Talk:Morse code/Archive 3

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)


 * Actually, eight dits (or a string of dits) means "oops – I made a mistake." But it's so true that spacing is crucial. Wi2g 21:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I participated in morse contests (in Romania - 1990s) and when I made a mistake transmitting data I used ...... (six dits) to signal the mistake and started retransmission of the last group of characters/word. I guess it depends. I never knew about eight dits. Good to know though. Iulian.serbanoiu (talk) 21:56, 14 December 2011 (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)


 * Our short vowels aren't actually short. Dah has a slightly longer sound because it isn't followed by a consonant, but that would likely be lost on non-native English speakers.  For their sake, I hope someone has translated the article.  ---96.39.160.55 (talk) 09:14, 29 January 2009 (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)

I noticed that the inter-character-gap was originally shown in the SOS code and then it was removed (see the illustration). Can someone explain why? Perhaps some explanation may be made in the main body itself. Ck.mitra (talk) 04:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no inter-letter gap in SOS. SOS is not the letters S, O, S; it is the procedural signal _SOS_ (prosigns are usually written with a bar across the top, not sure how to do that in a wiki). There are no gaps in signals, because in morse signals the it is the sound is important -- a unique sound allows the signal to "cut through" the noise of the usual morse letter sending. The repetition of ...---... is very noticeable because its length is unusually long and it has a very regular pattern. SOS is repeated three times prior to the message, and it usually sent at a slow rate to allow the maximum number of people to hear it even under adverse conditions. You can imagine how noticeable ...---... ...---... ...---... would be when transmitted into a channel three times slower than usual traffic. The length also allows any conversation that was using the channel to receive the competing emergency message signal and cease transmission prior to the contents of the emergency message. Gdt (talk) 13:28, 27 June 2009 (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. 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 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! &mdash;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)

What's this code?
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)

Applications for the general public: "In speed contests between expert Morse code operators and expert cellphone SMS text messaging users, Morse code has consistently won." and the citation is a youtube video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t041g4X-aM0) of a highly unscientific contest on the Jay Lenno show. Recommend deletion of this line. 220.237.243.190 (talk) 02:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it had *no* references at all before I stuck the You Tube video in. How much science do you actually need? But I've yet to read of anyone spending any money to revive Morse on cell phones. --Wtshymanski (talk) 03:02, 20 August 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)

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. &mdash;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 chart (first image)


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)

There is an error in the chart. This is a VERY common error which is repeated often. A dah is NOT the length of three dits. A dah is three times as long as one dit. When these charts state it is as long as three dits, that is saying the dah is 5 time units long (ditspaceditspacedit). If we define a dit as one unit of time, then three dits is three time units for dits plus two time units for space between the dits. A dah is three time units long. AlanDewey (talk) 16:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Gosh, if only there was some way to fix that for the next printing of the Wikipedia. Maybe you should tear out the inaccurate page in your copy, circle the bad text and write in your proposed text, then FAX it to Jimbo Wales c/o the Wikimedia foundation.  There's just a chance the editorial board will convene an emergency meeting to discuss holding off the next printing until this can be fixed, though of course we run the risk of the expense of new plates.
 * Or, if you want to beat the deadline, maybe you could send a TELEX. You'll find the TWX numbers and postal address in the copyright page of every volume of the Wikipedia.
 * Or you could just fix it. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:17, 20 July 2010 (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? Watchkeeper (talk) 16:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

When I was in Boy Scouts, we used flags as a method to send Morse code - left/right was dot/dash (or the other way around).69.37.94.125 (talk) 19:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricmoo (talk • contribs) 08:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the article's statement that Morse code is not binary is technically right, but I agree that the reasoning doesn't make sense. Timing (clocking) is always critical in digital signals. But the word "binary" refers to a base-2 number system, and since Morse code isn't a counting/numbering system, I'd say it's fair (if something of a truism) to say that it's not binary. But I'm curious whether the author intended a meaning we're not picking up on? Dropframe (talk) 20:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If you're going to take the approach of counting symbols, then I would argue that you need at least three, counting the intercharacter space. You could use a fourth symbol for a word space, or say that two intercharacter spaces in a row constitute a word space. The intersymbol space (one dit time) doesn't count because it's used to demark the symbols themselves when Morse is sent in its usual form. You can even think of the intersymbol spaces as part of the dit and dah symbols. But the longer spaces must count as distinct symbols. Without them it's impossible to distinguish an A from the letters EI, and many other examples. Put it this way... if you were going to write out morse as "just two symbols", 0 for dits and 1 for dahs, it would be unintelligible regardless of clocking. You need the spaces too, just like you need character code 0x020 to represent natural language text in ASCII. It's true that the way Morse is usually sent the intercharacter space is just a longer version of the intersymbol space, but that doesn't mean that the intercharacter space is not a symbol of its own. Jeh (talk) 21:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think the inter-character spaces stop it from being binary, these are just part of the transport mechanism, not part of the semantic coding. ASCII has just the same issue, it is universally accepted as being a seven-bit code, but on a real asynchronous telegraph line there are stop and start bits as well and spaces between the characters.  The spaces are neither "1" or "0" (usually represented by minus and plus voltages) but nobody calls this a trinary system because of the spaces or a pentic system because of the start and stop pulses.  Sp in ni  ng  Spark  14:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The medium is obviously binary: the circuit is either open or closed. I think semantically Morse is ternary or quaternary, the semantic units being dot 1, dash 111, inter-character space 0, inter-word space 00000 (000 in the older style).  Units are separated by 0s, keeping the dots and dashes from running together.  You can then call the inter word space merely three inter-character spaces (two in the older style), making it ternary. So AN ELK is

101110001110100000001000101110101000111010111 or 1 111 0 111 1 00000 1 0 1 111 1 1 0 111 1 111 or 1 111 0 111 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 111 1 1 0 111 1 111 or .- -. . .-.. -.-

---96.39.160.55 (talk) 09:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Just delete the entire section on binary. Binary representations are an concern of the computer age, which morse pre-dates. Much more important is the sound, which this article gives short shrift to. Gdt (talk) 13:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Observations
Does any military service anywhere use Morse operationally?

Sure, Morse on the air uses less bandwidth than speech - but it also sends information at one-tenth the rate. Someone sending Morse at 45 words a minute is a speed demon who can only talk to machines or other speed demons...someone speaking 45 words a minute would be speaking very slowly indeed.

Let's not speculate on replacing SMS with a Morse key.

I have this nightmare scenario where I'm flashing ... _ _  ... at a passing rescue plane and the observer says "That's not the missing guy, he only wants to text. " If you're in distress and making some kind of electromagnetic noise, they'll come get you no matter if you're sending SOS or Chinese stock exchange quotes.

Is a "You-tube" clip a valid reference?

--Wtshymanski (talk) 03:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, morse code is used militarily, but not as you may think. A hidden recon soldier will enter their message into a digital transmitter using morse. Unlike voice this can be done silently. A morse key is not as large as a keyboard, and small size, portability and ease of disposal is desirable in this type of device. Once the morse message is concluded the transmitter will compress and encrypt the message and transmit it in a fraction of a second, limiting the opportunity for radio direction finding of the hidden soldier. Gdt (talk) 12:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Telegraph clicks
The article does not explain how telegraph clicks were used to represent dots and dashes. This is not self evident to those who do not know already, all clicks are the same length but at the same time need to represent dots and dashes which are different lengths. This really should be in the article.  Sp in ni ng  Spark  14:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Word spaces
I have fact tagged the the recent addition that word spaces used to be 5 units at the time of the Paris conference (1865). This military manual shows that the 7 unit standard was certainly in use by 1955 when it was published. This reference seems to be quite thorough but makes no mention of the standard having changed and staes it as seven units. There was however a general change in the USA just prior to WWI from the "American" to the "International" code and the poster may be confused with this. The American code had no set standard for spaces but the ref estimates it as 4-6 units, generally taking it as six. The American code is quite different and is not directly comparable in speed tests, the American code being intrinsically faster than International. It would seem to be wrong to imply that the International Morse Code standard has changed.  Sp in ni ng  Spark  00:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Looking into this a bit more, there are plenty of refs around the 1920s saying it is five dots. This ref confirms there was a definite change;


 * Fritz E. Froehlich, Allen Kent, Carolyn M Hall, The Froehlich/Kent Encyclopedia of Telecommunications illustrated edition, vol 2 p481, CRC Press, 1991, ISBN 0824729013

Category?
It seems to me that there are enough related articles to create a Category:Morse code. Any objections?--agr (talk) 22:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Did it.--agr

Scalable Vector Graphics
Given that 99.9% of all Internet users these days are in a Faustian pact with Microsoft Internet Explorer, and that vast numbers within that legion of the damned use shared computers and are hence not at liberty to download the required browser plugin, is there not a case for rendering picture files on Wikipedia in jpeg or some other near-universal format? Nuttyskin (talk) 09:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You want to take that to WP:VPT, this page is for discussing the Morse code article.  Sp in ni ng  Spark  21:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry. Anyway, I answered the gripe myself: if you go to the WikiCommons page and cut-and-paste the file name to it, it takes you to the file you want in a form you can use. Simple.
 * Nuttyskin (talk) 14:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * AFAIK, most current stats have IE at something like 70% market share. I'm also confused what the issue is here. Unless you change your settings, wikipedia will serve you a rendered PNG, not the svg itself on pages. When you click on the image, you're taken to the image page, where you can get PNGs generated by the server in various sizes. You can also go to the wikimedia commons image page from the wikipedia image page. AFAIK, all of it's been like this for a very long time (the only one I'm uncertain about is the different PNG versions being available on wikipedia). Nil Einne (talk) 02:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

International communication
Is this unsourced claim true? For the first half of the twentieth century, the majority of high-speed international communication was conducted in Morse code. It seems surprising. I would have thought teleprinter would be more common. Rees11 (talk) 21:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I could believe it. I don't have a source, though.  Teleprinters certainly go back to the 1950s but it's not clear how much earlier.  And I remember McElroy Co. was advertising high speed Morse machines in 1950 or so -- see the back of an ARRL Handbook from that era. Paul Koning (talk) 00:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Teleprinters go back to the 19th century. The model 14 and its very popular successor the model 15 were made in large numbers starting well before WWII. Rees11 (talk) 11:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed, this source shows that teleprinters were well established in the 1920s with most newspapers and news agencies using networks, perhaps a little later in the UK than the US. There is also a nice photo of the first automatic teleprinter exchange in Berlin (1932).  I can't find an unequivocal quote from the book but it does read like the tipping point came rather sooner than mid-century.  Sp in ni  ng  Spark  23:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've now amended that on the basis of two more sources and   but I haven't bothered to cite any of them in the article - feel free if you think it needs them.  Sp in ni  ng  Spark  00:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

USN Signalman Picture caption
Wrong caption: "A US Navy seaman sends Morse code signals in 2005."

Caption needs to be changed to "A US Navy Signalman..."

If that is objected to, then, 'A US Navy sailor...'

Seamen are deckhands.

(Why is this topic locked, anyway???)

98.164.236.111 (talk) 17:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It was protected due to excessive vandalism. I have just unprotected it so you can edit.  Sp in ni ng  Spark  19:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

(untitled)
Deleted untrue statement that other digital modes always use baud or similar (rather than wpm) for speed measurement. RTTY operation for over half a century has been commonly referred to as 60 wpm, for example, rather than 45.45 baud. Same for the faster speeds.FLAHAM (talk) 20:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well yes, teletype, in the days when 50 baud was a standard transmission rate and was probably being fed by a typist it made sense to compare with typing speeds. I think the editor probably meant modern communication systems which are rarely, if ever, measured in wpm.  Also, the text you deleted said "usually" and not "always" as you claim.  Sp in ni  ng  Spark  23:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Baudot RTTY was and is still used on a daily basis in Amateur Radio and particularly in contests. In nearly 50 years on the air I have rarely heard of any speed of baudot quoted in baud, rather than wpm. Further, I have never heard of 50 baud as a standard until today. How about a compromise and stating that aside from baudot and morse, other forms of digital communications normally have their speeds quoted in baud. FLAHAM (talk) 01:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I would be happy with that. I would also be happy to leave it deleted, it is tangential to the subject of the article in any case.  Sp in ni  ng  Spark  08:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Display problem with Google Chrome browser
I just started experimenting with the Google Chrome browser (version 3.0.195.25). Today when looking at the table of Morse Code symbols, the "audio help" overlaps the table in an annoying way. Here is what it looks like:



I tried looking at the same thing in both Internet Explorer 8.0.6001.18702 and Firefox 3.5.3, and they look fine. I'm assuming for the moment this is one of those cross-browser compatibility problems with CSS or some such, but I thought I would mention it here in case somebody knows how to tweak the Wiki code to make it work. Any ideas? CosineKitty (talk) 16:25, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * A  after the audio box should do it.  It will also have the effect of preventing the audio box going side-by-side with the table when the browser window is maximised, so while that is a workaround hack, I don't think that is a serious drawback being as the table is nearly full width already in any case.  Sp in ni  ng  Spark  20:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, SpinningSpark! That worked for Chrome, and it looks the same now in IE and Firefox.  I will have to remember that trick in the future.  CosineKitty (talk) 01:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The double-dash symbol in the Letters, numbers, punctuation is incorrect
The double-dash is not an equal sign as shown (=), it is two minus signs in a row like this -- 73, WD0UG


 * The Rec. ITU-R M.1677 document defines this symbol as the double-hypen, but represents it with the "=" character. Is there another authoritative source you can show us that conflicts with this?  CosineKitty (talk) 03:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Exclamation Points!
Hey guys! I recently made some punctuation changes to this article and just noticed (by way of being accused of vandalism!) that my changes had been reverted! Is there a wikipedia policy on exclamation points that i do't know about? I checked the style guide and didn't see any problems there. I still think they belong in the article, and would really appreciate some explanation (or exclamation) of why they were so quickly dismissed. Thanks in advance! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.195.142 (talk) 00:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Try WP:POINT and WP:DISRUPT, and if you do it again, you will be blocked.  Sp in ni ng  Spark  16:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * what?! I am soooooo confused.  Neither of those links apply here.  I admit that i am new here, and I welcome some constructive criticism, or even a constructive slap on the hand if it's appropriate, but so far I've been accused of 3 different forms of disruptive behavior, without anyone explaining what the actual problem is so i can learn from my mistake (if I truly have made one).  I know it must get annoying trying to sniff out the trouble-makers, but if we go to the other extreme, we'll land up scaring off (or just plain kicking out) people who really could help build wikipedia.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.235.63 (talk) 22:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The reason why I put a video last time !
The video I put last time was not a commercial link, it was only to show you that cw for interchanges with ships is still used somewhere in the world today ! Your article is wrong when it is written "The United States Coast Guard has ceased both using Morse code on the radio". No, there are at least 3 costal station using cw in the United States in 2010 : KSM, KDR and WFT.

If you speak french : http://olivier.marsan.free.fr/N5NTW/ please go to "stations radios 500kHz"

Wishing you a nice evening,

Grigg Skjellerup (talk) 19:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

etaoin shrdlu ?
I seem to remember that Morse Code (or some other version) was optimized for the English frequency of occurrence weighting. That would be a fundamental aspect of the development of the code; deciding which di-dah code is assigned to which character. I don't see that described or even mentioned. Is anyone familiar with this important aspect of Morse Code development? PS: etaoin shrdlu cmfgyp wbvkxj qz ... (punctuation)? Wikidity (talk) 04:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe (original research) that the specific selection of the codes depended on more than just the "common letters are shorter" concept. If you look at the Mirror Galvanometer article, you'll see that the original undersea cables sensed both positive and negative current in the wire. So there were actually three possibilities: positive current, zero, and negative current. On a very long system like that, one thing you have to do is keep the average current at about zero, in order to avoid a gradual buildup of charge at one end or the other. You could do that if a dit was a positive current pulse and a dah was a negative current pulse--and if the code was selected to give an overall balance between dots and dashes, in addition to choosing short codes for common letters. If, as you suggest, the codes depended only on the letter frequencies, E should be dit, but T should be dit-dit, A should be dah, O should be dit-dah, and I should be dah-dit. But if you do that, you end up with far too many dits compared to dahs. So look at the International Code and what do you see? A whole bunch of additional dashes compared to the original Morse Code. I suspect that if somebody had access to early articles on the topic, especially about the development of the Continental Code, this point could be cleared up. It's not mentioned in any discussion of Morse Code that I have ever seen, but if you go to the French Cable Museum on Cape Cod and look closely at the equipment, it's pretty clear that this is how it worked...Dlhagerman (talk) 03:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Undersea cable came well after landwire telegraphy and the telegraphy codes were well established. Also there were relatively few undersea circuits, and it's doubtful the rest of the industry would change for them. Even in the continental code, dots are more frequent than dashes. The big difference between the American and Continental codes was the elimination of a short space between dots as a significant element distinct from the longer pause between letters. Code design was not a formal discipline at the time--agr (talk) 15:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Consider: "For manual operation, the code consists of short dot and long dash signals (Fig. 1). The original Morse code also used various-length spaces; the Continental code avoids them. On submarine cables, the dots and dashes are of equal length for most efficient use of transmission characteristics and are distinguished by being of opposite electrical polarity." (http://accessscience.com/content/Telegraphy/680100) and "The Morse code is used throughout the United States and Canada for overland signalling except in printing telegraphy. In punctuation, however, the Phillips Punctuation code has generally superseded it because of its greater completeness. The Continental, or so-called universal code, is in use throughout the world for sub-marine telegraphy and also in almost every country except those mentioned for overland signalling." (http://www.archive.org/stream/telegraphenginee00hausrich/telegraphenginee00hausrich_djvu.txt) published 1915. Dlhagerman (talk) 04:44, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Dubious historical summary
I removed the following from the intro:"However, on-off keying, variable character lengths, the limited character set and the lack of forward error correction are inefficient and poorly suited to computer reception, so machine-to-machine communication generally uses frequency shift keying (FSK) or phase shift keying (PSK) and encodes text in the Baudot, ASCII and Unicode character sets." It's an oversimplified summary of a century's technological development and dubious in many places. --agr (talk) 15:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The variable length code of morse certainly caused difficulty for early teleprinter technology and I think that bit of it, at least, can stay - it is the immediate reason morse was not taken up as a machine code. A lot of the rest, as you say, is very iffy.  FSK and PSK do not address any of the alleged shortcomings of morse and are not a requirement for Baudot or ASCII.  These modulations are more about getting data transmission down a phone line.  Baudot and ASCII were both originally implemented on telegraph lines as an NRZ code without any modulation.  Baudot, the earlier code, has a more limited character set than morse.  Unicode is much more recent and was never developed as a transmission code at all as far as I am aware.  Error correction has nothing to do with it, none of these codes has built-in error correction. The truth is that modern technology would have no trouble at all with morse as a transmission code, the software resource required to interpret it is insignificant to modern machines.  Mechanical teleprinters on the other hand would have needed significantly more electromechanical complexity to cope.  Spinning  Spark  17:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Bodnaryk, 27 June 2011
Please add this bullet to the "See also" section: Tactile Morse Code for Blind Readers. Link it to http://www.mts.net/~bodnaryk/TactileMorse.htm

Bodnaryk (talk) 15:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Not done: See also section is not for off-wiki links. External link is to WP:COI blog. WP:UNDUE. Need WP:RS to show blind have adopted Morse. Glrx (talk) 16:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Citation needed for accented characters?
I found a copy of the ITU M.1677 standard that defines "International Morse Code", and the only accented character it contains is "accented E" (by which, I assume they mean É -- compare to Baudot code). Where do all these other ones come from? Do we have evidence that they were ever used? I'm pretty sure that accents were normally omitted in French telegrams (except for É, as noted above), and it's easy to substitute AE, OE, UE, or SZ for the letters specific to German. Also, I notice that many of the accented characters in this article are from Esperanto and were probably never used by any military or commerial organization. 75.98.196.98 (talk) 16:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

á Á
The hungarian á, Á is "· — — · —" ( also à, å ). Pse add to table. gg630504 (talk) 13:31, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

ß
The german ß letter is coded as two s: ... ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.33.198.2 (talk) 11:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Many changes
I made a bunch of small changes to the article because it needs a lot of help. I took out some acronyms--I hate acronyms--rearranged some words, and just tried to clean up some things that were not clear. I agree that the article is too long, and I also question the accuracy of some of the information. I don't believe that pilots and air traffic controllers are usually familiar with Morse. The paragraph in Representation, timing, and speeds about amateur radio accuracy tests isn't really accurate. I think all the stuff about PARIS and CODEX is a lot of garbage and it belongs somewhere else.

wa6bjh (talk) 01:59, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) I restored the first appearance of "(FCC)" because the initialism (it's not an acronym) is used later in the article, and therefore it needs to appear next to the full name in its first use. 2) Pilots who use beacons that identify with Morse (as described) most certainly need to be able to recognize the beacons' calls. The beacons do send at very low speed so what one might call "conversational proficiency" with Morse is not required for this. 3) I don't know what "not really accurate" means, but 4) I remember reading about the PARIS and CODEX standard words in the 1960s, so I would caution you against making changes based on what you believe to be true. Perhaps someone who has some older ham radio "getting started" guides can provide references for these. Jeh (talk) 06:57, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for putting my comments at the top of the page; I didn't realize that they needed to be at the bottom. I know now.

FCC certainly is an acronym and I suppose it's also an initialism. The article, however, is not consistent in its use of Federal Communications Commission and FCC. Sometimes it uses the acronym and sometimes it uses the name. It doesn't really make much difference, I suppose, except that the name isn't used again until the section on amateur radio by which time the reader may have forgotten what FCC means. The problem with PARIS and CODEX is that no one uses Morse code any longer. It's only of historical significance as is the distinction in code speeds between amateur and commercial licenses. The article says "commercial test candidates are required to record 100% accurate copy on paper for at least 1 minute of 5 minutes sent, while the amateur test candidates, copying at a speed 20% slower than commercial operators, were only required to understand 3 minutes of plain English without the requirement for 100% accurate recording of the characters copied." When the FCC gave amateur tests the examinee had to copy 1 minute out of 5 minutes correctly. I don't know where he gets that 3 minutes of plain English stuff. The tests were always 5 minutes long and you had to get a certain number of characters, depending on the speed, correct in a row. In any event, I remember that years ago I knew a ham who had and Amateur Extra Class license and second class radiotelegraph license. He took exactly the same Morse code test for both licenses. I don't see where the speed difference comes in.

wa6bjh (talk) 13:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) To be an acronym it would have to be pronounceable as a word, rather than spelling it out. Since there are no vowels in "FCC", everyone pronounces it as "eff see see". That's an initialism, not an acronym. 2) Hmm, the status of "PARIS" and "CODEX" seems to have changed markedly, from "a lot of garbage" to "old, who cares?" A LOT of things in WP articles are historical, that doesn't mean they should be deleted. As for the rest of it, I do remember the 1 minute perfect rule but there was an overall percentage accuracy requirement as well. I also remember that the speed requirements for ham vs. radiotelegraph licenses were different, at least at some grades. The ham tests did change over the years so it this may be a case of needing more historical info. I would suggest that if you make any changes to this material your changes need to be referenced. I know the stuff isn't particularly well referenced now, but replacing one set of unreferenced, but long-standing, claims with another set of unreferenced claims is not particularly welcome on WP.  Jeh (talk) 18:25, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

After a little thought about the PARIS and CODEX stuff, I realized that the author misunderstood the difference between character speed and word per minute speed. It is possible to have a character speed of 24 words per minute, but a word per minute speed of 20 words per minute. This sounds confusing, but it is a common way to send Morse code; it's called the Farnsworth method. The article mentions it. If I send the word PARIS five times in one minute with all the correct spacing, I will have a character speed of 5 words per minute and word per minute speed of 5. If I send PARIS 13 times in one minute, the character speed and the words per minute speed will be 13. If I generate the characters at 13 words per minute but increase the inter-word spacing, I can send the code at 5 words per minute. This is a common way to send Morse code.

The Federal Communications Commission does NOT regulate character speeds and never has. If you look at the 1996 commission regulations on the Government Printing Office website (FDSys) you will not find the words PARIS or CODEX in relation to Morse code. The commsision only regulates word per minute speed and not the character speed. No one cares what speed you generate the characters at, you must send and receive a certain number of words per minute, letters counting as 1 character and numbers, etc., counting as two. The amateur extra class license required sending and receiving at 20 words per minute. The test had to send the examinee 20 words in one minute. The same system applied to commercial licenses, and still does. If you search the commission website you won't find PARIS and CODEX relating to Morse code.

The author of that section of the article is clearly wrong when he says that commercial licensees had to copy 24 words per minute. The regulation required 20 words per minute. To meet the regulatory requirements, the test had to send the examinee 20 words in one minute, not 24. The examinee had to copy those 20 words in one minute. The test went on for a minimum of 5 minutes and you had to copy 100 chaeracters correctly. The examiner could send at a character speed of 24 words per minute (CODEX), but he could only send 20 words in one minute. That's what the regulation says. If someone tried to force me to copy 24 words per minute for a 20 word per minute test, I'd scream. Also, tests were always 5 minutes and not three minutes. The 1996 Code of Federal Regulations requires a five minute test.

To be fair, the commercial license test was considered more difficult that the amateur licenses, but not because of CODEX. The commercial licenses required copy of 5-letter groups. Just random letters. When you copy plain text you have some idea of what letter might come next, indeed what word might come next. You don't get that benefit with 5-letter groups.

Accordingly, therefore, I propose to change the section about PARIS and CODEX unless someone can come up with a good reason not to. I propose to chage it to reflect the commission's regulations and they are now and as they were in 1996, the oldest year that I can easily find. I propose to remove the statement that the commission required CODEX for commercial radiotelegraph licenses unless someone can find some evedence that the commission required it. I can find no evedence thay the commission required it.

There are still other changes that need to be made, for example, radiotelegraphy is one word in American English.

wa6bjh (talk) 20:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * PARIS v CODEX is not a Farnsworth issue. Farnsworth is a teaching issue.
 * When I administered FCC code exams, our 5 WPM test used a Farnsworth character speed of 13 WPM. I have forgotten, but the FCC may specify a word is 5 characters. The FCC certainly doesn't want 5 WPM set by short words such as "I", "am", and "me".
 * The character frequency for normal English is very skewed; Morse takes advantage of that by using short sequences for common characters: ETAIONSRH. That character frequency will carry through to plain English traffic, but it would not be the case with encrypted traffic where the words are 5 letter code groups. IIRC, cablegrams were billed by words, and commercial codes were developed to take advantage of that billing method.
 * The interesting numbers are the expected (average) dot length for a character based on (1) a normal English distribution ("e" dominant) and (2) a uniform distribution (each character equally likely).
 * There was no official dot-rate to word-rate standard set by the FCC regulations. The ARRL used the PARIS dot rate standard, so that is what we used for our tests. I don't know if the VEC conferences ever chose a standard, but if they did, I would bet it would be PARIS.
 * The FCC-administered amateur tests were five minutes and required one minute of perfect copy.
 * The VEC-administered amateur tests only required a demonstration of proficiency. That's in the FCC's regulations. The definition of proficiency was open; the VEC conference ended up using a relaxed standard. It would a 5 minute message followed by 10 multiple choice questions about the message. IIRC, get 7 questions right, and you passed. If you failed the question part, then we would examine the copy. If there were 25 perfect characters (1 minute), then we would pass the candidate.
 * The commercial radiotelegraph code exams may have been 5 letter code groups.
 * Glrx (talk) 18:15, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The section is quite US-centric with frequent references to FCC regulations and none to authorities outside the US.  Spinning Spark  00:42, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

ETAIONSRH
I don't get what the deal is with all the claims about ETAIONSRH vs efficiency. I is shorter than A, A is as long as N and O is very long compared to the rest of those characters - and there are many other characters that are shorter than O... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.55.204.9 (talk) 02:39, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I have given this post a title as it does not seem to have anything to do with the preceding thread. Can you be specific in what you are referring to? "ETAIONSRH" does not appear in the article.  Spinning  Spark  00:41, 25 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I raised ETAIONSRH in the previous section; it is a reference to English letter frequency. My suspicion is PARIS approximates the dot-length for English-distributed characters and CODEX for uniformly distributed characters. Glrx (talk) 18:26, 26 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Search for "ETA" on the discussion page and you will find several references to what he's talking about. Narrow Mind (talk) 04:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I know what ETA means, I just did not see how it related to the discussion. Thanks for the heads up.  Spinning  Spark  15:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, using just the letters (no numbers/punctuation/prosigns) and the letter frequencies in letter frequency, I get the following results. English distributed 5 letter group averages 49.4022 dots long (including inter-character and inter-word gaps). That compares well to PARIS at 50. Uniformly distributed 5 letter group averages 60.15385 dots long. That compares well to CODEX at 60. Glrx (talk) 01:03, 3 January 2012 (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)

I have always used the two letters "E" (dit) and "S" (dit dit dit) sent as "ES" (dit [space] dit dit dit) when I wanted to send the word "and" while using Morse Code on Amateur (Ham) Radio.

The character sent as .-... (dit dah dit dit dit) and written as the capital letters AS with a bar (similiar to a NOT Sign) over the two letters does mean "Wait" or "Pause" in Morse Code.

More off or on? (talk) 00:50, 21 April 2012 (UTC) to 04:23, 21 April 2012 (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)


 * I'm not happy with the following, from the article's lead: "In situations in which the pulse can only be the same length (such as when tapping on wood or on the wall of a prison cell), a slightly longer pause between beats can be used in place of a long pulse ("dah")." Using this system, what, apart from context, is the difference between C (dah-di-dah-dit) and Y (dah-di-dah-dah)?  There are numerous other examples - I (di-dit) and A (di-dah), 5 (di-di-di-di-dit) and 4 (di-di-di-di-dah) etc. This is not uninformed speculation, it's self evident. "I WILL LEAD ESCAPE AT 5 AM" is indistinguishable from "A WILL LEAD ESCAPE AT 4AM".  If I was often referred to as 'A', this could lead me to make a big mistake!!! --Nigelj (talk) 21:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The tapping communication as depicted by Hollywood is more likely to be tap code than Morse code. --Tarmle (talk) 23:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

On a Sunday Morning in 1959, in Dayton, Ohio (the Hamfest was over) I used the Scrape Bang method of sending a CQ on the Radiator in the YMCA room I was in, and got an answer from another Ham that was in the room that was one floor below where I was. (I had asked him what room was he in using the Scrape Bang method), (CQ means a General Call to Any One).

So I sent (on the Radiator) "Open your window", and I had a talk with the guy in the room below me, by shouting out the window to him.

Another thought I had, but wasn't sure where to put it in at, was that I had heard that the Railroad Telegraphers in the early days used American Morse Code, and that the letter "C" in CQ would had been sent as "click click (pause) click" (dit dit (pause) dit).

The letter "Q" was the same but the American Morse Code "C" was sent different than the International Morse Code "C".

Hope this helps someone.

More off or on? (talk) 01:18, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Edited

More off or on? (talk) 01:31, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I just found the chart at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morse_code#Letters.2C_numbers.2C_punctuation that shows the American Morse Code and the International Morse Code and one other Morse Code that I can't remember the name of now.

More off or on? (talk) 02:15, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Morse code sample files

 * 1) "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." Isn't there a policy somewhere that says we shouldn't refer to (or in this case maybe advertise) WP within articles, as other websites reuse our content. Isn't there better text we could use?
 * 2) The other file, "A thru Z", is not at 40 w.p.m. It sounds slightly slower that the WP advert, maybe 12 w.p.m. That needs fixing, but only the person who generated it knows what setting they used. --Nigelj (talk) 09:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Regarding #2, that file says "40 letters per minute". This looks like it results in a speed of less than 5 wpm.  --ChrisRuvolo (t) 19:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * 40 CPM = 8 WPM. A space after each letter slows things down, too.  --Yeti 00:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The second file is actually "A through Y" omitting Z. Viking Rollo (talk) 06:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

"STOP"
The period is a relatively recent addition to Morse Code, isn't it? Why isn't the word "STOP" mentioned anywhere in the article? --RThompson82 (talk) 00:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Are you confusing this with the use of STOP in telegrams to mean a period? The telegram system, at least at the time when it was automated, did not use Morse code, it used the five-bit ITA2 code, a variation of Baudot code.  This code actually does have characters for punctuation.  However, telegraph companies discouraged customers from using punctuation and numerals by charging extra for them. See the 1928 booklet "How to write a telegram properly" and this article.  Not entirely sure why this was so, but they are more difficult for the operators to send and with a five-bit code they require shift characters to be sent to shift between alphabetic and numeral/punctuation codes.  Shift characters increase the likelyhood of messages being corrupted and having to be resent.  If a single alphabetic character is corrupted, the chances are that the receiving operator can work out what it was meant to be from context.  If a shift character is corrupted the message will be entirely garbled until the arrival of the next shift character.  I often witnessed this effect in the 1960s and 70s when a teleprinter was switched on mid-message and came up in the wrong shift.  Everthing was garbled until it got the first shift character.  Spinning  Spark  11:42, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Possible OR
The “Representation, timing and speeds” section has long passages of unsourced text that kind of smells like original research, so I’ve flagged it as possibly containing such. I have no idea how much of it is solidly established or not, so I’ll leave it to those more versed in the subject. —Frungi (talk) 01:24, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * By and large, the material can be found in Morse training manuals so I don't think it is really OR overall. You would be better off tagging any specific passages you are suspicious of rather than a banner across the whole section - which is not very helpful to anyone trying to find sources.  However, I do think the section is overly long and detailed.  Spinning  Spark  05:22, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I imagine it should be trivial to fully source, then, and I’m surprised there are so many entire paragraphs here with no references. —Frungi (talk) 09:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Just because a paragraph does not have references does not mean that you instantly have to tag it. It would be more in keeping with Wikipedia etiquette to tag only sections that seemed dubious, and then only after doing a search yourself to establish that it was indeed not trivially easy to find sources.  Spinning  Spark  12:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't see a big problem with sourcing for the timing. A specification is cited for the basic timing -- including intercharacter and interword spacing. Much of material is then WP:CALC from that. Dot rate is an unambiguous speed; word rate is ambiguous, but the choice of PARIS or CODEX for the typical word is common. Yes, more references would be nice, but I think the text only fails if editors disagree with it. We probably should have a citation for Farnsworth (in timing or training) and explain its purpose better. Glrx (talk) 04:10, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Error in the chart
A dash is not equal to the length of three dots, it is three times the length of one dot. if it were three dots, it would be the length of S (five units). But, the dash is the length of I (three units, or two dots with an intracharacter gap.) Ticklewickleukulele (talk) 17:01, 28 October 2012 (UTC)


 * What chart are you looking at? I don't see anything portraying that timing.  Spinning  Spark  18:11, 28 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I am looking at the chart at the top of the article. it claims that a dash is the length of three dots. But, that would mean that it is equal to "s". A better description is "a dash is three times the length of one dot", or "3 units", or "the length of two dots." I is equal to T, and M is equal to H. listen to any Morse transmission, you will notice it. Ticklewickleukulele (talk) 19:18, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The same could be said for the description of the other timings in the chart. I have amended all of them.  Spinning  Spark  01:00, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Russ Farnsworth
Why nothing on Russ Farnsworth? Lonepilgrim007 (talk) 00:41, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Because this article is about Morse code, not Farnsworth. If he is notable, he can have an article, and if he is not, that should answer your question.  Spinning  Spark  07:17, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I was just curious because as I understand it the Farnworth Method revolutionized the learning of morse code..i used to have the original records..however there is nothing on the internet about him in Wikipedia or elsewhere.--Lonepilgrim007 (talk) 03:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Stuff can only go in Wikipedia if it is covered by reliable sources. The Farnsworth method is notable (it even used to have its own article but was in here) but the man himself is not because reliable sources have not written about him.  Spinning  Spark  08:24, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Morsekoade
Currently this interwikis to fy:Morsekoade, which describes the actual Morse code, the code book that Morse set up where groups of digits represented words and sentences. In this en: article, that code doesn't seem to get much attention, so the interwiki might not be correct. (Whether the title is correct might also be a concern.) Mysha (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:45, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Morse's dictionary codebook doesn't get much attention in this article (or anywhere) because it was rapidly abandoned and never put into practice. I don't know if a fully worked out codebook ever even existed. I don't understand Frisian (and Google can't translate it) but the correct interwiki would seem to be Morse (sinjaal), or possibly Morse-alfabet which is a subsidiary of the main article.  Spinning  Spark  14:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

There's no main Morse article on fy:, I think, and I wouldn't know what would be in it. The page Morse (sinjaal) is about using timed changes in a dual value medium to send signals; the page Morse-alfabet is about the alphabets based on signals sent by this method or similar methods. Mysha (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:46, 18 April 2013 (UTC)