From: WarmSpgs@aol.com
Message-ID: <0.a36739a0.2561de5a@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 17:08:26 EST
Subject: Re: LF: Re: visual-CW
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Sender: <majordom@post.thorcom.com>

In a message dated 11/14/99 10:49:15 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
Melv@xtra.co.nz writes:

<< I am a little confused about the tests you describe Rik. If you eliminate
 the time gaps between a string of dots then you just get a long dash so I
 assume you are shifting frequency after each "element" rather than one
 frequency for dots and another for dashes? >>

Such a measure should not be necessary, according to some crude simulations I 
have tried.  The presence of a long dash at what is intended to be the dot 
frequency clearly stands out as implying multiple dots.  If one has access to 
the time scale, it's not difficult at all to read the number of dots (or 
dashes!) represented by a prolonged presence of signal at either frequency; 
at least, as long as one knows ahead of time, or can deduce from seeing a few 
dot-dash sequences, what the dot period is.  Looks as if Rik has devised a 
really efficient form of time compression here.  Varicode for the eyes!

73,
John  KD4IDY