outdated lingo, but I could be wrong. PMHauge 06:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, they are just different words for the same thing, unlikely to cause confusion. Nothing wrong with using them to avoid boring repetition. Lou Sander 13:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, dit/dah is widely used by amateur radio operators, while the general public is still more familiar with dot/dash, and also has an inate understanding that a dot is short and a dash is long. (I personally had to look it up to find out which one was the dit and which one was the dah). I also think that dit/dah is more reflective of auditory reception, while dot/dash covers more general applications, although I'm not sure about that. In any event, I don't think it is a problem to use both terms the way this page does.Thomas H. White 01:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Dit/dah is used for verbal enunciation of the code; try saying dot/dash instead and you'll see the advantage of dit/dah in that context. "Dit" is naturally a shorter sound than "dah", at least for native English speakers. In typography, dots and dashes are used. — DAGwyn 16:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I Like Both Dit/Dah Is Speech Dot/dash Is Written/Typed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Achallenor1997 (talk • contribs) 08:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

As an ex Royal Naval Merchant & Marine Radio Operator we always use dit/dah if mimicking morse. Dash & Dot we use to describe morse code. As in.... "the letter 'B' is made up of a Dash followed by three dots. It sounds like Dah dit dit dit". Watchkeeper (talk) 15:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

External Link Cleanup

Someone just slapped on an external link cleanup tag on the article. Are the links that bad? I cut out a lot of the translators and other things that looked bad, so I am freash out of ideas on what else to remove. Anyone else going to take a wack? PMHauge 03:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi! I'm the "someone".

By my count, the current version of the article has 28 external links listed. I think that's excessive and needs to be severely trimmed down per WP:EL & WP:NOT#REPOSITORY. The fact is that a lot of those links could easily be found with a Google keyword search such as this one. Some of the links could be source material and should be worked into the text as citations; as for the rest, most of them can go, IMHO. I'd do it myself, but I figured you all would get POed with me if I didn't give you a chance to do it yourselves. Have a great day! --Elipongo ^{(Talk|contribs)} 16:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I just cut it down to four links per section. I've worked long and hard on this article, so I will take the brunt of it if anyone has a problem with what was cut. I'll try to keep the links under control from now on, if nobody else does it. I left the cleanup tag up just in case someone else wants to take a slash at it. PMHauge 20:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I just removed the translators and the trainers sub-sections from the external links section. As one new editor pointed out when a link he tried to post was removed, his wasn't different from the other links there. I think that WP:EL, WP:NOT & WP:SPAM back me up in deleting those links because the lists are supposed to be short. If you who regularly edit the article think I've gone too far, feel free to revert me. Have a great day! —Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 16:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you trying to crawl out of it?

• BYOXO ("Are you trying to crawl out of it?")
• LIOUY ("Why do you not answer my question?")
• AYYLU ("Not clearly coded, repeat more clearly.")

Can someone find a reference for these? Some other things online say that BYOXO means "Are you trying to weasel out of our deal?", but they appear to be Wikipedia mirrors, so maybe it said that in a past version. "Crawl out of it" seems like a machine translation from the equivalent phrase in some other language. — Omegatron 00:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I've wondered about that stuff, too. Googling 'telegraphy five letter groups' quickly found the Mother Lode and something contemporary. There are probably more, since I stopped looking after finding two good ones. The Morse code article is already pretty huge, but I'm thinking these references could open up a whole new section, or at least a rewritten paragraph or two. Maybe there should be an article on code books, referenced from Morse code. Anyway, some light has been shed on BYOXO and its cousins. Lou Sander 01:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Definitely new article material. — Omegatron 00:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Adding this to the existing article--BYOXO? ;-) Yep, sounds like one to me. Then Morse code could just say "they sometimes used code books" (properly worded, of course), with a link to code books. Lou Sander 01:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

There were several different commercial codes in common use, many large companies used their own, and of course there were military codes too. They were used not only with telegraphy but also over public and private teletype networks. If wiki wants to be neutral one could just make up a few arbitrary assignments as examples, then link to the code books site for real ones. Jeh 23:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I have moved the Commercial code discussion to the Telegraph code page, since this is more a part of historical telegraph practice than Morse code usage.Thomas H. White 00:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi there

Not quite what this part was intended for, I am aware, but I sort of wanted to know if anyone would could help me with decoding something.

I know it is a number and probably one which starts 07 but what exactly does this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gGmN3Sha80

mean? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.135.88.57 (talk) 19:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

Some of the characters are botched. They are roughly: 0784Z77255352 --- LuckyLouie 23:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Morse vs. SMS

I've been impressed (but unsurprised) by the Morse winners of these contests. I have to point out, though, that the SMS message has to be buffered and relayed through the wireless telephone network. With a direct (or even radio) connection between telegraph key and headphones, the receiver has the message essentially the instant the last symbol is sent. This gives a huge advantage to the Morse users, one that would disappear if Morse was simply used as a text input method to the SMS feature of a mobile phone. (Which is not to say that such an option isn't a "gr8" idea, of course. I don't know if this observation should be in the article or not. Jeh 23:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The SMS users haven't even been close to finish typing the message before Morse code operators are done.

- Jalla, February 26 2007

I think an important point of information is missing here. Were the SMS texters using T9 word via the numeric keypad, or did they have access to a full QWERTY keyboard? I would say if they were simply using the number pad then of course the Morse operators would win. With that being said, I have to be skeptical regarding the results of these so called "contests".

- Matt, July 4 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.173.13.197 (talk) 20:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Merging Farnsworth method and Koch method into Morse Code

Looks like a good idea to me. The main article is already pretty long, but the two others are hardly more than a sentence or two each. Lou Sander 19:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I second that PMHauge 14:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I third it. I made the edits and redirects, and integrated content. -- LuckyLouie 00:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not too sure whether the Farnsworth or Koch methods are the easiest or the commonest methods of learning morse. Every operator I ever met (hundreds) always generally learned the same way. Once you'd learned what letters etc., looked like (We used flash cards), Each character was sent slowly at first with long gaps. Then speeded up until you reach the required speed. This method worked fine. To learn 20wpm took most people I ever met about 30 or 40 minutes each weekday for about six months. Obviously we had to learn other skills aswell. I was able to read morse at 36wpm. Whenever I've asked non morse readers to identify the dots and dashes sent they never ever recognise what has been sent. As most Radio Operators had to send morse as well the Farnsworth and Koch methods means you'll never be able to send from the start at the target speed. No one is capable of sending the strings of dots and dashes at the target speed no matter how much they have practiced listening to morse without practicing slowly at first. From a training & learning point of view it makes much more sense as it also allows beginners to practice sending and receiving from early on and as I've said at the start you can only transmit characters slowly so it means you listen to slow characters. Unless you prohibited listening to other learner's slow morse I can't quite understand how these methods are efficient. They sound like a good idea though.Watchkeeper (talk) 15:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Morse code in popular culture

I've created a separate article and moved the existing rather disorganized list of stuff to that article. Like other pop reference lists, it would only continue growing, and I think separating it from the main article on morse code is a much-needed improvement. - LuckyLouie 23:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Excellent move! Dsergeant 05:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is already drawing additions daily! - LuckyLouie 19:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking about doing the same thing, as a little part of me always seems to die when I see this article get longer and longer. I just wasn't sure if the topic made an appropriate article all on its own. I'm glad someone had the stones to do it. Good job. PMHauge 14:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Where can i find this seperate article? I'd like to add the Mission Impossible theme song to it; It uses "long long" "short short" in the rhythm to spell out M-I. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.81.152 (talk) 15:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It was deleted as, iirc, not meeting wp's notability standards. As an M:I fan, I'd say you should put that in the M:I article. Jeh (talk) 06:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Just noticed the pop culture section is growing. And the cycle begins again. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Keyers

I'm still hankering for some information about the keyers and what the differences/advantages are of one over another. As it stands, the images of keyers seem to be just placed in the article at random. If I knew enough about keyers, I would bring them all together, and add a small section about them. PMHauge 14:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The info in detail is on Telegraph key. ---- LuckyLouie 19:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I just alphabetized the See Also entries (including Telegraph key), hopefully making it easier to use them. IMHO the Morse Code article should maybe only have one picture of a key, with the others (and a copy of itself) moved to the Telegraph key article. The caption of the picture left here should include a link to the other article and should mention that more keys can be seen there.

Also the history portion of this article should maybe include a picture of some early telegraphy apparatus. Lou Sander 19:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

More Morse Codes?

Dear Sirs,

Subject: your entry of Morse Code (in English)

Reference for query and more information: Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary G. & C. Merriam Company, Publishers Springfield, Massachusetts, USA Copyright 1965 by G. & C. Merriam Co. based on Webster's 3rd New Int. Dictionary copyright 1961 entry: Morse code, page 552, 1st column quote: - - - International Code 2) - - - 2) Often called the continental code; a modification of this code, with dots only, is used on ocean cables unquote

Thus, what interests me is that is there really a morse coding system with dots only and thus without dashes and if you could refer to it with more information.

Sincerely yours

Mr. Antti Stenberg Helsinki, Finland e-mail: antti.stenberg@welho.com

A quick search has shown me that "continental code" is nothing more than another word for International Morse Code. I didn't spend much time on this, so I could be wrong, but a code that uses only dots sounds highly inefficient... It also wouldn't be Morse Code. Anyone else? PMHauge 23:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I think this may be a reference to American Morse code and its use in wire telegraphy. As I understand it, the original telegraphs recorded the dots and dashes on a paper strip. The machinery made a click at the beginning and end of each element, a dot or dash. Telegraph operators began to notice that they could understand the pattern of clicks by ear. A short interval between clicks was a dot, a longer interval, a dash. (there was a long dash and an even longer dash as well, see the article.) The operators found it was easier to copy down the morse from the sounds than to look over the strips of tape. As a result the tape scribers were replaced with simpler sounders that still made two clicks for each element. So in that sense, yes, the original Morse could be thought of as only having dots (clicks really).--agr 01:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The clicks are in effect the (absolute value of) the derivative of the dot/dash encoding. — DAGwyn 16:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Code for & Universally recognized [?]

I'm curious about the Morse Code for the Ampersand. The article lists it as "· — · · ·" . Is this univerally accepted? Many Morse Code guides I've encountered do not list a code for "&" is it a recent addition?

Pine 21:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether .-... is universally known as representing the "&" (Ampersand).

As an ex professional operator I've only ever heard it used to mean "wait".Watchkeeper (talk) 15:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Morse Code Software

Im still a newbie to Wikipedia, but i have an interest in Morse and specifically, Morse Code on computers. I know there is a lot of software out there, decoders, learning aids etc (i wrote one myself too). Should there be a section on this in the article, and/or some links popular software? -- Wikiwilf 23:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

We did have a bit of link farm of morse decoders for a while, but it was removed per the External links policy. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 16:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Idiotic European Rivalry

Why is it that whenever a successful invention is made by an American, some European shows up out of no where to claim prior invention?

Everywhere I look on Wikipedia, I see original inventions side by side with ridiculous claims of prior invention by Europeans. Some are bonified, but many are not.

Which brings me to this article, and yet another unsourced claim of prior invention. For this reason, the following should be removed until a valid source is found,

Beginning in 1837, William Cooke and Charles Wheatstone operated electric telegraphs in England, which also controlled electromagnets in the receivers; however, their systems used needle pointers that rotated to indicate the alphabetic characters being sent. Korismo 01:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Try this Google search and take your pick. I have to go right now, so I don't have time to start reading them all. I'm sure someone will find the best and most notable and reference it soon. --Nigelj 08:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Korismo may be confused by the fact that "telegraph" in connection with Wheatstone means something rather different from the Morse telegraph system, requiring more complicated machinery. Using electricity to send messages wasn't new; using something as simple as patterns of on-off current to encode the characters is Morse's crucial innovation. Paul Koning 10:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not confused about anything. I was simply making a statement about the infiltration of Wikipedia by idiotic European historians, with poorly sourced material. In this case, someone thought it would be beneficial to compare an apple (Morse Telegraph) to an orange (Wheatstone Telegraph) when relating the invention of the Morse telegraph. The statement has no relevence to the article, and only serves to imply that, WE MADE IT FIRST. Korismo 19:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

In this case, the word OPERATED is used, as if to imply that Cooke and Wheatstone had a working model by 1837, while Morse had just developed his telegraph. Moreover, why does a mention about a 2-bit experimental telegraph belong on the page about the Morse Telegraph?

I would agrue that we remove the reference, and place it on the page about telegraphs. Korismo 19:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

First of all, it's not likely people will pay attention if you use offensive language. If you want to be persuasive, you should start by being civil.

Second, you might read the article about Charles Wheatstone, in particular the history of his telegraph section, which describes a telegraph in operation between two railway stations. The article says that it's a five bit design, not a two bit design. So in a way it anticipates the 5-level teleprinters ("Baudot" or "Murray" code machines).

Clearly Morse built something very different, and very much simpler. It's no surprise that his design was the winner in the market. But "telegraph" means any device that transmits writing over a distance, and that has been done before by others. Therefore the existing text is appropriate. Paul Koning 21:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The use of CW

I notice the use of CW in the paragraph below:

International Morse code today is most popular among amateur radio operators, where it is used as the pattern to key a transmitter on and off in the radio communications mode commonly referred to as "continuous wave" or "CW".

I was under the impression that CW ment Carrier Wave.

Steve morsed2@yahoo.com Morsed2 02:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

"Continuous wave" is correct, which means "not spark transmission". There's no obvious connection between continuous wave transmission and Morse code, so it's just a traditional term. Paul Koning 10:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, CW stands for "continuous wave". There is a close connection with carrier, though: During the gaps (pauses) in Morse transmission using this modulation scheme, nothing is transmitted (no signal power); when a dot or dash is being transmitted, the signal is pure carrier: a single frequency with constant phase. Obviously it's not truly "continuous". One way to think of it is a constant (continuous) carrier wave being modulated by multiplied by a signal function that has the value of 0 during gaps and 1 during the duration of a dot or dash. — DAGwyn 16:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The term CW came about as follows: In the early days, Transmitters were mostly Spark and generated heavily modulated AM. This could be received on a simple envelope detector (e.g. a crystal set). Later with valves a pure carrier could be generated (Continuous Wave), but this required a Beat Frequency Oscillator (BFO) in the receiver to be made audible. The BFO on/off switch was labeled AM/CW. To listen to Morse you needed to select the "CW" position. Hence the term "CW" gradually replaced the older term "WT" (Wireless Telegraphy). Gutta Percha (talk) 08:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Alfred Vail

Isn't Morse code actually invented by his assistant Alfred Vail? I tried to find a citation but all that I found was this: http://www.wps.com/projects/codes/index.html -- 212.213.204.99 00:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The articles about electric telegraph and Alfred Vail suggest that this is so -- or at least that he was a co-inventor. You might trace the references given there (and if appropriate, edit this article accordingly). Paul Koning 01:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Reinhold

That "mnemonic chart" seems massively silly. Apart from that, it isn't mnemonic. I can't see a good reason for it being here. Paul Koning (talk) 22:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I've taught morse code for years until I left the Royal Navy many years ago and never ever heard anyone using mnemonic charts for teaching. It simply is not necessary. When I got more confident teaching I simply told the pupils (Royal Naval students and later Amateur radio operators) to spend an evening using flash cards on the 26 letters of the alphabet. If you wanted to make it very easy then you'd get people to learn the dot only characters - e,i,s & h, then the dash only ones t,m & o and so on. Most groups I recall managed to learn in pairs in a few hours of hard work. Just not worth trying to learn the mnemonic on top. Watchkeeper (talk) 15:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Morse code tapping

The latest edit to "applications for the general public" claims that "contrary to Hollywood, Morse code cannot be transmitted by banging on a structure.

Of course that's not true. This is obvious from the fact that the earliest sound-based copying of Morse code (as opposed to the even earlier printing approach) used the clicking of a relay or "sounder". If you make a click or tap sound at each "edge" of the Morse signal -- i.e., at both the start and end of each dot or dash -- you end up with a sound that is perfectly unambiguous and can easily be copied with practice.

That said, I'll admit that this is probably not all that familiar to most people who know Morse code in its tone or light blink forms, and would take a bit of practice.

If all you do is tap the start of each symbol, then you do end up with an ambiguous signal, and in that case I would think that "SOS" is recognizable but other things are not. It would be fine to say so, but the blanket assertion that you cannot transmit Morse by tapping is clearly false.

Paul Koning (talk) 15:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, Paul. I think that a relay, moving pen or sounder is likely to make two slightly different sounds for on and off, like 'click' and 'clack'. So a dit would be 'cli-clack' and a dah 'click...clack'. If the Hollywood pipe-tappers could find two surfaces that do this and move a stick back and forth between them, it would be clear. Equally, a slightly resonant surface like a drum skin can be left to sound or damped quickly to distinguish dits from dahs. This webpage I came across also uses two different toned drums, which may not be so clear, but is more musical. --Nigelj (talk) 11:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Ixfd64 added some text saying that in tapping Morse code you could use the longer pause between beats for dash. That doesn't seem to be good enough in general, though it's likely to work quite well for things like "SOS". The unambiguous way is to make open/close sounds like a key or sounder. Even if both sound the same you could sort it out. The biggest drawback I can see is that it's likely to puzzle most people, even those who know Morse code, because it's so different from the familiar tones. Paul Koning (talk) 21:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I've known morse since 1966 and was an operator in both the RN & Merchant Marine for many years. I could not recognise morse sent by banging or knocking sounds and I can't recall meeting or hearing of anyone who could. Maybe it is possible like you mention if there is a click when the relay releases at the end of the dash.

However: there was a method of sending morse by percussion but I never heard of it being used. (I read about it in an old signal manual). Using a bell - or some other object you rang (or hit) the object once for a dit and twice for a dash. Thus the letter 'P' (.--.) comes out as 'ding - ding,ding - ding,ding - ding' Limited application but could be handy in fog perhaps?Watchkeeper (talk) 16:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

In an old black-and-white movie I saw people regularly communicated between floors of an office building by tapping a pipe with a screw-driver, tap for dot, scrape for dash. 203.129.141.234 (talk) 12:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

No! Much of the above is uninformed speculation: Telegraph operators read Morse Code by listening to their Sounder, long before Radio arrived. There is no need for a "Click" and "Clack", just the rhythm is sufficient. The same rhythm method can be used by tapping, eg underwater by divers using a spanner on the hull of a vessel. Gutta Percha (talk)

Morse code chart (first image)

1922 Chart of the Morse Code Letters and Numerals

Visually updated image of the 1922 Chart of Morse Code Letters and Numerals

This article used to begin with a facsimile of a 1922 chart showing the English alphabet and the ten numerals in Morse code. Then James Kanjo created an image based on the original that he describes as "more visually appealing" and added it to the article. Subsequently, Paul Koning removed the redundant original. The problem is that the caption (kept from the old image) strongly implies that the current image (Kanjo's) was produced in 1922, while it is clearly computer-generated. If this version is to be retained, the caption should be emended. However, I think the original is adequate. All the text is legible, and I think people like looking at original documents. Both are PNGs. MagnesianPhoenix (talk) 01:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree MagnesianPhoenix, the original should be preserved because people do like to see original images. That is why I kept the original image when I added my own. However, it does make sense to remove the original; the article looked, quite frankly, silly with two of the same image. Because my image is a digitally improved version of essentialy the same image, it is easier to read for computer programs designed to read aloud the text or detected text on the screen, not to mention that it saves ink when printing because it doesn't print the unnecessary detail of blurs in the original image. I suggest that on the image caption, or on the image page itself (Image:International_Morse_Code.PNG) that we include creditation to and a link of the original file. What is the point you are trying to make on that they are both PNG image formats? Does that influence anything? You are also right in saying that the caption implies that my image is the original image (which it is not). I don't know who changed that caption, but I feel that I should excuse myself in saying that I did, when I added the image to the artical, include the caption: Visually updated image of the 1922 Chart of Morse Code Letters and Numerals which implied that it wasn't the original. I think the new caption should either be changed back to the caption I included, or be re-written to make it clear that it is not the original. Cheers ~ James Kanjo (talk) 03:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I would say that the caption in the article doesn't need to say that this is an updated chart, but the description text on the page for the image itself should (including a reference back to the original). I believe that's the common Wikipedia practice for situations like this. Paul Koning (talk) 15:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you too. I have removed the misleading misconception of the word "1922" in the caption of the image altogether. On the image page itself, I have created a link to the original which is indeed a "1922 Chart of Morse Code Letters and Numerals". Cheers ~ James Kanjo (talk) 10:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Paul, I disagree that describing a user-made image as its historical basis is common Wikipedia practice. If the original item was a 1922 map of Europe, you wouldn't make your own and call it a 1922 map of Europe. If it depicted contemporary borders, you might call it a map of 1922 Europe, but if it depicted the continent in 1097, you'd call it that - it would no longer be a 1922 map of anything.

In my first post I neglected to mention the issue of changes in Morse code because I checked the alphabet and there weren't any. However, the section below illustrates that in fact there are discrepancies in spacing standards. At this point we need to determine the purpose of the image(s) in this article. If it is to delineate Morse code, that function is performed elsewhere in the article, in text format. If it is to provide an image of a historical document, the original should appear, but not necessarily at the top of the page where it looks like a reliable reference. MagnesianPhoenix (talk) 04:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't clearly say what I was referring to when I said "common Wikipedia practice". I meant the practice of taking an existing image and modifying it, storing the modified image as a separate image (often in Commons). The modified image has a description that points back to the original image and explains what was changed. Finally, an article can then use the modified image, without itself (in the caption) saying it's a modified image. Instead, the article that uses the (modified) image simply has a caption that says what the image shows.

So in this example, I was arguing that the caption should say it's a chart of Morse code, period. The caption shouldn't say that the chart image was modified from the original -- that's the job of the image description page.

Paul Koning (talk) 21:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I understand what you were saying now. I still think that, in this case, modifying the image gives it a different purpose. The original was a facsimile; it was like a picture of something. The only value of the new one is its informative content, and that content (and more) is already present in the article, under "Letters, numbers, punctuation" and the opening section. Some diagrams of Morse code are best expressed in imagery, like the dichotomic search. But if it's just a list of letters and some facts, there is no reason not to communicate that with text, as is already done. Anyone can edit text - that's what makes Wikipedia possible - whereas it would be difficult to do the same in an existing image, which was recently necessary.

Oh, and what I meant by "Both are PNGs" was simply that they are the same format. I was comparing the images, and it would have been significant if, say, the first was a lossy JPEG and it had been made into an SVG. MagnesianPhoenix (talk) 03:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Inconsistency in gap between words

In the text says "medium gap (between words) — seven units long" which means seven dots.

In the image says "the space between two words is five dots"

I'm no expert in morse code, but there's obviously a mistake somewhere

March 11, 2008

Indeed. The "7 units" is quoted directly from an international standard. So either the chart is mistaken, or it reflects an older convention. I've added text to the caption. It seems better to leave the discrepancy rather than editing the image -- at least given that I don't know whether it's a silly mistake or an actual change in definition. If we can confirm the latter, a citation would be very good. If it's just a mistake then a better chart that doesn't have the mistake could be substituted. Paul Koning (talk) 15:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Since I made the visually enhanced image, I felt obliged to keep it updated. I updated the image, and made not on the image page that it was based on it's original, and that on the original is outdated information which has been updated in the newer image. Cheers ~ James Kanjo (talk) 09:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Simplified Morse Code... Perfect for Emergencies. (unfortunatly, no references... just an idea)

In todays world, morse code is not commonly used or well known. In some ways it is obsolete.
Shouldn't morse code be something everyone knows in case of emergencies?
I think there should be a "simplified" morse code system.
This new system would be signaled by a special note sequence that distinguishes it from "advanced/fast morse code".
The root node would either be a space or the letter "A".
Then the code is a binary tree going from A to Z... filling out the lower levels from left to right (like the American writing system).
The simplified morse code would use the standard dot (short note) as move left and dash (long note) as move right.
If someone wanted to use this system, they would just have to write it out on a piece of paper.
Simple. No special knowledge needed. Nothing to memorize. Perfect for emergencies.

         a
   b            c
 d   e        f   g
h i..... 

ACE = (root signal)   (root signal) -   (root signal) . -
BEEF = (root signal) .   (root signal) . -   (root signal) . -   (root signal) - .

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragonsshadows (talk • contribs) 04:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk pages are for discussing the article. What you are proposing is original research and belongs in another forum. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 17:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Other methods of sending morse

There are two other methods I read about in an old signal manual many years ago:

Morse can be sent by using a semaphore flag or similar held in the hand. A flag held up and lowered fully down to the ground (in an arc with the elbow straight and in profile) represented a dash and when lowered to a 90degree angle it represented a dot. This was not a very good method or very commonly used as there were nearly always practical alternatives such as signal lamps or normal semaphore.

There was also method of sending morse by percussion but I never heard of it being used. . Using a bell - or some other object you rang (or hit) the object once for a dit and twice for a dash. Thus the letter 'P' (.--.) comes out as 'ding - ding,ding - ding,ding - ding' Limited application but could be handy in fog perhaps?

Is it binary?

The statement: "However, it is technically not binary, as the pause lengths are required to decode the information." seems incorrect to me. It is binary, as it is encoded with 2 symbols. The time is measured in discrete, equal units, so "SOS" would be 101010 000 11101110111 000 101010 (spaces added for *ease* of reading). Unless the argument is that the system is base-5, ie: dash, dot, d.*-gap, letter-gap, word-gap. In either case, this seems to be a matter of encoding or protocol, as whether each "morse-bit" should refer to a unit of time or a semantic unit of the language, in which case CD's and DVD's are not binary either, since you require an arbitrary string of bits from the disc to get the semantic information for it.

My more concise suggestion: I won't argue it's either binary or not. It could or couldn't be depending on encoding. So, I think the sentence should be removed.

Watchkeeper (talk) 16:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)