Adventures with Morse Code

Adventures with Morse Code

Author: Onno (VK6FLAB) July 15, 2023 Duration: 6:11
Foundations of Amateur Radio

If you've ever looked at Morse Code, you might be forgiven if you conclude that it appears to be a less than ideal way of getting information from point A to point B. The idea is simple, based on a set of rules, you translate characters, one at a time, into a series of dits and dahs, each spaced apart according to the separation between each element, each character and each word.

The other day I came across a statement that asserted that you could send Morse faster than binary encoded ASCII letters. If you're not sure what that means, there are many different ways to encode information. In Morse, the letter "e" is the first character, represented by "dit", the letter "t" is the second character, represented by "dah". In ASCII, the American Standard Code for Information Interchange, the letter "e" is the 69th character, represented by 100 0101. The letter "t" is number 84 on the list, represented by 101 0100.

A couple of things to observe. The order of the characters between Morse and ASCII are not the same. That doesn't really matter, as long as both the sender and receiver agree that they're using the same list. Another thing to notice is that in Morse, letters are encoded using dits and dahs and appropriate spacing. In ASCII, or technically, binary coded ASCII, the letters are encoded using zero and one.

I'll also mention that there are plenty of other ways to encode information, EBCDIC or Extended Binary Coded Decimal Interchange Code was defined by IBM for its mainframe and mid-range computers. It's still in use today. In EBCDIC, the letter "e" is 133 and the letter "t" is 163. It was based around punched cards to ensure that hole punches were not too close together. It was designed for global use and can, for example, support Chinese, Japanese, Korean and Greek. Another encoding you might have heard of is UTF-16, which supports over a million different characters including all the emojis in use today.

Before I continue, I must make a detour past the ITU or the International Telecommunications Union. The ITU has a standard, called "Recommendation M.1677-1", approved on the 3rd of October 2009, which defines International Morse code. I'm making that point because I'm going to dig deeper into Morse and it helps if we're talking about the same version of Morse. I have talked about many versions of Morse before, so I'll leave that alone, but I will point out a couple of things.

The ITU defines 56 unique Morse sequences or characters. The obvious ones are the letters of the alphabet, the digits and several other characters like parentheses, quotes, question mark, full-stop, and comma, including the symbol in the middle of an email address, which it calls the "commercial at symbol" with a footnote telling us that the French General Committee on Terminology approved the term "arobase" in December 2002, but it seems that seven years isn't enough time to convince the ITU to update its own standard, mind you, the rest of the world, well, the English speaking part, calls it "at", the letter "a" with a circle around it, as in my email address, cq@vk6flab.com.

Another thing to note is that this standard is only available in English, Arabic, Chinese, French and Russian, so I'm not sure what the Spanish, Hindi, Portuguese, Bengali and Japanese communities, who represent a similar population size do for their Morse definitions. It's interesting to note that as part of its commitment to multilingualism, the ITU actually defines six official languages. Specifically, the "Spanish" version of the standard appears to be missing.

There's other curious things. For example, the standard defines a special character called "accented e", though it doesn't describe which accent, given that there are four variants in French alone, I found at least seven versions and it completely ignores accents on the i, the c, the o, special character combinations like "sz" in German and "ij" in Dutch. This isn't to throw shade on Morse, it's to point out that it's an approximation of a language with odd variations. I'm also going to ignore capitalisation. In Morse there's none and in ASCII, there are definitions for both, capitalised and not.

In addition to things you write in a message, there's also control codes. The ITU defines six specific Morse control codes. Things like "Understood", "Wait", and "Error". ASCII has those too. The first 31 codes in ASCII are reserved for controls like "linefeed", "carriage return", and "escape".

There are other oddities. The ITU specifies that the control code "Invitation to transmit" is symbolised by dah-dit-dah. If you're familiar with Morse, you'll know that this is the same as the letter "k". The specification says that multiplication is dah-dit-dit-dah, which is the same as "x". There's also rules on how to signify percentages and fractions using dah-dit-dit-dit-dit-dah, the hyphen, as a separator.

At this point I haven't even gotten close to exploring efficiency, but my curiosity is in overdrive. Is Morse really optimised for English, or are there other forces at work? I'm already digging.

I'm Onno VK6FLAB


For anyone curious about the crackle of a distant voice emerging from the static or the thrill of making a contact across the globe using nothing but radio waves, Foundations of Amateur Radio offers a friendly, steady guide. Hosted by Onno (VK6FLAB) from Australia, this long-running podcast acts as a companion for newcomers navigating the initial, often overwhelming, steps into this vast hobby. Each episode deliberately unpacks a single facet of amateur radio, breaking down technical concepts, equipment, and operating practices into digestible pieces. You'll hear practical advice on how to get started, find your place within the global community, and discover which of the hobby's countless avenues-from building antennas to satellite communication or emergency service-might spark your passion. It’s not about dry theory; it’s about demystifying the process and sharing the genuine rewards that keep enthusiasts engaged for a lifetime. Having evolved from its earlier incarnation in 2011, this podcast builds from the ground up, week by week, creating a solid resource that grows with you. Tune in for a down-to-earth conversation that makes the airwaves feel a little more accessible and a lot more inviting.
Author: Language: English Episodes: 579

Foundations of Amateur Radio
Podcast Episodes
Building a shack: Part 8 - Will it ever end? [not-audio_url] [/not-audio_url]

Duration: 3:45
Foundations of Amateur Radio Building a shack makes a number of assumptions about your situation and to make it abundantly clear, it's not the only way to enjoy the hobby of amateur radio. Visiting clubs locally and remo…
Building a shack: Part 7 - Powering your shack [not-audio_url] [/not-audio_url]

Duration: 8:15
Foundations of Amateur Radio On your amateur radio journey, you'll likely discover that many transceivers run on 13.8 volt DC, give or take. For example my FT-857d requires 13.8 volt plus or minus 15 percent, with a nega…
Building a shack: Part 6 - Noise [not-audio_url] [/not-audio_url]

Duration: 8:05
Foundations of Amateur Radio Noise la la la la la hinders if I were a rich man effective a noise annoys an oyster communication but a noisy noise annoys an oyster more. Or said differently, when you're trying to communic…
Building a shack: Part 5 - Antenna Shenanigans [not-audio_url] [/not-audio_url]

Duration: 5:40
Foundations of Amateur Radio Putting your station together is best described as a juggling act, since you'll discover that everything depends on everything else and the more you plan, the more you learn and the more vari…
Building a shack: Part 4 - coaxial cable alternatives [not-audio_url] [/not-audio_url]

Duration: 5:55
Foundations of Amateur Radio When you start the process of getting your hobby off the ground, either for the first time, or after a hiatus, you might be left with the impression that the only way to "do amateur radio" is…
Building a shack: Part 3 - the ingress of coaxial cable [not-audio_url] [/not-audio_url]

Duration: 9:40
Foundations of Amateur Radio One of the potentially trickier aspects of putting together your shack is connecting the radio to the antenna. On the face of it, the challenge is limited to making sure that you have mating…
Building a shack: Part 2 - How much space do you need? [not-audio_url] [/not-audio_url]

Duration: 7:27
Foundations of Amateur Radio When you start on the journey of putting together a shack, in whatever form that eventually takes, you'll need to figure out how much space is required. Of course, no matter what you choose,…
Building a shack: Part 1 - Setting the Scene [not-audio_url] [/not-audio_url]

Duration: 7:21
Foundations of Amateur Radio Recently it occurred to me that I haven't been using HF in my shack for much longer than I'd care to admit. Over the years I've spoken about my shack and how it's set-up, more on that shortly…
Bald Yak 14, choices and software flexibility [not-audio_url] [/not-audio_url]

Duration: 8:19
Foundations of Amateur Radio Let's start with an observation, I'm a geek, have been all my life. Since my early teenage years that evolved as a predilection for computing. As you might already know, I became a radio amat…
I have a problem .. with logging. [not-audio_url] [/not-audio_url]

Duration: 8:45
Foundations of Amateur Radio The first step in solving any problem is recognising that there is one. In my case the name of that problem is "logging". Specifically the storage and collection of my amateur radio contact l…