Format modified for code practice.
A P P E N D I C E S
1 ROLE OF MEMORY IN TELEGRAPHY
2 EXAMPLES WHICH ILLUSTRATE THE NATURE OF REAL SKILLS.
3 SOME INTERESTING EXAMPLES OF YOUNG SKILLED OPERATORS
4 EXAMPLES OF EFFECTIVE CODE LEARNING
5 SOME THOUGHTS ON ANTICIPATING, MISSING OUT, AND MAKING SENSE.
6 COMPUTER PROGRAMS FOR LEARNING AND IMPROVING SKILL IN CODE
7 CODE COURSES ADVERTISED IN THE OLDER DAYS
8 I. A BRIEF HISTORY OF UNITED STATES OPERATOR LICENSING
REQUIREMENTS UP TO WW II
II. VARIOUS MILITARY REQUIREMENTS FOR SKILL - WW II PERIOD
9 MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS, COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS
APPENDIX 01
THE ROLE OF MEMORY IN TELEGRAPHY
Why Learning Initially by Sight Doesn't Work Well
If you "memorized the code" (as I did) from a printed chart of
dots and dashes, or from a clever printed diagram or picture
which vividly impressed the mind, you felt you knew it. Maybe
it only took you twenty minutes to "memorize" it, as some
advertisers claimed - or perhaps it took a day or two. Then if
you tried to send something in code with your key, it was easy:
you had a vivid mental picture as to just how long to hold each
element of a character, and this seemed to prove you knew the
code.
But it was when you started to receive, to listen to the code,
that the trouble began. The sounds just didn't seem to match up
with the dots and dashes you "knew" at all. Why should it be
so hard to translate the code sounds into the dots and dashes
and letters that you thought you knew so well?
Those who have made a study of memory tell us that we have
several separate memory banks: one for sight, one for sound,
others for touch, taste and smell. (See, e.g., "Memory:
Surprising New Insights Into How We Remember and Why We Forget"
- Elizabeth Loftus, 1980) Now we see why: the code sounds we
heard couldn't make any direct connection at all with our vivid
visual memory: they were two different kinds of sensations
(sound and sight) -- they didn't relate. In order to cross
that gap and relate them we had to give conscious thought to
build a bridge between them: to convert the sound pattern into a
pattern of visual dots and dashes so that our visual memory,
where the "memory" was, could interpret them. That is why we
stumbled and, under the pressure of time, often missed out or
even failed completely. If we keep on this way we will have to
form additional association links for each individual code
character in order to connect them. This can be done, and has
been done, but it takes a lot of time and also raises a new risk
- the danger of interference between them (two possible
pathways, one conscious, the other the new association formed)
and possible hesitation as a result.
Our memories are complex mechanisms. To fill in the picture,
experimental studies on memory have for many years shown that we
have not only several kinds, but also several levels of
memories. First are what may be called the "sensory registers",
the very short times during which, after we see or hear
something, its sight or sound persists in our consciousness as
if we were still seeing or hearing it (persistence of vision or
hearing) for a moment, then quickly vanishes.
However, if we are paying attention and are conscious of a sight
or sound, it will enter the appropriate "short-term memory" and
stay there for maybe 15-20 seconds before it, too, fades out
unless we deliberately try to remember it a bit longer, or make
a real effort to put it into our "long-term memory" bank by
intending to remember it (by reinforcing it). Long term memory
is what we usually think of as our "memory."
Because for most of us it seems easier to remember things we
have seen than things we have heard, the visual approach to
learning seems more attractive. But obviously, since receiving
the code is a matter of hearing, we should begin the right way,
by training our auditory memory banks. Now we can see why
learning the code initially by eye is really the hard way, and
actually creates a serious roadblock to advancement.
Some Further Questions and Thoughts
The intricate interworking of the various parts of our minds and
brains raises questions as to what is going on as we consider
receiving in the telegraphic codes. Memory studies are usually
concerned with things we are fully conscious of and desire
either to remember or to forget. With the higher skills in code,
however, it is the operation of the unconscious parts of the
mind and its relations with the consciousness that is of primary
interest, and how these tie together with the memory.
As our telegraphic skill levels increase, the ABC's of the
mechanics of language become more and more the actions of
the subconscious mind, which in turn may or may not bring them to
the attention of ourconsciousness. In the process of copying, the
consciousness of content may be zero: you just mechanically
copy what is received, while you may be conscious only of
thinking of something quite irrelevant. However, in reading the
code we are first conscious of the words, and later conscious
more of the thoughts conveyed than being precisely aware of
the words. In both these higher skill levels, the words and
thoughts are generally collected together into at least the
"short-term" memories, and often carried over into the
"long-term memories," so that we "make sense" out of it all and
follow what is being said as we do in conversation. Perhaps the
only thing we are conscious of, if we stop to think about it at
all, is that we want to understand and recall some of the things
said to us.
Perhaps there is an analogy with driving a car. Here our eyes
are receiving impressions from traffic, traffic signals, certain
sounds, and our physical responses on steering wheel,
accelerator, brakes are so automatic that if we are asked later
about some particular detail, we just can't reply. These
habitual physical responses to stimuli from specific events
are especially strongly remembered overlong periods of time.
The complete response once started carries itself out fully.
Another, less frequent occurrence is this: over the years it
has been found that people sometimes have retained mental
"pictures" or "sound recordings" of things in earlier life to
which they had paid no attention or had any interest in. Under
certain conditions they were able to recall them -- even things
that made no sense at the time or later. One aged lady was able
to recall verbatim long speeches (in a language foreign to
her) she heard many years previously. Another sang a song
in the native language of her mother, a language the singer
never understood at all.
The experts tell us that "long term memory" does not mean
either permanent memory or accurate memory. All memories tend
to weaken or fade out with time, and further, that they can and
usually are altered in various ways so that the recall is
distorted, or sometimes even reversed from the original. One
exception is those memories associated with physically-related
skills, such as playing a musical instrument, driving a vehicle,
stenography, telegraphy, etc. People who have not practiced such
skills for many years will generally show surprising agility
after decades of non-use. A little practice will usually put
them back to nearly their best performance, barring physical
disability. This has been demonstrated over and over.
There is certainly room here for further research into this
fascinating subject as we look for specifically better ways to
improve our telegraphic skills.
APPENDIX 02
EXAMPLES WHICH ILLUSTRATE THE NATURE OF REAL SKILLS
The following are samples taken from the literature to show
various skills some operators have achieved. They illustrate
clearly the automatic, subconscious nature of real skill in
telegraphy, that it is a habitual form of behavior, done without
conscious intervention or effort. They also show what can be
done by what has been done. People who do things well do not
struggle with them: they enjoy them.
It can be seen that there is a hierarchy of skill habits,
ranging from lower degrees to very high degrees of skill, each
step leading to greater freedom of action than before.
Both from the past and in the present there are very many
examples of sending or receiving while speaking or doing other
things at the same time. Old land line operators typically
could do this at 35 to 40 wpm speeds. Some hams today can and
often do the same things.
Sending and writing at the same time:-
Almost all old Morse operators developed this kind of skill to
some degree, and usually were able to send with one hand while
writing on the message blank the number, time, date, etc., with
the other hand. Pressure of work almost demanded it in a busy
office.
Sending and receiving simultaneously:-
A regular RR agent-operator at a small town near Salina, KS, was
observed to be sending a bunch of RR manifests (lists of freight
cargo, giving details) when he was called on another wire.
Without pausing, he opened his key with the other hand, sent
an acknowledgement, closed the key switch, picked up a message
blank and slipped it into the typewriter, rolled it into
position and proceeded to copy the message with one finger of
his left hand while continuing to send the manifests with his
right hand. This was not at all unusual for regular operators:
there are many examples.
Receiving two or more messages at same time:-
One ship operator offshore of California had the amusing
experience of simultaneously receiving the identical message for
him from two different shore stations, KPH and KPJ. Both called
him at same time, and he told the one to go ahead, but instead,
both began at once to transmit. He tried to copy them both.
This became very easy when he discovered they were both sending
the same message. The climax came later when both of them
billed him for the same message!
In 1924 in the Boston Postal Telegraph office a wire chief
claimed he could simultaneously copy one message in French with
one hand and another in English with the other hand. His chief
operator took the challenge, promptly went out and picked up one
message in each language, provided pencils and pads to the wire
chief, and had the two messages sent to him simultaneously at
the usual keying speeds. The wire chief made good on his word
in the presence of all the other operators in the office, and
made perfect copy on both.
A former Navy operator claimed that while copying one message,
he often could mentally note other messages which were
interfering with the reception of the one he was copying, and do
so accurately enough to write them out later. He said that,
especially when he was copying some particularly dull and
uninteresting material, he was always fully conscious of the
content of messages heard at the same time on adjacent
frequencies concerning shore leave, pay or other interesting
aspects of these transmissions.
One expert operator in San Francisco is credited with having
received three separate dispatches at the same time, writing
each of them out correctly by memory afterward. That looks a
little hard!
Using both codes simultaneously:-
Robert (Dick) Johnstone of old KPH was a phenomenal operator,
said to be one of the best of his day. He could send one
message in International Morse while simultaneously sending
another with his other hand in American Morse. Similar claims
have been made by others also.
Comparison with other mental functions and discussion.
Can't we compare this with other habitual activities, such as
driving a car while thinking of something quite different?
(Later wondering, e.g,, "Did I stop at...?") Or like the
stenographer who looks at her notes after taking dictation and
is surprised at what she wrote?
Doing two things at once, one subconscious or automatic and the
other conscious is relatively commonplace. For example, I can
read aloud from printed matter while consciously thinking about
something quite different, and still read so that it sounds
meaningful-- yet afterwards have little or no recollection of
what I had read aloud (and sometimes wondering if I had included
anything of what I had been thinking at any point along the
line. This is like the stenographer who was checking her
transcribed notes and discovered that she had inadvertently
included a joke she heard while typing).
As for the operators who could copy two messages simultaneously,
is it possible that both actions were automatic? Were they
hearing one with the right ear and writing it down with the left
hand, while hearing the other effectively with the left ear and
writing it with the right hand, or what? Or, was the one
automatic and the other conscious, although done at fairly high
speed? If both were automatic, were they free to think of or
hear something still different at the same time? This seems
possible from the experience of a few who have said that they
were attending to two messages and yet hearing salient points of
still a third, or voices in their environment.
Or, is this something like the "sandwich" operation of a
large computer where each of several different people seems to be
doing his job as the only one in control, yet the computer is
apparently handling them simultaneously. Actually it does this by
dividing the jobs into parts which are scheduled and processed
in an interwoven manner by a schema for optimum usage of computer
functions, time-slicing and controlling to keep each one
separate, and only seeming to give each operator sole control.
For a human example, how does the traffic control officer of an
airport keep alert to the arrival and departure of many aircraft
all at the same time, seeming to give each "simultaneous"
attention? Very interesting, isn't it?
Speeds:-
By 1933 it was written that: a good commercial operator can and
does average about 40 wpm over an 8-hour stretch, handling
everything from straight news to tabular matter. Hand sending
was absolutely steady, rhythmic and even, intelligently coded
and spaced - a joy to listen to. On the main traffic arteries
of the Associated Press, speeds up into the 60-70 wpm range were
not uncommon. In 1937 WCK had two press schedules, one at about
45 wpm to be copied by ear and another much faster for
automatic recording and visual tape transcription. Yet Pete
Pettit and Paul Magarris, Navy operators, could copy the higher
speed press solid, and others were runners up.
APPENDIX 03
SOME INTERESTING EXAMPLES OF YOUNG SKILLED OPERATORS
In 1856 seven year-old John O'Brian was delivering telegrams for
his brother Richard, who at age 15 was the telegrapher for the
local railroad office. After two years of this John prevailed
upon his brother to teach him how to operate. So, while still
only nine years of age John became a good operator and was eager
to have a job of his own. The same railroad offered him the
position at a nearby town, and he snapped it up. People in those
days were used to seeing young telegraphers, but not this young!
Very soon, however, they became so pleased with his work that no
more questions were asked. Those youngsters were motivated and
quick to learn.
When the Civil War began he volunteered along with many others,
became their youngest operator, and by early 1862 was already
the assistant operator at the important military station of Ft.
Monroe, VA, and considered an expert. When the Commander,
General Wool, first saw him he was astounded. On a subsequent
military assignment at Norfolk, VA, on one occasion he
scrawled down two incoming messages while he was actually
asleep, writing them down in a book he had been reading. (Civil
War operators often worked impossibly long hours under difficult
or dangerous battlefront conditions, and when things let up a
bit, easily dropped off for a few winks of sleep.)
James H. Bunnell became an operator at age 13. He was so short
that he had to sit on a stool to reach the telegraph instruments.
At age 16 he was one of the best operators in the country,
noted for his speed of 38 wpm (actual word count).
These are just two examples of the many, many boys who quickly
became skilled telegraphers in the mid-1800's.
APPENDIX 04
EXAMPLES OF EFFECTIVE CODE LEARNING
At the lowest skill levels: Four-years-olds, barely able to
write even block letters have been able to pass the code test.
How many of us are willing to admit a four-year-old can
outperform us? Then consider these higher skill levels:-
In 1909-1910 Don C. Wallace learned the code with a friend,
John Cook, and the help of the operators of Commercial station
PJ, the United Wireless Co.'s commercial station in San Pedro
CA. In 1910 he set up his first station. In 1914 he
obtained a second class commercial operator's license, and the
next year passed the test for a first class commercial
operator's license. (It is said that this license required 25
wpm in Continental code and 30 wpm in American Morse code.)
With the entry of the U.S.into WW-I he entered the Navy, and
because of his competency he was soon assigned a major operating
position. There with a former American Morse code operator,
Tony Gerhardt, he played a game they called "burnout." One would
send as fast as he could with speed key (bug) while the other
sat at a typewriter and copied, the idea being to see who could
go the faster. This was in 1918, and both could send up to around
45 wpm in either code. (It was sending, not receiving that
limited them.)
fDuring the next year and a half this game was continued
wherever they were until Don could send in excess of 45 wpm and
receive about 55 wpm (it is not said how this sending speed was
achieved or by whom). When President Wilson was to go to France
on the USS George Washington in 1919, Don was chosen to be the
chief operator. He needed a staff of 35 assistant operators of
about his own speed capabilities. Within a short time he found
them among Navy personnel where he was stationed, and did it
this way: by sending his requests at these speeds and seeing who
responded to what he sent.
Here were at least three dozen men with high speed skills before
1920. They were men who enjoyed the code so much they achieved
high goals. Moral: If you want to do it, you probably can.
(Ref. "Don C. Wallace, W6AM, Amateur Radio's Pioneer" by Jan
David Perkins N6AW.)
APPENDIX 05
SOME THOUGHTS ON ANTICIPATING, MISSING OUT, AND MAKING SENSE
In order to concentrate on the incoming signals there must be an
interest, a desire to know or record what is being communicated.
Yet that interest must not be so intense that it distracts us by
going beyond what is being transmitted to anticipating what is
yet unsaid. Anticipation diverts the attention from the
incoming signals to one's own thoughts. But is anticipation
always potentially harmful? There is a difference between
automatic copying and reading with understanding. While the
expert copies routinely he may be thinking of something entirely
different and quite unconscious of the message content.
However, experience shows that if he is consciously following
the content of the signals and gets too interested, he may start
anticipating to the point of missing out some incoming signals.
By contrast, the good reader of code, who is listening to words
and sentences (not dits and dahs) at comfortable speeds, will
tend to follow normal habits of speaking and reading ordinary
English. So if he does analyze or organize what is being said
or anticipate what is coming next, this is not so likely to
interfere with proper reception.
The speed of thought is so great that many of us find ourselves
jumping ahead of a speaker, anticipating what he is about to say
next, and even ready to interrupt him or to help him find the
right word if he stumbles. Speed reading came about partly
because most of us read so slowly -- and thus inefficiently --
that our minds tend to go racing off to other things instead of
paying full attention to what we are reading. The experts in
this field have found that we can indeed learn to read very much
faster than we habitually do, and in the process that our minds
do not wander off so much.
When we first learn the code, it seems so painfully slow, as far
as conveying thought is concerned. At five words a minute, for
example is almost impossible to keep the mind on what is being
sent! Even thirteen words per minute is less than one-tenth as
fast as the average person speaks. Such slow speeds offer a
wonderful opportunity for the mind to go wandering off.
Of course as long as the beginner is struggling to identify each
letter which has just been sent before the next one starts, he
is not likely to try to anticipate anything. But when he gets
the basic alphabet down pat enough that he has even an instant
left over between identifying the last letter or word heard and
listening to the next one, he may try to anticipate what it will
be. If he lets himself do this, he is likely to miss completely
what immediately follows, because this moment of conscious
thought is side-tracking his attention and blocking out his
open-minded receptivity. (However, as he advances sufficiently
in skill and speed,anticipating may not interfere so much with
receiving, provided that his interest in it is not too intense
or demanding. As his skill improves, his receiving functions
are faster so that the period of blocking out is shorter.)
It is clear that those of us who habitually tend to anticipate
are going to have to overcome it in this special case - when
receiving code. We have to build a new habit, associated with
code reception: passive open-mindedness. We will probably find
opposing this lifetime habit to be uncomfortable at first, but
when we realize that it is only for coded reception that this is
necessary, it should become easier.
We have already discussed how important it is that most of the
time we should use materials which make sense for practice -
even fascinating material - in order to sustain interest and
enthusiasm. It is obvious that this is likely to arouse our
anticipation. Random text, numbers and backward English will
automatically prevent that. Backward English has the
advantage over random text because the student knows it will
make sense when he is done simply by reading it in reverse.
This may present a psychological advantage for using backward
English - he can at least check it for himself, something he
cannot do for random characters.
The idea of receiving code as if it consists of letters rather
than words is a bad one, except at the very start of learning.
Normal use will be with words, things that make sense. Words
should be read as words.
APPENDIX 06
COMPUTER PROGRAMS FOR LEARNING AND IMPROVING SKILL IN CODE
It is always a bit risky to try to list currently available
materials and books. These may change with time, some for the
better, a few for the worse, and some will simply vanish from
the scene. With that in mind, the following programs have been
found both adequate and good. It is quite impossible here to go
into the many details of each program, so only the barest
outline is given for information. They all provide a range of
speeds and pitch of tone. Some provide various options of
screen or printing capabilities, etc., including pauses. Some
provide various ways of increasing or decreasing speed while
sending. All use the speaker in the computer for sound output.
Helps are provided on screen in most of the programs.
("Freeware" means that there is no mandatory cost to the user
other than that of providing the diskette. "Commercial" means
the program is for sale on the market.) Unless otherwise noted
all are IBM-compatable.
Among commercial programs, an excellent early one was MORSE
UNIVERSITY, a product of Advanced Electronic Applications, Inc.,
for the Commodore 64 computer. Whether it was later adapted to
IBM-compatables is not known. It was a thoroughgoing and highly
effective and successful program which included a basic Morse
trainer, a proficiency routine to increase speed, a sending
analysis routine to improve quality of sending, a receiving game
routine to help recognize characters under pressure and finally,
a Morse keyboard for sending practice, etc. Using it, many were
able to pass their 13 wpm test, starting from zero, with only 20
hours total learning time.
MORSEMAN+ by Robin Gist NE4L/ZF2PM, is one of the good
commercial programs available today. It began as a freeware
series. A Tutorial module teaches the characters, the Trainer
develops skill, Testing provides for various evaluations of
skill, while an Interactive mode provides for certain
user-response reactions. Several types of practice are provided
in each of these modes or modules.
MORSE TUTOR PROGRAM by Gary E. J. Bold ZL1AN of New Zealand is a
fine freeware program of the bare-bones type (no fancy menus or
screens). It is written in MS-GW-BASIC and may be readily
modified by the user. Like most other programs, it has several
unique features. Each portion is a self-contained program.
Teach interacts with the beginner, and regulates the instruction
according to his correct or erroneous responses. Two different
random programs are provided, one which sends random code groups
at any speed for any subset of characters desired, and the other
sends random words from any chosen "text" file the user
chooses. A sending program sends any ASCII files for copying
or reading practice. A keyboard program simply sends whatever
is keyed in the keyboard. A Morse reading program is provided,
with which one may use a Morse key and it will print what it
receives on the screen-- a way to check quality of sending
(that is, can the machine recognize and read it?).
SUPERMORSE by Lee Murrah is available as a freeware program from
National Amateur Radio Association. A great deal of variety is
built into this program, which is really a series of integrated
programs. A Learning phase introduces the student to the code
characters, a Building speed phase provides a lot of variety in
practice materials, an Enhance phase extends this further to as
fast as one wants to go, while a Measure phase provides for
testing of skill with built-in or user-constructed tests, and
finally an Operate phase. Interaction is provided in several
aspects. It is the originator's intention to make this the most
extensive program available, and he has done an excellent job of
it.
Unique among the many programs is "The Mill", by James
S.Farrior, W4FOK, which provides both American Morse and
International codes at user's selection. This program has been
developing in its own way, dedicated to old-time Morse
operators, but it is equally valuable to the ham fraternity.
Jim has gone to great lengths in designing the character
formation controls to incorporate the feature of old Morse
environmental variability (Ch. 16) to a degree that approaches
"natural" to old time Morse operators. This feature also has a
latent potential to simulate bug sending, etc., unlike the
machine-regular International code. (Provision has also been
made for driving a Morse sounder from the output.) There is a
basic learning section, a section for sending any file the user
wishes to send, and another allows the user to create files he
may wish to use. Another feature provides for using the
computer as a control of the transmitter, using any of the
other program aspects which are appropriate. It is a
carefully designed and elegant program, and Jim continues
developing improvements.
HIGH SPEED CODE TAPES
Several companies manufactured systems for preparing printed or
punched paper tapes for high speed transmission and reception.
Boehm inked tape and the Kleinschmidt perforated tapes were the
most commonly used. Similar systems were manufactured by Ted
McElroy's company. The operator would prepare the tape, either
on a typewriter keyboard or with a special three-key device,
for transmission. Transmission speeds might go up to several
hundreds of words per minute when conditions were good. At the
receiving end the equipment would reproduce the incoming signals
on a corresponding paper tape, inked or otherwise. The receiving
operator was trained to read the tapes much as the good reader
of ordinary print does, by words or phrases. He would read the
tape as it was pulled past his eyes in a sort of track while he
transcribed it on a typewriter at comfortable speeds. Speeds of
60 - 70 wpm seem to have been typical. McElroy prepared and
promoted materials for building up these skills on his
equipment.
APPENDIX 07
CODE COURSES ADVERTISED IN THE OLDER DAYS (Dates show what I have
been able to find)
These items are in partial supplement to chapter 21.
The earliest one I have found advertised is the Marconi-Victor
set of six double-sided phonograph records, described in Chapter
21.
Wireless Press, New York City., copyright 1921:
"Study the Code Anywhere This New Way. The Sound Method for
Memorizing the Code. For success in telegraphing the letters
must be learned by the sound. Each letter has a distinctive
cadence or rhythm which is easily memorized by a few hours'
practice. The charts attached give the key to the rhythm of
each letter of the telegraph alphabets. It forms no picture in
the student's mind, but instead a sound is memorized like a bar
of music. An hour a day devoted to memorizing the distinctive
rhythm of each letter will enable the student to send or receive
a message in a few weeks. The beginner is strongly advised not
to practice with charts or books which show the actual dots and
dashes. Once a picture of each letter is formed in memory it
will be found difficult to send or receive by sound. Don't try
to teach the ears though the eyes."
This is the earliest published emphasis I have been able to find
on the importance of learning by sound from the very first. It
would be very interesting to see their course and card chart.
BKMA YRLSBUG, Dodge Radio Short Cut (later Shortkut), C. K.
Dodge, Mamaroneck NY. First advertisement seen in Radio News
Dec. 1921:
"Memorize Continental Code Almost Instantly. Two hundred
beginners in 44 states have reported mastered [sic.] code in 20
minutes, in one hour, one evening, etc., etc...." Large 5/8
column ad. Usual later ad was about one inch in one column,
though sometimes larger. Price at first $3.00 for small
booklet. (This is the worthless "Eat Another Raw Lemon" method
mentioned in Ch. 17)
Candler System, Chicago. First ad seen in QST dated Sep. 1928
probably advertised earlier in other magazines), last ad seen in
QST Feb. 1959. Emphasis on high speed and "scientific" nature of
course. Large ads from time to time, but usually about one inch
in a column. Price not advertised. See Chapter 28.
Memo Code, H. C. Fairchild, Newark NJ. Radio News Aug. 1922.
"Boys and grown-ups. Makes you a real radio operator. By my
System and Chart, you will know the code in 30 minutes...
Complete system $1.00..." A buzzer-blinker key practice set
available with course for $5.00.
Omnigraph Manufacturing Co., New York City. About 1911. A 1922
ad: "Learn Telegraphy (Wireless or Morse) at Home in Half the
Usual Time... Just Listen - the Omnigraph will do the teaching."
You will be surprised how quickly you will attain speed. Even
if you are already an operator the Omnigraph will help you. It
will make you more proficient, more accurate and more
confident..." In 1918 the Electro Importing Co., NY, advertised
them starting at $16.00 for a five disk machine, and $23.00 for
a 15 disk model. Additional dials were available at five for
$1.00.
American Code Co., New York City. Radio News Oct.1922. "The
fastest way to learn the radio code. Two phonograph records
made by Jack Binns and text-book $2.00.
National Radio Institute. Washington DC. Radio News Se. 1921.
"Wonderful Natrometer Gives You Code-Speed in Half Usual Time.
... will send messages in a human and not a mechanical manner at
a rate which you can vary from 3 to 30 words per minute. ... The
effect of static interference may be added to the messages being
copied. ... A beginner can quickly learn the alphabet from our
A dial." Picture shows a mechanism similar to Omnigraph, but
about half the total size, using ten disks which were
exchangeable. Price not stated.
Teleplex Co., New York City. First ad in QST seen Apr. 1927:
"The Easy Way to Learn the Code Cuts Learning Time in Half. The
famous Teleplex for self-instruction at home. The quickest,
easiest and most economical way of learning Morse or
Continental... Faithfully reproduces actual sending of expert
operators." Next month's ad: "At last! The Famous Teleplex ...
with only a screw to turn.... 5 to 80 words per minute." Third
month: "Learn the Code at Home This Easy Way With Teleplex.
Complete course ..." They provided a code instruction manual
and help and advice personally by correspondence. It was
initially a spring-driven punched paper tape machine. Later
models were electric-motor driven. In 1942 they produced a
paper tape model which could record one's own sending (using
electro- chemical means) as well as send user-prepared tapes.
In 1956 they reverted to punched tape again, and in 1959 they
went to a machine resembling the Omnigraph. Prices never
published in ads.
The Instructograph Co., Chicago. Must have been in use before
first ad seen in QST of Jan. 1934. "(Code teacher) The
scientific, easy and quick way to learn the code. Machines,
tapes and complete instruction for sale or rent." Similar to
the Teleplex punched paper tape machine, speeds from 3 to 40
wpm. Last ads seen in 1970 ARRL Handbook.
APPENDIX 08
I. A BRIEF HISTORY OF UNITED STATES OPERATOR LICENSING
REQUIREMENTS UP TO WORLD WAR II
Prior to 1912 no licenses of any kind were required, either for
stations or for amateur operators. An amateur, however, might
apply to the Navy Department which would issue a "Certificate
of Skill." This merely stated that the successful applicant was
"proficient" in code. It had no legal value or necessity.
In 1912 Congress passed the first laws requiring licenses for
operators and stations whose signals would:- a) interfere
with government or bonafide commercial stations (open to public
use) or b) cross state lines. This disqualified very, very
many "little" stations and their operators from needing
licenses. ("Little" often included even those up to one
kilowatt, the maximum allowed for a licensed station. This was
because the "passive" receivers in those early days were so
insensitive that reception beyond a hundred miles or so was
exceptional.) [In England, by contrast, a license was
required even for owning receiving equipment.]
From this time until 1933 operator and station licenses were
separately issued and were impressive diploma-like documents
about 8« by 11 inches. They were usually framed by the
operator.
At this point there were two classes of license, with
identical qualifications. Amateur First Grade was by
examination by a government examiner: radio laws, regulations,
proper adjustment and operation of equipment along with sending
and receiving tests at 5 wpm in International Morse code. For
those living too far away to come in for personal examination,
there was an Amateur Second Grade whose applicant had to certify
by mail that he could meet these identical requirements.
In Aug. 1919 the required speed was raised to 10 wpm.
In 1923 a new Extra First Grade was created requiring at least
two years experience as a licensed operator. A new written
examination included requiring the applicant to diagram a
transmitter and receiver and explaining the principles of their
operation, plus a code speed test at 20 wpm (the speed required
of a Commercial First Class operator). The license was
printed on pink paper! Such operators were qualified for
"Special" station licenses which conveyed CW privileges on
certain wavelengths longer that 200 meters and also gave them
distinctive call signs. As shorter wavelengths came to be used
this grade of license lost popularity, and was abandoned in
1927. It was reinstated in 1928 on somewhat different terms,
and called "Extra First Class." Then in 1929 when the 20 meter
band was opened to phone, these licenses were extended by an
endorsement "for unlimited radio-telephone privileges" on that
band.
In the early 1920's licensed amateurs began to get skittish
about working unlicensed stations (with their
self-assigned calls), including the "little boys with spark
coils." (They were often a big annoyance and source of
interference.) The Department of Commerce seems, however, to
have taken little notice of them unless serious interference
resulted.
Most of these unlicensed stations had already vanished from the
air when the Radio Act of 1927 replaced the Radio Act of 1912 and
brought all radio transmissions under regulation for the first
time. (Legal doctrine had by then come to hold that Congress
had power to regulate intrastate activity where its total
effect reacted upon interstate activity.) The days of the
"little unlicensed station" were over.
In 1932 the special endorsement (of 1929) became available for
all amateurs with at least one year of experience, upon passing a
special test on radiotelephone subjects. This endorsement was
now extended to include use of phone on 75 meters also.
In 1933, after the creation of the Federal Radio Commission
amateur regulations were completely revised and operator and
station licenses combined on a single, wallet-sized card, and
good for three years. Extra First Class licences would no longer
be issued. A minimum code speed of 10 wpm was required of
all, and three classes of license provided: A, B and C. Class
A (advanced) required one year of experience, a written
examination on both phone and telegraph theory and regulations,
and conveyed exclusive phone use on 20 and 75 meters, and was
renewable by application. The Class B (general) examination
was shorter for phone operation, and gave all privileges not
reserved for Class A, but required re-examination for renewal.
Class C, a temporary license for those living 125 or more miles
from an FRC examining point (administered by class A or B
amateur), differed from Class B only in being taken by mail .
In 1936 the code speed for all classes was raised from 10 to 13
wpm.
II. VARIOUS MILITARY REQUIREMENTS OF SKILL - WW II PERIOD
For Signal Corps graduation: 25 wpm plain language, 20 wpm
code groups with pencil or mill, receiving, and 25 wpm
sending. Qualifications for field operators - 20 wpm pencil
printing copy and perfect sending copy at 15 wpm; for fixed base
operators - 35 wpm straight copy on mill.
For Marine Corps graduation: 20-23 wpm plain text, 15-18 wpm
coded groups, 17 wpm perfect sending of plain text.
APPENDIX 09 MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS, COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS
I. Learning.
There are only three code elements in International Morse:
short, long and space. Silences as just as important as
sounds, and even more so. A dit can't be a dit nor a dah be a
dah without a space before it and a space after it. With only
three elements it's a cinch - much easier than learning to talk.
(Contrast this with the many vowel and consonant sounds we had to
learn to distinguish and master in order to talk. Then add the
things we do to show emphasis and feeling, such as tone of
voice, gentleness or harshness, whispering, etc., all of which
may alter the literal word meanings.)
Sound-pattern recognition is name of game. Each code character
is a uniquely different sound pattern to be heard as a whole, a
unit of sound, in the same way that we recognize a vowel or a
consonant.
When you start to send, begin with the right proportions. The
dit is the basic unit (equals one unit space also). A good way
to start is with a long string of dits. Next with a long
string of dahs, which will take twice as long in time as the
same number of dits because of the spaces. Then try a long
string of alternate dits and dahs: didahdidah... Then we might
say that now, as an infant code learner you have now uttered your
first "goo"!
We may think of the mind as a sort of portable built-in
mini-computer (microprocessor). But it is far superior -- it
performs feats of information processing and retrieval
unequalled by the largest machines.
First we've got to debug it: replace old programs (doubts about
our ability, resistance to learning, and other bad attitudes) and
replace them with a positive approach: "what others can do, I
can do, too". (It helps to want to so badly that you can taste
it: machines don't have feelings, but we do, and they greatly
affect our performance.) Then feed it a lookup table of
sound-equivalents for the various characters - that is, program
it - and we're in business. Establish an automatic
motor-response to an audio signal-- not translating the sound
thru some visual delay circuit (as a printed table). Hear the
sound "didah" and write A, or visualize the printed letter "A".
Grorge Hart wrote: "[I was] practically born with a key in my
hand, so cw [became] as natural to me as talking." (QST Aug 79 p
58)
II. Advancing and using the code.
The mind relaxes when asked to a familiar job at rate lower than
it is used to doing. It tenses up when asked to perform at a
level it is just barely capable of doing, or trying to do
something it is not familiar with.
After we have achieved a good foundation in code, our rate of
gain will be about proportional to square of the time we invest
in intelligent practice, especially listening practice. This
will compress learning into the minimum time period.
The old time commercial operator copied solid right through
static and interference that would make others ask for
repeats, and kept right on copying when most others couldn't even
hear the signal at all. His job depended on it.
III. Aberrations.
Swings. The earliest comment found so far about swing is from
Radio News Dec. 1921 p.565: "The American Radio Operator"
(commercial and shipboard): criticizes "the cultivation of a
fancy or eccentric style of sending, believed clever in
originality, but causes the receiving operator to make more
effort to copy than usual. He introduces a jerk in his H's,
P's, C's, 3's, 4's, 5's, Y's, and Q's and makes one of the
dashes of J and 1, etc., a trifle longer than the rest... A
tricky swing he makes as an effort to acquire the 'funny' stroke
as he goes on. -- Consider the other operator!"
IV. Baffling, and unsolved code receiving problems.
First, an operator who has used the code for many years
sometimes fails to recognize a character at all -- it's just as
if he'd never heard it before. It seems to be a total stranger to
him -- yet it is one he knows perfectly well. This may occur
at any speed from very slow upward up to his maximum, regardless
of how accurately it is sent, but tends to happen mostly at
slower speeds.
The second is that sometimes, in spite of his desire to read and
understand, there will be a lapse: a few letters or words seem
simply to have vanished -- as if they had never been sent (in
spite of perfect receiving conditions). They may be completely
lost, or sometimes suddenly, a moment later, he knows what they
were. (This is sensed as being different from consciously
filling them in from the context.) This phenomenon, too, may
occur at any speed.
Perhaps these are associated with some quirk of the central
nervous system or mind, but it is awkward and sometimes
embarrassing. Is there a cure? Have very many others had such
experiences? Do you know of other problems?
(
geocities.com/gm0rse)